Tertiary Education

 Predictably, our Education department are currently looking at the cost of Tertiary Education or, in other words, how to reduce the cost of sending so many people off to university on the Mainland.
 
In any civilised society, education should be both free and freely available. It is after all the future lifeblood of such a society.
 
Any loving parent will not hesitate to spend for the benefit of their children but equally they should not waste money on non-essentials if money is tight.
 
As an Island we’re told that money is indeed tight so it makes sense for Education to look at whether we’re “getting enough bang for our buck”.
 
The first thing to consider is who should be paying for the cost of getting a degree?
 
Some countries have decided that such costs should be borne by the student but we’re already seeing the problems which this course of action creates.
 
Young people starting their productive life already burdened with high levels of debt and a costly administrative system which will have to write off lots of loans as simply unrecoverable.
 
Then there is the question of flight.
 
Why pay back the loan when you can leave the country and never return? After all, the cost of pursuing the debt will probably be greater than the amount eventually recovered if, and it is only an if, such action is successful.
 
As an Island this point should potentially scupper our taking this route. The last thing we want to do is drive away any highly educated young person who wants to contribute to our economy.
 
Degree costs are already partially means tested locally but do we go far enough?
 
Rich people will always be able to afford the very best for their children regardless of whether it’s by covering the student loan or by paying outright for the education of their offspring.
 
At present there is a maximum parental contribution.
 
Why?
 
The rich already benefit from a flat rate of income tax, no capital gains tax, and no inheritance tax. Why increase these benefits by making the ordinary taxpayer contribute to the further education of their offspring?
 
We also should be wary of pricing tertiary education so that it becomes the preserve of the well off. If a student is bright enough to gain a degree then why should cost be an issue?
 
Unfortunately and in the UK, the entry bar for a degree has been lowered considerably by some universities eager for cash.
 
We do not have to play that game.
 
As a separate jurisdiction, we can insist that students attain a minimum success standard at A level of say three “C”s before we will fund the degree. That should cut out some of the so called “Mickey Mouse” degree courses and the more desperate universities.
 
On that point, should we consider restricting which courses the States will fund?
 
This is a difficult question in that a lot of degrees open the individual to employment in lots of different areas, showing capability for successful study at this high level.
 
One could argue that we shouldn’t fund medical degrees as we’ve no use for newly qualified or junior doctors. As we have no professional theatre we might also cut out all performing arts degrees.
 
We only need so many teachers each year so why not restrict teacher training and PGCE courses?
 
The problem is where to stop.
 
Most subjects in themselves have little direct use but of course a flair for performance can make for an excellent teacher and that newly qualified doctor will one day become a consultant who will want to return with their skills to the Island.
 
Can’t see why we would fund a degree in Viking Studies or Cruise Management though.
 
Unfortunately, a degree is becoming the minimum level for job entry into so many areas that we cannot restrict our students too much if we want them to compete in the modern world.
 
It is a complex area and not one for easy answers. Hopefully the reviewers of our system will be educated enough to realise this.