Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site hcrvx1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!hcr!hcrvx1!chrisr
From: chrisr@hcrvx1.UUCP (Chris Retterath)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: who should pay for education. sort of.
Message-ID: <1489@hcrvx1.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 2-Mar-87 14:33:22 EST
Article-I.D.: hcrvx1.1489
Posted: Mon Mar  2 14:33:22 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 3-Mar-87 05:36:37 EST
References: <215@fornax.uucp>
Reply-To: chrisr@hcrvx1.UUCP (Chris Retterath)
Distribution: can
Organization: HCR Corporation, Toronto
Lines: 81
Summary: 


I (almost) agree with Chapman, but I have completely different conclusions.

I think an even better approach would be to NOT make tuition free,
but rather to provide 'equity' funds for education. This is not my own idea;
it is due to Friedman in 'Free to Choose'.

The idea is something like this:

	- universities & colleges charge tuition that covers the true cost.

	- individuals can pay these full costs, or, they can be loaned this
money by the state. The loan is to the individual, not the school.

	- the state cannot designate 'covered' programs or schools.
This means that the state will have no control over curriculia, programs,
or even school openings.

	- these loans are 're-paid' from future earnings. The state
owns 'equity', which implies that a person making a very high income
would pay more back, wereas people who make low incomes do not have to
pay as much, when they do start to work.

	- people who live longer pay more for their education.

	- people who leave the country still owe this money.

	- the repayments are high enough to cover all the costs of the
program. An large initial state fund would be required to pay the first
people to start, but within 10 years the entire system would be on its own.
The existing programs (CSL, et cetera) could be used to provide the seed
capital.

This solves some problems I see in Chapman's proposal:

	(1) he asserts that society as a whole benefits from a higher
educational level. This may be; however it is not proven, and in fact
a case can be made that at a certain level (post-secondary), further
education only increases expectations and leads to dissatisfaction.
Also, degree 'inflation' (where a degree no longer means anything) would
be less likely.
	People would be far less likely to stay in school as long as possible,
given that they could see the large payments they would have to make
subsequently. By charging tuition, the schools would only have serious
students.

	(2) I also feel that scholarships et cetera should be available
for the better students. Of course, many scholarships are due to endowments,
but the state may also set up extra scholarships for academic prowess,
as Chapman suggests.

	(3) allow people to leave the country, given that the original
loan is the same as Chapman's promissary note.

The advantages of this system in a province like Ontario are great:

	- The Federal government, by administering the program, takes
credit for the money it has put into the province for education.
(In Ontario, transfer payments are not targetted).

	- The province need not run parallel student loans programs.

	- Universities can charge what they like for programs, as the
province no longer is paying for the 4/5 or more of the program, and
thus no longer has any say in university affairs.

	- Universities can no longer be diploma mills, whereby they
try to attract as many 'warm bodies' for undergraduate programs as
possible, to get matching grants.

	- As the students are paying directly for the courses,
they will be much more aware of the true costs of their education,
and much less inclined to waste their time on some of the silly
courses now offered.

	- it would get the entire matter of post-secondary education
out of the hands of the provinces, who should NOT have as much control of
the universities as they do now. Instead, the universities themselves
should have this control.

	Chris Retterath.