This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Who should pay for education.

The following is a small clip from a comment by Steve Hill, on the discussion "Bridging the gap between Education" (RARA192)

There's a huge debate in the UK at the moment about university tuition fees going up (possibly to £9,000 a year). My fondest wish - unlikely to be realised - would be that fees for "real" courses where there are proven shortages in the workplace for graduates could be capped at a much lower level to incentivize people to study such subjects.

It got me thinking. Should some subjects be seen as strategic subjects, and then be either funded or subsidised by the government. I'm thinking of subjects like Physics, Chemistry etc, but I suppose nearly any subject might be so seen if there was a genuine shortage of practicioners in that area and the country needed them. I also doubt that subjects like Hairdressing, Rune Reading and Molehill Deconstruction would often enter the list.

Is the idea desirable, and if so is it workable?



Comment RSS Feed

Please sign in or register to comment