Student Tuition Fees : The Investment Algorithym or the art of bolloxology?

The Tory candidate (who lost) for Harrow West, put a rather interesting post on her blog on Thursday. It is the nearest thing to a semi coherent defence of the Tory thinking on tuition fees that I've seen (apart from the fact that she doesn't actually defend the proposals). Now when I say Tory thinking, this is distinct from coalition thinking, which is a completely different beast. This post presumably gives you an idea of what would have happened if David Cameron had achieved a 60 seat majority, without the Lib Dems. I reproduce the blog in it's entirety here
The original is here - http://racheljoyce.blogspot.com/2010/12/tuition-fees-investment-algorithym.html

Tuition Fees - The Investment Algorithym

In my view it is quite simple - tuition fees should be paid by the party that will benefit.

The country will benefit from more engineers, more bio-scientists, more high quality teachers, more computer scientists. We have a shortage in these areas, and they are areas that would benefit our economy - high tech economies are the way forward for densely populated first world countries like ourselves. We don't however need 50% of people to go to university - and we do need more people going to technical colleges after or even instead of GCSE level - as they do in Germany.

The individual would benefit from taking and passing a degree that will make them more employable, and earn them a higher salary than if they hadn't taken the degree.

It's called calculating the value of things, to determine if the time, money and effort is actually worth it.

So responsibility for funding should be:
a. the government should pay for degrees when it is in a subject that will confer a net benefit to the country - as long as the individual then stays in the country for a certain amount of time to work in their chosen area.
b. the individual should pay for all other degrees. It is down to them to calculate if it will end up being a net benefit for them to take this degree or not. Mickey Mouse degrees wouldn't be so popular then, would they? I do however agree with the concept of a loan so they don't have to pay up front if they don't want to.

Also, many degrees are not really degrees. One lecture a week with a few hours of home study for three years is not in my mind a degree. It is a "course", something that could be called a Higher Diploma, or a Certificate or some sort. It is also something that can be done whilst holding down a job, or alternatively compacted into a 6 month or 9 month course. Full stop.

When money is short, we have to understand the value of things - and the party that benefits should pay. The old expression "He knows the cost of everything but the value of none" would be true of Labour (having encouraged all of these Mickey Mouse degrees that will not benefit the individual, society or the economy) - except they didn't even seem to understand the cost of things either!!

As per usual with High Tory thinking, they don't really understand GB PLC 2010. She feels that the only areas which would benefit the country are "bio scientists, high quality teachers and computer scientists". All worthy and useful professions, but singling these out shows how out of touch she is. Let me give you an example. Does she list "3D animators?" - She'd no doubt say what possible benefit could they deliver? Well look at Ardman animations. The creators of Wallace and Gromit. Their films have won all sorts of awards, been shown around the world and brought tens of millions of pounds worth of investment into the country. Tim Burton filmed the film "The Corpse Bride" at Three Mills studios in the East End, bringing jobs and money. Why? because we have great 3D animators who learned their skills on arts degree courses. I know, my nephew is one of them. He got his degree in 3D animation from Westminster University (one of those sometimes described as a crap university or an ex poly). He is one of the top animators in the world and he wouldn't have learned that on a plumbing course.

One of my nieces is one of the countries top VT editors. If you've ever watched any live sport, you will have seen her work (football, wimbledon,etc). Its a stressful job. She did a language degree at Leeds. How did this prepare her for her job? Well she got involved in the University music scene, taking an interest in sound engineering. When she left, she worked at my studios for a while, then moved into VT editing. Her time at University provided her with the opportunities to develop and grow as a person. Her talents and those of her colleagues mean that Great Britain PLC has a huge wealth of successful technicians. She wouldn't have had the opportunity if she'd done a hairdressing course.

And what about the people I know who work in IT? A field Rachel highlights as "useful". The majority of people I know, didn't study Computer Science. Many actually did TOPS courses (short, intensive Government sponsored) in the 1980's. You'd get paid £40 a week to do a full time short course. These people are the backbone of the UK IT industry. I'd estimate that at least 50% of the people who did TOPS courses had degrees in unrelated subjects. Whilst the degree didn't help them to work in IT, it enhances the CV. Are they better programmers? Probably not, but often they can sell their talents. And as for the people my age who studied Computer Science? Well they learned COBOL,FORTRAN and mainframe computing. Skills now deemed legacy. They learned about punch cards and paper tape - long since. IT is moving so fast that often by the time people finish degrees the syllabus is out of date. To thrive in the modern world of IT, you need to think creatively. Apple are currently the most succesful It company in the world. Is this down to their nerdy techies? Nope, it's down to the brilliant product designers that make their products look hip & chic and the great marketing skills. Does Rachel mention designers and marketing as vital skills? Nope, but she should because these are areas where the UK leads the world.

Recently there was much hilarity in the Daily Mail about a "degree in Lady GaGa". This was used as an example of a crap degree. I've been involved in the music industry for 31 and if I wanted to do a case study in marketing of  a product, I can't think of  a better example IN ANY SPHERE OF INDUSTRY. The music industry has brought billions of pounds into the UK. Our artists still lead the world. Our formats for shows are copied across the globe, bringing in huge royalties. LIVE AID saved hundreds of thousands of people. How can such things not be deemed "good for the country". Despite the benefits of this huge industry, the Daily Mail derides people who want to have a professional understanding of it. I have many friends in succesful bands. Planning a tour or an album launch is a huge logistical operation. I recently saw the Steve Miller Band at the Albert Hall. Their stage cost $2 million. It was high tech and had a huge team of people to support it. I suppose a degree in stage design is "crap" as well to our Tory thinkers.

In short, I totally refute Rachel Joyce's logic. The purpose of University is to train people to think. It is to train them to deal with problems. It is to put them into a creative social environment. Whether they have a great time and get pissed every night or burn the midnight oil studying, is neither here nor their to me. The main benefit to the country is the fact that they are growing as people. Rachel criticises Labour for understanding "the cost of nothing". As she clearly doesn't understand the value of anything, maybe she should get her own house in order first. It is an undisputed fact that during their career, Graduates earn more and pay more taxes than non gradtuates. That should be the begining and end of the argument. I really wish people would engage their brains before indulging in the art of bolloxology.