h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I can't see why people are having a discussion about this in the media and in parliment. Certainly in a wealthy country such as the UK, there should be no reason for anyone to have to pay to attend university, at least for their first degree.
The whole system of university funding, and the notion that students need to pay extra money for this is absurd.
The arguement seems to run along the lines that hte students benifit by earning more, should contribute towards the cost of their education, through tutition fees.
But, surely, if this notion is correct, then such students who study at university, and end up earning more as a consequence, already contribute more through increased income tax.
Of course, one big problem to this is that we no longer have a properly graduated income tax system.
If this were introduced, then those that study at university and consequently end up earning higher wages, pay, proportionality, increased taxes to pay for it.

Another arguement running alongside this, is of the kind 'we can't afford to keep funding universitys at the current level/increase the funding'.
Which is quite clearly a lie.
Of course we can afford it.
No such discussion ensured of the cost of going to war. If we want to find the money we can, just tax us, the population more. Its really quite simple.
The benifits for the country and society as a whole are too great to allow the individual students to have to pay, or worse, consider not going to university because of tution fees.
The country as a whole benifits from a better educated workforce, and the increased moneys brought into the country by the industries and companys that these people will then end up working for.

I live in the USA and probably have a different outlook. In general, the states (not the federal government) run the public universities and tax the residents for funds. Generally, there are still charges to the student for both tuition and other fees, but these charges are much less than private (and generally higher quality) universities. With the recent economic problems, resulting in falling state tax revenues, the charges to the student are going up.

So far, so good. The problem is that the large state universities have put high priorities on non-educational programs, especially sports. In some cases, head (American) football coaches are paid millions while faculties are being cut back. In one case, the faculty rebelled when a salary freeze was instituted while the football stadium was approved for a major expansion.

Even at the secondary school (highschool) level, the same problems arise. The school tax on my home is at an alltime high, while teachers are being told there is no money for raises. Meanwhile, the highschool football team has sixteen (count 'em, 16) coaches. Not to mention the full sized (50 foot tall) pine trees purchased for landscaping. Most homeowners in this middle class suburb plant 2 foot high trees and let them grow.

I think "education" has gotten lost in the money/status/sports/power game of the school boards and politicians. Its OK that some Division 1 NCAA Universities have graduated ZERO basketball players (on full scholarship, at taxpayer expense) in many years, as long as the team wins.

There was a (possibly apocryphal) story about a professor who complained at not being paid as well as the football coach.

The Dean took him for a walk and pointed out the football stadium:

"When you can fill that with 40,000 paying spectators every week, I'll think about paying you as much as 'Bear' Bryant"

But it is amazing how the NFL has palmed off its training and recruitment expenses on to the Education sector....

I recall a coach at a major college football power saying something like "If only we could get a school that our football team could be proud of." Maybe a sort of free agency for entire teams is in order, like the Dodgers leaving Brooklyn. We could have the "Harvard Longhorns". OK, maybe not.

While it does seem to be true that athletics occupy an inordinate amount of expense, at many universities the football and basketball teams actually make money for the school. So the expenditures could be seen as an investment rather than money diverted from education.

I agree that some athletic programs are profitable (described by some as "football factories"), although I question the percentage of NCAA schools that are. And I seriously doubt that many highschools, such as my district's with 16 coaches but a salary freeze for teachers, can claim profitability. In any case, I would ask if this is the business the school SHOULD be in.

Years ago, Christopher Lasch wrote, "In order to accomodate the growing hordes of spectators, the colleges and universities, sometimes aided by local business interests, built lavish athletic facilites - enormous field houses, football stadiums in the pretentious imperial style ... Growing investment in sports led in turn to growing need to maintain a winning record ... (creating) a need for 'scientific management' and for the expansion of managerial personnel. In many sports, trainers, coaches, doctors, and public relations experts soon outnumbered the players. ... The athletic contest itself, surrounded by a vast apparatus of information and promotion, now appeared almost incidental to the expensive preparation required to stage it." In more recent years, I believe this situation has grown even further.

The cases of cheating in the interest of winning are too numerous to list. But the recent case at Baylor Univ., a religious school, is a telling example. One player was murdered, allegedly by another player who had transferred due to problems at another school and who did not have a scholarship but was being payed under the table by the coach. After the murder, the coach, who I believe also had previous problems at other schools, asked other players to imply that the victim had been selling drugs. The coach was fired, the athletic director resigned, and the president is under fire to leave.

I don't believe this is what universities are about. There are other investments they can make that don't distract the school's administration, and don't make education a step child of athletics.

As a footnote, this morning on one of the national news shows, George Will asked why the U.S. Congress is involved in sorting out how football bowl games participants are selected. I agree with George on this one - grow up, NCAA.