Schools treating parents as customers

[CharonY]

14 minutes ago, mistermack said:

That's not true and ridiculously simplistic. You can make a profit by cutting out waste and fiddles. State owned entities can be and often are ripped off for huge amounts, whereas privately owned businesses are more careful with their own money. 

Well they might be more careful, but it only means that they are spending money to make money, but not necessarily to educate. Private universities spend relatively more on administration than faculty in private institutions. They spend more on extra-curricular things like recruitment and retention compared to teaching and training. There is a lot of incentive to upsell with amenities (dorms, food court etc.), which bloats the budget for making money.

That is not to say that universities are not starting that trend, too (at least in North America, and I believe UK). A big reason is that the governments are either cutting or maintaining educational funds (which, with inflation is the equivalent of cuts), but at the same time try to encourage enrolment. This creates perverse financial incentives for the universities to reclaim the money from students.

In contrast, in systems where there are virtually no tuition fees (i.e. state-funded, like in Germany), administrative bloat and waste is minimal and in many ways the educational outcome is better, as students have to do more work themselves.

[exchemist]

35 minutes ago, CharonY said:

This comment actually demonstrates what I have been talking about. The role of education is fuzzy, with sometimes contradictory goals. Let's start with self-sufficient: what is required to be self-sufficient in a given role? Clearly, the required skill set is very different depending on the job. But especially for young folks, how and when do you know what career they will get into? Careers are unpredictable and often young folks need time well into adulthood to find their path and discover their interests where they want to hone their skills. How does it work if early on a parent decides that certain subjects should not be presented?

The second part is universal, but again this is something that many folks do not want. The reasons is that the ability to learn is not easily quizzable and those excelling at it tend to be in the minority. However, parents often think that better grades equal better careers. So it is better for students to only have subjects where they can be easily trained to perform in tests. I.e. there is a desire to remove more complex topics (where you are forced to learn). This is a trend we now start to see in universities, where students have an increasing input on how they want to be taught. Having students/parent pre-determine what they want to learn is similarly bad as having patients determine their treatment. Most do not know what they need or what style of teaching works with them. As such diverse exposure is critical for young minds to find their path. The narrower educations gets, the more likely folks it is that folks will miss their mark. Specialization can only come after folks have a good idea of the the range that is out there. 

Moreover, learning to learn is the opposite of focused skill learning and it requires the broad exposure as you need to learn to integrate various forms and systems of knowledge, rather than excel in the application of a specialized form. Again, there are contradictory desires and with a presented pathway that is likely to fulfil neither.

 

Agree strongly with this, especially your last point.

I must say I have always objected to the narrow view that education is merely equipping students for a job, which seems to be what runs through @Erina's approach to the topic. People change careers, sometimes radically, fora variety of reasons. They need a rounded education to do that, not just what is necessary for one particular career path.

Even more fundamentally, education should equip them to get more out of life in the round, not just to do a job of work. Time spent teaching them how to read literature, how to appreciate the arts, how to understand history, are all helpful to an intelligent enjoyment of life. These things can give you some independence of your circumstances - even an unemployed person can read a book -  a way to enjoy your leisure time more productively, and a better sense of balance in your life. The most enduring things I got from my schooldays, apart from an interest in physical science,  were choral singing and rowing, which have been features of my life ever since.  And as I get older I find the history I learnt is becoming useful, not least as that is what my son has chosen to study at university. So we can still have a conversation about his studies, even though I went the STEM route.

So yes, let's teach our children broadly, so they can pick routes from a variety, have the flexibility to change horses if they need to, and are equipped to stay sane and happy.          

24 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

You can't fiddle with one side of the equation only. If private schools can identify and cut waste, so can public ones. And they'll always be cheaper in the long run because they don't have to charge extra for profit.

Most private schools in the UK are non-profit entities. They charge a lot because they are in an arms race with their rivals for better facilities and better exam results. 

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

That's ok in theory, but it doesn't work in practice. That's why Russia and China couldn't prosper as communist countries.

I would argue that our economic basis should never be 100% private, public, or state-owned. A healthy mix seems to work best, but capitalism is the weed in the garden. If you don't keep it heavily regulated, it slowly takes over everything.

 

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

It's easy to say that public entities can cut waste, but they don't. People operate better on real incentives. And there's no better incentive than making and spending your own money. 

I think you're wrong here. In my experience, most public works start out just great, but because much of their apparatus is governed by representatives of various political parties and ideological persuasions, they eventually fall prey to those who want to tap into public funding for private interests. You say "but they don't" like it's baked into the system, but I think it's the loopholes that allow corruption to start that's baked in. I think what's needed in cases like this are common sense, state-mandated regulations that can't be changed by party whim.

And I think you're misguided about the incentives. Making and spending your own money doesn't have to disappear just because the schools and roads and utilities and libraries and postal service and ports are owned and managed by the public or state. Once again, you're arguing against 100% Communism or Socialism, and that hasn't been suggested here, not even once.

[mistermack]

12 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Once again, you're arguing against 100% Communism or Socialism, and that hasn't been suggested here, not even once.

No, I was arguing against your sweeping statement that the need for profit always means the product must cost more. 

In fact, a lot of companies operate on tiny profit margins, and state-owned enterprises can easily end up charging much more for the same thing. 

I'm in no way arguing for no state bodies. I like our NHS for example, but it does get hugely ripped off from time to time, and for some procedures, it pays private companies, because they just can't compete with them. 

A lot of the cost of our NHS is political. The governments don't like debt showing against their accounts, so they embarked on private financing of major projects, just to make their accounts look better. The debt is hidden in the contracts, where the private investors get guaranteed risk-free returns for decades. And of course, the opportunities for the friends of the politicians to take a lucrative slice of the action are huge. 

The NHS blew literally billions during covid lockdowns, on getting masks etc. And periphery friends of the ruling party became fabulously rich overnight, quite often selling useless gear to the NHS. It would never have happened if Bill Gates was running it. Having said that, I don't want the NHS to become private, as you said, some things are better suited to a national system. The US system, with all of the private health insurance companies doesn't appeal in the slightest. 

One thing I would do, is to massively increase the penalties for fraud. It seems to be treated far too leniently in this country, and the penalties are tiny, in relation to some of the sums involved. There's no real deterrent. It takes huge manpower to prove fraud, and then they just get a slap on the wrist.

[Sensei]

4 hours ago, exchemist said:

Sometimes I wonder if this is the approach of the British Tory party to our National Health Service: starve it for years, demoralise the staff and then say, “Look, it doesn’t work.”

.the real problem is with doctors who want (too much) money..

You want to help people. Or you want their money..

You can't treat people and steal their money at the same time..

Hundred thousands or millions of dollars for "experimental therapy" or "terminally ill" person? Your PhD is dismissed.. Don't complain at the police station you cannot log in to your banking accounts etc..

@StringJunky

We will have to remember not to respond to Erina threads next time.. I upped completely undeserved downvote..

 

4 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Yes, it's a strategy used by many political groups. I think the redder Tories know they won't get away with it. A blackhole, which is the NHS, is always gagging for money.

..which governmental, once-created institution does not want more public money next year than it got last year? Which one? People are thieves.. Just leave your smartphone in an apartment with multimillionaires..

I used to make fun of them, and put the latest iPhone in the trash at the bottom and covered it..

 

Edited April 13, 2023 by Sensei

[Erina]

@Phi for All : As everybody on this thread will concur, I never set out to “break all the rules”. To disrupt a cosy consensus of failure and overcharging for success to be sure, but what rules are these that I am to break, can you list them ?

Perhaps it is you that is mistaken.

I believe the concept of the Index may be the cause of your consternation then, as the sums involved are almost all level (depending on the local authority), as it allows teachers to negation Union power by negotiating pay on their own merit, rather than a uniform block push.

Confusing financial outlay for the right conditions to be met is not the same thing as capital flight and gutting a service. Which fee paying schools in the private sector (in the UK) run for the benefit of those than the children attending ?

@exchemist: I am not here to have others put words in my mouth. I could have rebutted his point, yes, but then again what can be submitted without evidence can be refuted in kind. Insert obligatory smiley face.

However, you’re the first to take the conversation forwards by focusing on exam results (not coursework?). However, these result are easier to attain, where as the ninety per cent that will be looking for vocational skills will be looking to retain apprenticeship places. Think of it as cutting a step out: as University courses increasingly focused on the ability of graduates to find a paying job in their field of expertise.

It is not unknown for fee paying school teachers to help get some more needy pupils over the finish line by doing work for them, it happens. But that it the problem that this system can solve as the costs will naturally deflate, rather than artificially remain high i.e. they won’t be able to convincingly cheat enough after Mother Nature has paid them a visit.

The Index would not focus on top grade students for the highest paying jobs, rather those that managed to mould a child to impress their employer to the point that they were requested to return, which is a metric that can be measure, including the time of which that pupil remained in that position.

Of course, for the ten per cent that wish to pursue tertiary level education then both course work and regurgitating facts on command will take precedence, but at least the teacher will be working with those of whom can perform, rather than fudging results for those that will only further dumb it down.

Metrics for those that did get one in (as they used to say in Grammar) revealing the persistence of the child to see a course right through may also be attributed i.e. drop out rate, but that it a little controversial, but would show the confidence that a teacher had, were they to commend them for example ?

@CharonY: What you say applies to most, so I cannot answer that definitively. However, too much choice surely could be viewed as making such a situation worse ?

The schools being focused in the manner of which I present them will likely not net those fuzzy types, given the kind of fast track nature of education that they offer. But then what of a speed dating like taster of subjects; it could simply take an afternoon slicing through vegetables to fall in love with cookery, or the symbolism of the Romans during their battles in the past to hook a child on the subject of History, enough for them to commit to it, so why take a year to find out, children move to a different rhythm.

I don’t see what official subject matter at secondary level education has to do with the jobs market as a child grows into an adult and even if it did then surely it would not take too much nous to be able to learn it, even on the job.

I think that the mythology of University has been well and truly exposed, that was a generational chip and has since been brushed away. The majority may still understand that a degree is required for many jobs, but do not value them, nor increasingly the institutions that they are issued from e.g. interviewing “CV blind”.

Teaching how to learn is not that difficult, it really isn’t, all it requires is trust and fair system of reward. That’s and the concept that mistakes must be analysed and understood. That form of self-sufficiency is one skill that will be relied upon time and time again.

Which university courses and which universities worth their weight allow the for students to dictate and what kind of control do they actually have. I don’t dispute it, but I would like to know.

As stated, I believe that those institutions should only accept the top ten per cent of academic minds, this was their original purpose after all.

However, this begs the question as to what kind of teacher would introduce themselves into such a system as the one I propose ?

Risk and reward comes to mind, those willing to push themselves with teaching techniques that others may balk at in a sticker system.

“learning to learn is the opposite of focused skill learning” is fair point, so I choose the former as this is only secondary level education. But unless you want a drone then the two are not mutually exclusive as subjects chosen to the strength of the child will naturally find them honing those skills themselves, without giving up on learning to learn.

“integrate various forms and systems of knowledge” is just another way of saying experience. This is not going to come at that level, so it’s all about exploring, taking risks and learning from mistakes. Acknowledging mistakes is a quick way to learn. Why then can one not learn a skill the hard way ?

@mistermack: One element of a Free School would be to ban Unionised practices i.e. striking. This could be a tacit agreement or part of a written contract. However, as the Index would dictate the value of the teacher, they would be less likely to waste money striking as the costs would be transparent to the investors (parents) as the budget spent is accounted on an open blackchain and striking would be a cost that they would have to explain.

Children begin learning about who they are when the leave school.

@Sensei : WHat’s this, am I being cancelled on a STEM forum ?

I will downvote what I think merits that. You do not get anything more than your own say.

 

nb. to those trying to invoke the religion in the UK known as the NHS, I would remind them that the UK was literally turned into a mini-USSR during lockdown precisely to protect the NHS and that every year during a Conservative government (or coalition) since 2010 the NHS’s budget had increased. It now at it’s highest level ever. However, I do not want that to take over this thread and am disheartened to see fully grown adults play such games on a STEM forum like this

Edited April 14, 2023 by Erina

[iNow]

2 hours ago, Erina said:

To disrupt a cosy consensus of failure and overcharging for success to be sure

Nobody here is against disruption. 

Nobody here is adding their voice in support of failure. Cozy or otherwise, there is no consensus on that. 

The issue is your absolute faith that yours is the one true answer to the very real and very legitimate problems of public education which can and should be improved upon.

Your view won’t work and it’s not fear or emotional attachment to the existing system causing me to tell you this plainly. 

You’re trying to treat an enormously complex system as a spherical cow, and you’re obstinate in the face of valid criticisms and concerns, trying to wave away feedback like some religious zealot. 

It’s a shame the school system failed you so miserably, but your proposal is no solution. I bet you wouldn’t even allow funding of the humanities. Sad really that someone as clearly intelligent as you can’t seem to see the enormous gaps and problems with this idea. 

Cozy consensus of failure. Give me a break and get off the soapbox already, preacher. 

2 hours ago, Erina said:

the mythology of University has been well and truly exposed

With all this grinding, one would think your axe must be plenty sharp by now, yet it still fails to even cut mustard. 

2 hours ago, Erina said:

Teaching how to learn is not that difficult, it really isn’t

Tell me you’ve never been around large groups of children without telling me you’ve never been around large groups of children 😂 

2 hours ago, Erina said:

those trying to invoke the religion in the UK known as the NHS, I would remind them that the UK was literally turned into a mini-USSR during lockdown precisely to protect the NHS

Strange then that countries without universal healthcare also locked down. Were they also trying to protect your NHS?? Such an obviously flawed premise. One among many being spouted from your Randian pulpit. 

2 hours ago, Erina said:

disheartened to see fully grown adults play such games on a STEM forum like this

We’ll try to do better next time, preacher. Praise be!

[Erina]

My proposal can manage the issue of "large groups of children", which is something that needs to be tackled.

A large body of interested minds will produce all manner of interesting possibilities, but those not pulling their weight will of course be the real issue.

A smaller ratio is always better, where funding permits and I wonder what the golden ratio is when the conditions are right ?

[Genady]

16 minutes ago, Erina said:

what the golden ratio is when the conditions are right ?

4:1

[CharonY]

14 hours ago, iNow said:

You’re trying to treat an enormously complex system as a spherical cow

That is at the core of the problem, I think. Education is highly complex and with often competing goals. 

 

16 hours ago, Erina said:

I think that the mythology of University has been well and truly exposed, that was a generational chip and has since been brushed away. The majority may still understand that a degree is required for many jobs, but do not value them, nor increasingly the institutions that they are issued from e.g. interviewing “CV blind”.

For example, this is actually the result of treating students as "customers". You see, in systems where Universities increasingly rely on tuition fees, there is also the push from administration to treat students as clients, rather than trainees. As a consequence, higher weight will be given to student evaluations, as the administration wants to have happy clients.

The big issue is that students (and parents) do not actually know much about effective knowledge transfer and learning.

16 hours ago, Erina said:

Teaching how to learn is not that difficult, it really isn’t, all it requires is trust and fair system of reward.

This is a prime example. Realistically only few students actually get to that point in university, and the rate is dropping. K12 has a lot guardrails which to some degree are needed, otherwise students will be completely lost, but theoretically in university they are supposed to learn to learn without them. Thinking that this is easy, clearly shows a lack of insight into the difficulty of this process.

Going back to putting power to the customers: what students really hate are courses that are considered hard and which require applying knowledge as well as working on gaining new ones. What they love are classes that can be passed by memorizing power point slides. There is a clear correlation between grades and ease of course and the resulting evaluation (i.e. how popular a course is). In other words, given the choice, folks will take the easy way. The administration reacts to these desires and force faculty to make things easier to pass more students. And now folks are saying that the degree is not worth anything. Well that is what you get if you do not allow faculty to keep certain standards. Putting even more power to the customers will just accelerate this process.

Given the option to work hard in order to gain complex skills and have an easy time but get high grades, you will see most folks choosing the latter and especially over the pandemic, the proportion of the first group (the ones that make teaching fun) are dropping rapidly. 

[Erina]

If anything, this conversation has shown me how utterly terrified the current system is of change.

[exchemist]

16 minutes ago, Genady said:

4:1

Surely (1+√5)/2 : 1 ? 

[CharonY]

33 minutes ago, Erina said:

If anything, this conversation has shown me how utterly terrified the current system is of change.

I think you are unaware of the fact that the system is already changing, just not in a good direction. And that the proposed changes are quite similar to what is currently causing issues.

I will also add that in recent times, there is a strong urge to be disruptive basically just for its own sake. The tech industry has been leading in that, often without much thought on the consequences, nor measurement of the outcomes. I think there is an overall trend towards superficial but seemingly "cool" solutions, something that I have been also seeing in the science world. Slow, methodical and thorough approaches do not fit the fast-paced trends anymore.

And I think that is a problem as the these fast changes also create something like learning amnesia. Same solutions are presented again and again in just fancier packages, but without any substantial improvements. Rather unfortunately, I do see that with students, too. Complex research questions are of low interest, a quick fixes and instant gratification is what folks want.

 

[Genady]

56 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Surely (1+√5)/2 : 1 ? 

One needs to take in account a teacher/student relative weight.

[Erina]

@CharonY: My goodness, where have you been since 1997. University was politicised from this point and then the funding issue mushroomed with the LidBen/Con coalition where Clegg guaranteed loans with tax payer money, thus allowing all and sundry to plug the funding gap as courses could not be fully funded.

Universities played the system, it was well conceived, I suppose. Money being the main factor in keeping up with the Americans. However, they're not evil, as I alluded to before, Universities and STEM courses now promote how quick a student can find meaningful work in their chosen field - that seems to be the winning metric now.

I don't know where you get your data from, perhaps experience, but that is too subjective for me and I cannot measure it. What I will say is that there are too many of the wrong folk attending tertiary level education and those that really should be there are likely poisoned by this kind of culture that you speak of.

To my mind, the MIT "Open University" exam is a fine example (yes, I am an advocate of Home Schooling) of those that should attend. That can be measured, pass or fail, the participation rate would be a good barometer of how many should actually attend (perhaps then you can approach your golden ratio).

I support the concept of Grammar Schools and a Classical Liberal curriculum. However, I recognised that not all will fit into that and need to accommodate them.

@Genady: Academics are good at this kind of thing, but a lot of them couldn't even strike a match.

Edited April 14, 2023 by Erina

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, Genady said:

One needs to take in account a teacher/student relative weight.

Aha yes of course. 

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, Erina said:

@CharonY: My goodness, where have you been since 1997. University was politicised from this point and then the funding issue mushroomed with the LidBen/Con coalition where Clegg guaranteed loans with tax payer money, thus allowing all and sundry to plug the funding gap as courses could not be fully funded.

I have worked in universities in three different countries with rather vastly different systems. And compared to public funded universities it is harder to find a "good" crop of students when there are financial constraints. Ivy league's are a bit of an exception, but they do have more leverage over their students than other institutions.

 

1 hour ago, Erina said:

Universities and STEM courses now promote how quick a student can find meaningful work in their chosen field - that seems to be the winning metric now.

Which to a large degree is deceptive as it is more an indicator of job situation than the quality of school.

 

1 hour ago, Erina said:

What I will say is that there are too many of the wrong folk attending tertiary level education and those that really should be there are likely poisoned by this kind of culture that you speak of.

Based on which data then? What are the right folks? For that matter, what would be the wrong folks?

 

1 hour ago, Erina said:

To my mind, the MIT "Open University" exam is a fine example (yes, I am an advocate of Home Schooling) of those that should attend. That can be measured, pass or fail, the participation rate would be a good barometer of how many should actually attend (perhaps then you can approach your golden ratio).

So learning for exams again. Full circle, I guess.

[Phi for All]

3 hours ago, Erina said:

If anything, this conversation has shown me how utterly terrified the current system is of change.

Said the Big Bad Wolf. 

[CharonY]

3 hours ago, Erina said:

My goodness, where have you been since 1997. University was politicised from this point and then the funding issue mushroomed with the LidBen/Con coalition where Clegg guaranteed loans with tax payer money, thus allowing all and sundry to plug the funding gap as courses could not be fully funded.

Universities played the system, it was well conceived, I suppose. Money being the main factor in keeping up with the Americans. However, they're not evil, as I alluded to before, Universities and STEM courses now promote how quick a student can find meaningful work in their chosen field - that seems to be the winning metric now.

A bit about this one here. I am a bit uncertain what your precise point is, but the University administration tends to be reactive. I.e. when politics changes the situation, they need to adapt to it. Reducing public spending effectively makes them operate more like companies. And at least for faculty it the outcome is obvious: more financial constraints on students, and a shift towards getting more students in, keep them happy and often that goes at cost of teaching quality.

In the old system in Germany (which has changed in the last decades, but still remains free), students had only a limited number of tries to pass tests (which were often applied). So it was not unusual that mandatory chemistry classes would result in >60% of biology students to drop or switch degrees within the first two semesters, which more being weeded out in the subsequent ones.

These types of failure rates would be considered inacceptable in paid systems, especially nowadays. I am not that familiar with the UK system, but looking at funding trends, I suspect the same issues as in North America.

 

Compared to that, in other European countries 80-90% of the funds are from public sources. 

 

The impact of private spending on quality is actually somewhat well documented. The study is a few years old, but the trend has accelerated:

Quote

During this era, which has yet to end, student course evaluations of classes became mandatory, students became increasingly career focused, and tuition rises dramatically outpaced increases in family income. When you treat a student as a customer, the customer is, of course, always right.  If a student and parent of that student want a high grade, you give it to them.  Professors faced a new and more personal exigency with respect to grading: to keep their leadership happy (and to help ensure their tenure and promotion) they had to focus on keeping students happy.  It’s not surprising that grades have gone up during this era.  I call this period of grade inflation the “student as consumer era” or the “consumer era” for short. 

By the mid-to-late 1990s, A was the most common grade at an average four-year college campus (and at a typical community college as well).  By 2013, the average college student had about a 3.15 GPA (see first chart) and forty-five percent of all A-F letter grades were A’s (see second chart).  If you pay more for a college education in the consumer era, then you of course get a higher grade.  By 2013, GPA’s at private colleges in our database were on average over 0.2 points higher than those found at public schools.

Studies have shown that grade inflation is not only tied to marketizing teaching, but it is also related to monitoring teaching itself. I.e. when teaching outcome is tied to teaching evaluation, it provides incentives for teachers to make their lives easier by simply giving out higher grades. Depending on job security and overall system (i.e. pressure from board, administration, students, parents etc.) the outcome may be more or less pronounced.

As a consequence, in Germany grade inflation is also observed, but at a lower degree.

The suggestions made by OP do appear to try to introduce similar mechanisms into K12 (though, to be fair, they are already on the way) and I just simply cannot see how emphasizing the bad parts of a system is somehow going to end up beneficial. It is mostly disruptive to the few parts that keep the system limping along.

 

[Erina]

@CharonY: You mention Ivy League, we call it the Russell Group here in the UK. That free floating definition suits me, as the UK has far too many Universities and so, as you might expect, I have no issue with allowing the free markets to focus that talent to engorge the Russell Group - just take away the subsidies.

I don't know what you expect folk to spend so much on an education for, if unable to repay that money without a job waiting for them. Do you expect them to remain in education all of their lives ? The quality of the education would surely then allow them to leap the pack, that's the correlation is it not ?

David Starkey was cancelled. That should be more than enough proof.

My reference to the Open University was to illustrate the kind of folk that should be at University. That kind of metric gives you an idea of the numbers that should be there, for the real reasons that you seek as well: to learn. The rest is just money.

Don't forget, I am looking for trends that I can measure.

Look there is no such thing as "free". Somebody that you have never met is paying, that's all. How can it be that secondary education costs more than the zenith that is supposed to be tertiary. When Blair waived his hand and said that fifty per cent of students should attend University that was what did the place in. Just charge the real cost and have job waiting at the other end to pay it off and the whole thing will work.

Tax payer guaranteed loans will need to go. They allow fools to attend, to bring in the funding for the real courses. However, they contaminate the environment with their political views and we now have a corrupted system.

This is how the UK system presently works.

Getting rid of tax payer guaranteed loans means that the Russell Group would be University, as nobody would take anything else seriously and everything would go back to normal. The courses would be charged at a rate the market would accept and there should be enough money for genuine scholarships to be awarded to those with exceptional talent.

The UK has as many Nobel Prizes as all of the EU countries combined (bar Germany). The Europeans love theory, but the Anglo-sphere does the practical, that is the system we need to maintain.

The parallels of grade inflation as you say already exist, this I have drawn attention to with the private sector. However, the sums involved are uniform in my proposal and so there is no need to cheat, as the primary reason for doing so is likely financial, given the inflated costs in fee paying schools at secondary level (and repetitional I suppose).

The sums are £5-6k, everybody is the same. Grade inflation is only for those wishing to seek tertiary level education and that will not work when the places are so few.

Edited April 14, 2023 by Erina

[CharonY]

40 minutes ago, Erina said:

I don't know what you expect folk to spend so much on an education for, if unable to repay that money without a job waiting for them. Do you expect them to remain in education all of their lives ?

Here you show a very narrow definition of education: a fiscal exchange for a career. However, education also has the role of broaden horizons, create thinkers, develop a space to solve problems that folks have not thought about, or things that one cannot monetize. I refer back to the competing goals I mentioned a couple of times.

Realistically, if a shortcut to a job is all that is needed, the solution is simple. Get rid of education altogether and have corporations set up their own little education enclaves. That way, they can train folks to do exactly what they want. 

That, however, does not sound much like education to me.

Quote

The quality of the education would surely then allow them to leap the pack, that's the correlation is it not ?

That sounds to me like yet another goal. Not only be suitable for a career, but better than another. So you are talking about competitiveness, which creates other incentives. To me a good education is supposed to make the student a better version of themselves and not just better than Dave.

40 minutes ago, Erina said:

Don't forget, I am looking for trends that I can measure.

INow and I mentioned the complexity of the issue. It is not straightforward in terms of what education is supposed to achieve and therefore metrics are are often imperfect and create incentives that are counterproductive, as I mentioned in my previous post. Just because you measure something, does not mean that you understood the gist of the problem. Finding the right measure is a science in itself.

 

Quote

Look there is no such thing as "free". Somebody that you have never met is paying, that's all. How can it be that secondary education costs more than the zenith that is supposed to be tertiary. 

Public funding of universities tend to keep cost down. I can throw a whole slate of data at it showing how private schools are more expensive and how tuition focused universities (even with partial public funding) are usually more wasteful than publicly funded universities.

One of the reasons is simple and I mentioned those before. There is only a weak incentive to put or keeps bums on a bench (up to a certain degree). Therefore publicly funded universities have much less overhead in terms of recruitment, student services amenities and so on. In countries like USA and Canada which heavily rely on tuition, the ratio between faculty spending (i.e. cost for professors) relative to administration and support services is roughly 60 vs 40% (and typically worse in private schools). Conversely in public funded universities that ratio is about 70% profs to 30% overhead.

In other words, you get more teaching per buck if spend publicly. While there is a "waste" as unsuitable student get into public funded universities, you then have the mentioned weed-out courses which drops the student count over the semesters. In tuition-dependent universities the incentive is to keep the around as long possible regardless of suitability so that they can pay tuition + dorm+ food +gym membership. In other words, it creates incentives that run counter to what folks might consider a good education.

I do not think that loans are a good way to go, but instead I believe that universities should have a steady base-funding that focuses on its core mission, rather than just making students (or their parents) happy in order to get their money.

Edit: 

Another piece of information with regard to cost of higher education: 

The cost will increase over time relative to regular products as there is a cap on how productivity can be increase in teaching relative to product costs. 

Having a lower ratio between students and teachers is therefore going to disproportionately increase cost, even if overhead is kept down. There is a specific economic term for this phenomenon that eludes me presently.

Especially STEM education is therefore expensive and if paid out of pocket, will be prohibitive to low to mid-income families. Public funding is pretty much the only reason why we have an education system rather than education enclaves in the first place.

[iNow]

56 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Having a lower ratio between students and teachers is therefore going to disproportionately increase cost, even if overhead is kept down. There is a specific economic term for this phenomenon that eludes me presently.

It’s similar to Economies of Scale, but in this context I believe perhaps that Economies of Scope may be the concept you seek… even though both sorta fit. ✌🏼

[CharonY]

17 minutes ago, iNow said:

It’s similar to Economies of Scale, but in this context I believe perhaps that Economies of Scope may be the concept you seek… even though both sorta fit. ✌🏼

I remember now, it was called "cost disease" or the Baumol effect. Effectively it is because salaries in sectors without productivity gains see salary increases, because they are competing with jobs which do. That being said, there are ideological reasons (and stupidity) which maintains professor salaries still relatively low to their industrial counterparts. Though increasing dissatisfaction seems to drive more folks to seek industrial jobs, even among tenured folks.

[iNow]

I caught a nasty case of the cost disease when I became a husband and father!   /rimshot

 

I'm in town all week, folks. Please be sure to tip your server. 

[Erina]

Look, I can't create a system where you get something for free. If that sounds like the status quo wins out then think again, because money is everything. You may want a fun experience, but that's going to cost money, so either way you've got to justify that cost to yourself and fair enough. But I'm not pay for anybody else. You have to accept that too.

Of course I believe in competition, that's how Mother Nature works and what drives a person to perform. You don't have to if you don't want to, but don't tell others that cannot. Don't forget the system (of which this conversation is supposed to be about secondary level education) is voluntary.

I get a lot of flowery language on this thread, but then have to distill that, only to be told I am wrong. Well, correct me, show me the metic and path to achieving what you want that can be measure and plot on an index.

The system at present gives parents an up front sum of £5k-£6k, this is not going to change. There is your "public funding" (although, that is paid by the parents via general taxation anyway). That sum is then negotiated between the school and teachers to pay them for the service that they can give your child. Given that only the top ten per cent will go on to tertiary level education, that sum will need to build up business, time and financial management skills to develop the student along a path they will take in life.

If they are interested in military history, then fine, they will pursue it. If they like cookery, then ditto. But they will have what they need to hit the ground running. Okay, they will not speak a second language or play a musical instrument. But, they likely don't anyway. And if they want to, then they can, funds permitting.

The only time the pay scale is skewered is when parents can chip in a little more for a music lesson, but that happens now anyway.

For teachers to get paid more from the pot of cash made available then something needs to be cut. But, given that ninety per cent will not go to university then they will know that jobs will be next and so work toward that. The trouble today is that the next step is always another qualification and on, and on. But then when entering the market they've no life experience what so ever, with so much of what they were taught a waste of time.

This system gets children ready, faster and into the real world. They will not care about the academic side of things, like the generation that put the present situation in place. Most now feel this way, but only after. I want to cut that nonsense out and let the majority know that getting into work quicker is not failure.

I'll check out the Baumol effect, but I fail to see how unproductively is rewarded against genuine productivity ? It's a bit like the Unions striking right now for better pay. It makes no sense. Better to just outshine your contemporaries and negotiate on personal basis, rather than blackmail.

Edited April 15, 2023 by Erina