3 ms·

Yeah, I don't think high fees are the answer either. Costly and free are both extreme and probably won't do what we want them to do. We need something just rig

Yeah, I don't think high fees are the answer either. Costly and free are both extreme and probably won't do what we want them to do. We need something just right, something that both the schools, and students still have some skin in the game so they are obligated / motivated to perform their best. I think a free market mostly can cover do this, and it seemed to work out fine for many many years in the US until we started giving crazy loans out to everybody. And don't get me started, on the bs that we need free school because low income kids won't be able to go. Harvard has a fund for low income students that goes untapped every year, they even make a effort to get low income kids (from my understanding mostly underprivileged minorities) to take advantage of the funding available, but yet, hardly anybody does.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago
I think you're right. In the UK context, the first incarnation of fees appeared to work OK and not bring the negatives that are becoming clear after the introduction of high fees. Even the overseas students paying higher fees seemed to bring less expectation and entitlement to a first whilst standard fees were only £3k, which I can't explain. Of course the other aspect when fees were first introduced was the policy to significantly increase numbers attending university. This brought its own set of problems including harming standards (unavoidable of course) and vocational institutions, and no end of colleges remaking themselves as universities.