4 ms·

I've wondered if an good way to fund universities would be offer them x% of a students tax return for X years after graduation. That way universities would lik

I've wondered if an good way to fund universities would be offer them x% of a students tax return for X years after graduation. That way universities would likely focus their courses on areas that get people employed, while cross subsidising some areas they feel add value to the educational environment. Or require popular courses that dont deliver returns as for some upfront payment. Even use data if it's that granular to even see what department heads or other facets create the best results.

mschuster91 8y ago
> That way universities would likely focus their courses on areas that get people employed, while cross subsidising some areas they feel add value to the educational environment. As if that would happen! The "unproductive" courses (aka everything but STEM) will all be eliminated as there isn't money for them. Society will lose as a result. Fund everything by taxpayers instead like Europe does.
- assblaster 8y ago
  What do you think about these data for the number of students in Europe stratified by course of study compared to the United States? https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/images/2/20/Number_of_tertiary_education_graduates_by_field%2C_2015_%28thousands%29_YB17.png https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/images/2/... https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=37 https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=37 Your assertion that society will lose if gender studies majors for instance decrease in output is debatable. In fact, a decent argument can be made that certain majors have a role in indoctrination that make society worse off because of increased fractionation, division, and tribalism.
  - mschuster91 8y ago
    > In fact, a decent argument can be made that certain majors have a role in indoctrination that make society worse off because of increased fractionation, division, and tribalism. Or maybe because minorities actually (thanks to social media and progressive whites) have a meaningful voice now? Of course white men are frightened by the prospects of them no longer being the sole rulers. > Your assertion that society will lose if gender studies majors for instance decrease in output is debatable. It's not just about "gender studies". How can you, for example, quantify the "productivity" of an archaeologist, a historian, or an artist? You can't.
- Gustomaximus 8y ago
  > The "unproductive" courses (aka everything but STEM) will all be eliminated as there isn't money for them. 1) So most people doing accounting, economics, history, design, law, journalism, marketing, philosophy etc dont get jobs? 2) This is assuming universities will specialise to the most profitable vs being self funded. 3) This assumes that universities wont value lower returning education disciplines enough to cross subsidise areas they feel are important vs 'most profitable' .... so I dont doubt there would be issues in this funding model but cant see too much STEM focus being one of them.

mschuster91 8y ago

> That way universities would likely focus their courses on areas that get people employed, while cross subsidising some areas they feel add value to the educational environment. As if that would happen! The "unproductive" courses (aka everything but STEM) will all be eliminated as there isn't money for them. Society will lose as a result. Fund everything by taxpayers instead like Europe does.

assblaster 8y ago
What do you think about these data for the number of students in Europe stratified by course of study compared to the United States? https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/images/2/20/Number_of_tertiary_education_graduates_by_field%2C_2015_%28thousands%29_YB17.png https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/images/2/... https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=37 https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=37 Your assertion that society will lose if gender studies majors for instance decrease in output is debatable. In fact, a decent argument can be made that certain majors have a role in indoctrination that make society worse off because of increased fractionation, division, and tribalism.
- mschuster91 8y ago
  > In fact, a decent argument can be made that certain majors have a role in indoctrination that make society worse off because of increased fractionation, division, and tribalism. Or maybe because minorities actually (thanks to social media and progressive whites) have a meaningful voice now? Of course white men are frightened by the prospects of them no longer being the sole rulers. > Your assertion that society will lose if gender studies majors for instance decrease in output is debatable. It's not just about "gender studies". How can you, for example, quantify the "productivity" of an archaeologist, a historian, or an artist? You can't.
Gustomaximus 8y ago
> The "unproductive" courses (aka everything but STEM) will all be eliminated as there isn't money for them. 1) So most people doing accounting, economics, history, design, law, journalism, marketing, philosophy etc dont get jobs? 2) This is assuming universities will specialise to the most profitable vs being self funded. 3) This assumes that universities wont value lower returning education disciplines enough to cross subsidise areas they feel are important vs 'most profitable' .... so I dont doubt there would be issues in this funding model but cant see too much STEM focus being one of them.