[Groot Gouda]

Greetings,

I received this proposal from a representative from Nederland with a request for comments. I'll give you lot a chance to look at it as well, I'll send the comments back to the nation who sent it to us.

Quote: Resolution name: Higher Education Act
Category: Social Justice

The Democratic Republic of Tycholand,

REALIZING, with regret, that many poorer teenagers and adolescents cannot pay for higher education,

NOTING that many rich nations fail to support poorer people/students to follow education,

AWARE that many teenagers and adolescents want to attend higher education,

ALSO aware that many students have to work to finance their study,

Calls for the implementation of the ?Higher Education Act? whereby all UN nations are:

- REQUIRED to finance at least 35% of higher education costs for students,
- DEFINES higher education as all education above secondary level (example: above American High School) such as colleges and universities.
- REQUIRED to give students a loan when asked whereby:
1. There will be a maximum interest-rate of 0,25%
2. The interest-payments will start after the study: the student does not have to pay interest during the study and does not have to pay the interest for those ?study-years? afterwards,
- REQUIRED on governments to always properly finance higher education. [/quote]

[Groot Gouda]

An improved version:

Quote: 
Resolution name: Higher Education Act
Category: Social Justice

The United Nations:

REALIZING with regret that many poorer teenagers and adolescents cannot pay for higher education,

NOTICING that many rich nations fail to pay for higher education,

AWARE that many teenagers and adolescents want to attend higher education,

ALSO aware that:
- Students need to focus more on their study,
- It is also important that students and parents still pay a part of the higher education,

RECALLING UN resolution #28 where every person under the age of 18 receives a free education and

WANTING to go a step further than resolution #28

Calls for the implementation of the ?Higher Education Act? whereby all UN nations are:

- REQUIRED to finance at least 35% of higher education costs for all students,
- DEFINES higher education as all education above secondary level such as colleges and universities.
- REQUIRED to give students a loan when asked, whereby:
1. There will be a maximum interest-rate of 0,1% for students in poorer families to 0,50% for students in richer families,
2. The interest-payments will start after the study: the student does not have to pay interest during the study and does not have to pay the interest for those ?study-years? afterwards,
- CALLS ON on governments to always properly finance higher education.

[/quote]

[Sober Thought]

Groot Gouda & Nederland proposer --

On my NS Wiki page and in real life, I have tried to decide what a good educational policy should be. Not all higher education is or should be supported by governments.

(1) There is no mention here of merit.

If governments are expected to invest money in expensive post-secondary education, then they can expect a certain amount of academic ability in its place. Also, if governments are paying for this education, they should have more say in what fields of study are supported and how well.

I attended Humanities classes (but did not finish my degree) at an acadmeic university. These should not have been subsidized to the extent they were. I attended a library course (and finished it) at an applied college. It was cheaper, but it should have been subsidized because that's what made me into a productive worker.

In NS and RL, I believe education is important but that it should not be funded without consideration to its impact on a country's finances and economy.


(2) There is only slight mention here of the meaning of higher or post-secondary education.

Non-academic trade schools are as important or more important than many university courses of study. How many philosophers does a society need? I think more than one, but definitely less than the number of philosophy graduates at the universities I know. How many automobile mechanics does a society need? Many more, but physical labour is denigraded and not supported by government in the same way.


(3) I really like the idea of a loan for the majority of the funding for higher education.

This means that students know they have to pay money back, so it will focus their choice of study and make them take education more seriously.

Is it too late to add requirements for academic ability, government ability to require certain fields of study, and to broaden the meaning or application of higher education?

[Grosseschnauzer]

On the other hand there are nations that essentially have universal (and free or cost free) access to study for a bacculaureate degree. Many oil-rich nations have that policy. and there are other nations, or parts of nations that have adopted policies that make the cost of "higher education" virtually free.

(RL- At least one US state, Georgia, has a state lottery that funds a scholarship program that would pay for a four year bacculareate degree at any public university in the state for high school graduates who complete that with a certain grade average. As long as the student maintains a specific grade average in their university studies, the scholarship continues until they complete their university degree.

As far as Grosseschnauzer itself is concerned, it has a policy of universal access to "higher education." The adoption of this proposal by the UN would not have an impact of Grosseschnauzer for that reason.

[Groot Gouda]

I am very cautious about valueing "merit" of academic education. In my opinion, all studies that classify as "academic" are worthwhile to support. True, there may be a limit on how many philosophers a society needs. But why should that mean it is less financed? An academic education doesn't educate for a job; it's the academic way of thinking that is most important, and that can be applied in many jobs, directly and indirectly.

If a nation doesn't consider a study to have enough merit, it shouldn't be taught at university, simple as that.

Also, merit can't be expressed in money. Though it is possible to simply take the wages of an academic and thus assign a value on the study, this doesn't take into account what someone might produce in terms of research. Someone can be a great philosopher, but earn little money. In terms of scientific progress the merit might be big.

What I like about this resolution is that it partly takes away the concern about future wages, and gives students the opportunity to follow a study they really want to do. It improves choice, and that's important for my nation.

[Sober Thought]

GS and GG, you make some good points that I agree with.

While I don't like the chance element of RL State of Georgia's approach, the idea of giving qualified students a chance makes a lot of sense. In Sober Thought, direct government support for students is tied to academic achievement as being the most objective and likely predictor of academic potential. I should add in RL, I wouldn't qualify since I never finished high school; I got into unversity and later community college as an irregular student.

And yes, GG, I agree that it is the inquisitive nature that needs to be nurtured. However, it can be done much more cheaply, effectively and accessibly through other means. Adult education, night classes, open universities, educational television, etc., are all great ideas and should be explored as an alternative to full-time publicly supported unversities.

GG's observation that any field not worthy of study shouldn't be in a university is correct, but many fields are added for dubious reasons, e.g., dabblings in pseudo-science by J.B. Rhine at Duke University and by others at the Stanford Research Instutute. Some research chairs sponsored by companies or organizations with specific agendas. Do you want to also outlaw private higher education?

However, my main point is that I don't think students should be able to study only what they want to if they are asking for substantial government support. Government support comes from taxes. Taxes come from working people. Working people include manual labourers, at least some of whom would rather be doing things other than digging ditches, draining cesspools or picking up garbage. Is it fair that they should toil for an intangible benefit which goes mainly or exclusively to others and has no restrictions placed upon it?

So the question is: how do you make sure that academically minded students with some prospect of achievement get higher education regardless of family or personal wealth, while at the same time making sure that working people are not forced to support unproductive members of society.

In RL Germany, higher education is "free" -- but only to those who the state deems worthy. In fact, the academic stream begins after Grade 4, so if you are not marked as "academic" by age 10, you are effectively excluded from higher education in that country for life. This is wrong, too far in the other direction.

In RL United States, higher education is costly. Students of indifferent academic ability from rich families can easily buy their way into university or enter as a legacy student (like George W. Bush). Poor students may apply for scholarships, but those of exceptional academic ability are often ignored in favour of those with exceptional athletic ability. Other students afford higher education by joining the armed forces -- a great deal unless the country is at war. This is wrong, too far in the other direction.

And as GS points out, in RL Arabian Gulf states flush with cash can afford to pay for higher education for all their students. But will this policy continue when the oil money runs out? What was the policy before oil became a cash commodity?

People who value education and the pursuit of learning for its own merits should be able to buy into this fascinating intellectually hobby despite the lack of strong academic ability. It is admirable that not-so-intelligent rich people would want to spend money broadening their horizons rather than buying another luxury car or taking another expensive vacation. And it is doubly admirable that not-so-intelligent poorer people would give up buying any car and give up taking any vacation for the same goal. An educational policy should let them do so without interference.

However, those seeking direct government support for their hobby can reasonably asked to meet certain requirements. I think academic achievement is reasonable; perhaps a more limited choice of fields of study is reasonable; perhaps a promise to stay in a particular region of the country or field of work is reasonable (e.g., medical doctors to serve time in underserviced communities). If the state is willing to support its academically gifted students, it can expect something in return.

[RANT]
I love learning. You couldn't stop me from learning. But most of my learning is unworthy of government support. And truthfully, I would find difficult or impossible to meet the conditions I suggest above myself. That is why I (repeatedly) dropped out of university despite good grades and an apparently promising academic career. That is why I actually finished a practical course of study at a community college.[/RANT]

Government resources -- like other resources -- are limited. Governments should not be forced to spend these resources unwisely by a laudable but rarely affordable goal of providing higher education to all students at extremely low cost to themselves.

[Grosseschnauzer]

ST, I should have mentioned that in the RL US State of Georgia, the "Hope Scholarship" was funded using lottery profits, and the lottery profits were a new source that had not previously existed. It's been in place for more than ten years now, with very few changes. In fact, with so-called Pell Grants from the US Government for families that have less than a certain level of income, a college education can be had at a public university without any expense to the student. It wouldn't be a luxury standard of living, but it could be done without deprivation.

[Yuunli]

Yuunli supports the proposal.

I'm in favor of free education for all. Your qualifications should be the crucial factor to decide whether or not you can attend university, not your parents' bank account.

I have nothing against adult education, night classes, open universities and educational television. But they are made for people who are working and want to catch up on the degree they never got when they were young.

If you study something you're interested in, you're more likely to succeed. Better educate a few interested archeologists and sinologists than masses of unmotivated business administration majors.

Quote: In RL Germany, higher education is "free" -- but only to those who the state deems worthy.  In fact, the academic stream begins after Grade 4, so if you are not marked as "academic" by age 10, you are effectively excluded from higher education in that country for life.  This is wrong, too far in the other direction.[/quote]
Being a university student in RL Germany, let me tell you how it really is.

Here's a sketch of the system:

Switching between the different secondary school types is possible at any time (especially in 6th and 7th grade). But of course it's not easy to switch to a more demanding type.

Note that it's a little more complicated, as each of the 16 states has its own scholar system. ;-)
In some states, Gymnasium ends after grade 12, not 13. In some states, primary school ends after grade 6, not 4. In some states, Hauptschule and Realschule are combined, in some states all three secondary school types can be under one roof, in some states grades 5 and 6 are a common "orientation phase"...

University education is still free here (apart from a small administration fee). But a few months ago, the Federal Constitutional Court said the federal government is not allowed to forbid tuition. Many states with conservative governments are going to introduce a tuition of ?500 per semester (about $1500 Canadian per year).

So far, the ?500 tuition exists for "long-time students" (those who have studied much longer than recommended) in many states.

[Groot Gouda]

Sober ThoughtMay 31 2005, 08:13 PM And yes, GG, I agree that it is the inquisitive nature that needs to be nurtured. However, it can be done much more cheaply, effectively and accessibly through other means. Adult education, night classes, open universities, educational television, etc., are all great ideas and should be explored as an alternative to full-time publicly supported unversities. [/quote]
Sure, but that is a different kind of education. We're talking academics now. All worthwhile to support, maybe, but this resolution doesn't stop that.

Quote: GG's observation that any field not worthy of study shouldn't be in a university is correct, but many fields are added for dubious reasons, e.g., dabblings in pseudo-science by J.B. Rhine at Duke University and by others at the Stanford Research Instutute.  Some research chairs sponsored by companies or organizations with specific agendas.  Do you want to also outlaw private higher education?[/quote]

No, but one could limit the financial support for universities not recognized by the government as such, due to dubious influences.

Quote: However, my main point is that I don't think students should be able to study only what they want to if they are asking for substantial government support.  Government support comes from taxes.  Taxes come from working people.  Working people include manual labourers, at least some of whom would rather be doing things other than digging ditches, draining cesspools or picking up garbage.  Is it fair that they should toil for an intangible benefit which goes mainly or exclusively to others and has no restrictions placed upon it?[/quote]

Why not? Others can profit from other things. I don't hold the view that each tax (insert currency unit here) should be spread evenly over everybody. In this case, students profit. But they don't profit from other rules. And we're not talking about a lot of money; only a third of the costs. The people digging ditches are unlikely to profit from this, but at least their children can get financial support if they have the brains to go to university.

Quote: So the question is: how do you make sure that academically minded students with some prospect of achievement get higher education regardless of family or personal wealth, while at the same time making sure that working people are not forced to support unproductive members of society.[/quote]

I don't want to look at it like that. Because it is extremely difficult to determine what "unproductive" is. If a student finishes secondary school at university preparatory level, they are fit to go to university. End of discussion. They might do nothing there, but there's hardly any profit in it for them. They might as well get a job so they actually have enough money, instead of a lousy 1/3 financing of their life. So the system pretty much solves its own problems.

Quote: In RL Germany, higher education is "free" -- but only to those who the state deems worthy.  In fact, the academic stream begins after Grade 4, so if you are not marked as "academic" by age 10, you are effectively excluded from higher education in that country for life.  This is wrong, too far in the other direction.[/quote]

In RL Netherlands, the split happens around 11/12. But that doesn't exclude anyone from university, as you can work your way up (and some do) from the lowest normal secondary school level to university. It just takes a few years longer. At 11 it might still be difficult to estimate the level, but from my own experience I can say that generally, a lot of people end up in the right place.

Quote: In RL United States, higher education is costly.  Students of indifferent academic ability from rich families can easily buy their way into university or enter as a legacy student (like George W. Bush).[/quote]

But that's simply wrong, and also bad for universities as they will get a lot of bad students. Here in the Netherlands you simply can't buy yourself into uni. You either have to have a "VWO" (preporatory scientific education) diploma from your secondary school, or have finished "HBO" (higher professional education, ends with a bachelor-level diploma and more practical than uni) after secondary school. If you don't have a diploma, or lack certain subjects, there's an entry test. Fees are the same for each uni (though they're trying to change that), so that doesn't make any difference. Those wishing a more practical career tend to go to the HBO, the more theorecically inclined go to university.

If a higher education system runs on money instead of intelligence, that's an entirely
different matter to solve, not for this resolution.

[Groot Gouda]

After a meeting of UN officials from Tycholand and Groot Gouda we have the following resolution text. Comments are still welcome of course, and Tycholand is looking for TG support, so if you like this resolution clap your hands!

Resolution name: Higher Education Act
Category: Social Justice

The United Nations:

REALIZING with regret that many poorer teenagers and adolescents cannot pay for higher education,

NOTICING that many rich nations fail to adequately fund higher education,

AWARE that many teenagers and adolescents want to attend higher education,

ALSO aware that:
- Students need to focus more on their study,
- Students, and in some cases parents, still pay a large part of the educational costs,
- Higher education can have a positive influence on the economy,
- Study-costs in poorer nations are lower than in richer nations.

POINTING OUT that students who achieve academic successes will attain a good job whereby they will contribute to the government by paying taxes. Thus there is little need to take into account the losses the government makes on the loans (rising inflation),

RECALLING UN resolution #28 where every person under the age of 18 receives a free education and

WANTING to go a step further than resolution #28

Calls for the implementation of the ?Higher Education Act? whereby all UN nations are:

- Required to finance at least 25% (for poorer nations) to 35% (for richer nations) of all students costs.

- Defines higher education as al levels of education which students can follow once they are above the age of 18, in particular university education,

- Required to give students a loan when asked, whereby:
1. The maximum interest rate will be the inflation-percentage of the year the loan was granted,
2. Those students will have to come from families who have a modal income, or below a modal income for the nation in question,
3. The interest-payments will start after the study: the student does not have to pay interest during the study and does afterwards not have to pay for the ?missed-interests,?
4. Student loans may not take-up more than 2,5% of the total government budget, unless the government decides otherwise. If this is the case: all student loans will be evenly spread-out between the students until the 2,5% mark is reached.

- REMINDS nations that this resolution DOES NOT apply to
1. students who spend their money in an inappropriate way
2. students who do not gain academic successes.
3. students whose parents earn more than double the minimum wage which applies for that country.

- ALLOWS students to:
1. Participate in student organizations without fear of penalty and
2. allows and encourages students to have a part-time job next to their study, so they can (partly) finance their educational- and living-costs.

- CALLS ON governments to always properly finance higher education.

- ALLOWS nations to, if they wish, go further then the above resolution.

[Keeslandia]

Clap.

Nicely done - a marked improvement and worthy of support.

[Groot Gouda]

I have already told Tycholand that I am prepared to help out telegramming from next Monday/Tuesday, as I like the proposal (and have assisted a bit as well).

If there are any IDU members willing to help campaigning, or that have lists of delegate to call for support, that would be greatly appreciated, also in the interest of the IDU-Nederland relationship.