|
In response to
"Wouldn't this disincentivize majoring in fields that are actually in demand and pay well?"
by
Strongbad
|
I wouldn't think so - lawyers will still be lawyers. There are bigger problems with this approach.
Posted by
Roger More (aka rogermore)
Jul 3 '13, 10:58
|
For example, the people who would benefit most from the policy are the people earning higher incomes for the rest of their lives because they have a degree. They wouldn't be paying for any of this themselves (though I suppose their future taxes would be higher) but essentially it's a big subsidy.
The other thing is that free higher education is often justified on the basis of giving greater access to students from poor backgrounds. But when this was tried in Australia (from the 1970s to the early 1980s), university students were still overwhelmingly from middle-class backgrounds, and the % of students who were from lower socio-economic groups didn't change that much. So it ends up being a big subsidy for the middle-class.
What is done in Australia now is the gov't pays for 75% of the higher education bills at public universities, and the rest is paid back by students at low interest rates after they graduate and have a salary above the average. So student debt isn't excessive. Of course, most universities there are public.
|