Paying for further education
Legless' post below dragged up one of my older ideas...

Further education should only be funded if it's useful to society, necessary or promotes the advancement of knowledge.

Any further education establishment is free to run any course it chooses, with any number of places, so long as they can get them funded. The students themselves should not pay fees, as the courses are, by definition, necessary or useful to society.

How would this work?

Simple - employers pay for the course 'slots' up-front with specific institutions on the basis of the quality of their courses and graduates. For larger companies, they are rewarded with tax breaks when they employ a graduate of a funded course on the full value of the funding, plus the first year's salary of the new employee (as an incentive/reward). If they don't hire as planned, they lose the tax break. If they employ more than planned, they receive an addtional, but smaller tax break.

The employers get a say in the structure and content of the course, ensuring it meets their expected needs (no more complaining of graduates who don't have the necessary skills).

Non-profit employers such as the NHS, local government / civil service, have a proportion of their budget determined by these advance investments. If they don't hire in the future, their budgets are cut according to performance agaist planned intakes.

Academic institutions may sponsor places on courses themselves and receive funding, on the basis of planned post-graduate activity, e.g. PhD places, research projects, academic positions. If they are not able to generate the external funding or sponsorship of these planned activities, they have their funding cut in the future. This covers the advancement of knowledge for more societally marginal subjects.

Small businesses may not be able to afford to pay for course places (including for vocational courses and apprenticeship associated training) up front, but may still 'sponsor' places. If they sponsor a place, they receive an up-front tax break of an average 1st year's salary spread across the duration of the course. If they do not hire at the end of it, this must be repaid.

Financially, this means that the burden of further education is partially lifted from both government and individuals. Government can redirect these funds towards other activties promoting economic growth, which in turn drives more jobs in the future. The tax breaks 2-3 years down the line are paid for by this economic growth and the revenue from the future employment commitments.

Students have a greater expectation of graduate employment as the courses are based on expected requirements. They do not need to be employed by the source of the funding for their course, but their course will at least meet the specific needs of employers. They may also be able to obtain summer jobs/internships with the employers providing funding.

Employers have a more direct input into courses and may even participate in the delivery of education - bringing the theory and practice more in sync. The long term nature of the funding means that they need to think more strategically and consider where they want to be in 3/4/10 years and what people / skills they will need to support this.

Academic instituations will find themselves having to become more relevant in short order. Courses which do not generate demand will be dropped very quickly, and funding will naturally flow to the highest quality institutions. Other institutions will respond by becoming more competitive in order to attract the funding away from the more successful institutions.

Not very Clarkson, I know, but I do think it fixes a few problems all in one...
( Fireflier La la la la, not listening on, Fri 23 Sep 2011, 11:57, 4 replies)

Ooh, patronage.
Take that, innovation!
( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Fri 23 Sep 2011, 12:23, closed)

But but but...
Education gives benefits to society that are beyond what is needed for the economy, the job market and the needs of employers.

Would you want to live in a country where nobody understood, say, history? Or rather, where the only historians were either self-taught amateurs or corporate stooges with an agenda?

What about a country where the only people who studied politics were politicians? Or where the works of Shakespeare were only understood at the level of a layman audience? What if the route to understanding the philosophy of science became blocked to those who would want to practice science?

Why would you want to bring all education and every individual's drive for self improvement to the beck and call of corporate interests? Maybe you'd be happy living in a cultural backwater, knowing that only the powerful, wealthy and privileged had access to knowledge that isn't directly beneficial to economic growth. I wouldn't.
(leviticus no longer likes the cut of your gib on, Fri 23 Sep 2011, 12:50, closed)

Balls.
It sounded like a decent enough plan. Then I read your counter-argument, and now I realise that you are both right.

Bugger. I just don't know what it right any more.
(dchurch bah, Fri 23 Sep 2011, 15:34, closed)

Just make it illegal for a business to require a qualification...
...that they have not already tried and failed to send an eligible existing employee on a company-funded course to learn.

Employers want the skills. Employers should pay for them. (Above a certain level, anyway - postgraduate for starters.)
( shinyshinyscalp less a man, more a way of life, Fri 23 Sep 2011, 13:09, closed)