He's CEO...bitch!

Compare and contrast the following two scenarios:

1. A prime minister phones the CEO of a popular social networking service and enlists his support in using the service to foster a public debate on the prime minister's programme of severe public spending cuts. This move is highly publicised, and the prime minister is consequently hailed as 'net-savvy'.

2. Following a spree of violence from a recently-released prisoner, a prime minister contacts a popular social networking service in order to complain that some users of that service have posted messages that appear to support the actions of the ex-prisoner. The social networking service declines to remove the messages on the grounds that the site promotes public debate about current affairs.

Discuss.

He's CEO...bitch!

Compare and contrast the following two scenarios:

1. A prime minister phones the CEO of a popular social networking service and enlists his support in using the service to foster a public debate on the prime minister's programme of severe public spending cuts. This move is highly publicised, and the prime minister is consequently hailed as 'net-savvy'.

2. Following a spree of violence from a recently-released prisoner, a prime minister contacts a popular social networking service in order to complain that some users of that service have posted messages that appear to support the actions of the ex-prisoner. The social networking service declines to remove the messages on the grounds that the site promotes public debate about current affairs.

Discuss.

Deja vu

So, Vince Cable is proposing a graduate tax. Haven't we been here before?

It's been a while since I posted about HE funding (posts passim), but it's worth repeating some of the highlights:

• Back in 1997, the Dearing Report recommended that because "those with higher education qualifications are the main beneficiaries [of higher education], through improved employment prospects and pay", "graduates in work should make a greater contribution to the costs of higher education in future". The report goes on to recommend an income contingent scheme along the lines of the Australian Higher Education Contribution Scheme.
• Richard Gombrich's article from 2000 is still worth reading, and an indication of what HE is likely to suffer in the lifetime of this government.
• Roy Hattersley was generally right in 2002, and he's still generally right now.
• The then Education Secretary Charles Clarke heavily hinted at a graduate tax back in 2003. It didn't happen. Instead, we got top-up fees by a vote of 316:311.
• A graduate tax will not be hypothecated, therefore Universities UK will not support it.
• A graduate tax will take over forty years to reach steady state (being the period between graduation and retirement), but HE will continue to require support from other sources during this period. Ignore this at your peril.
• David Willetts is wrong. Before he starts calling for us to "give more value to students and taxpayers", he should be aware that per-capita tertiary funding fell by 50% over the twenty years to 2000. During the same period, staff:student ratios fell from 1:9 to 1:17 (or 1:23 if research funding is excluded). The increase in funding under the last government did not substantially correct this. How much more value does he think there is to give?

I could say more, but not without repeating things that I've said over the past decade.

Deja vu

So, Vince Cable is proposing a graduate tax. Haven't we been here before?

It's been a while since I posted about HE funding (posts passim), but it's worth repeating some of the highlights:

• Back in 1997, the Dearing Report recommended that because "those with higher education qualifications are the main beneficiaries [of higher education], through improved employment prospects and pay", "graduates in work should make a greater contribution to the costs of higher education in future". The report goes on to recommend an income contingent scheme along the lines of the Australian Higher Education Contribution Scheme.
• Richard Gombrich's article from 2000 is still worth reading, and an indication of what HE is likely to suffer in the lifetime of this government.
• Roy Hattersley was generally right in 2002, and he's still generally right now.
• The then Education Secretary Charles Clarke heavily hinted at a graduate tax back in 2003. It didn't happen. Instead, we got top-up fees by a vote of 316:311.
• A graduate tax will not be hypothecated, therefore Universities UK will not support it.
• A graduate tax will take over forty years to reach steady state (being the period between graduation and retirement), but HE will continue to require support from other sources during this period. Ignore this at your peril.
• David Willetts is wrong. Before he starts calling for us to "give more value to students and taxpayers", he should be aware that per-capita tertiary funding fell by 50% over the twenty years to 2000. During the same period, staff:student ratios fell from 1:9 to 1:17 (or 1:23 if research funding is excluded). The increase in funding under the last government did not substantially correct this. How much more value does he think there is to give?

I could say more, but not without repeating things that I've said over the past decade.