From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Ontario "socialism"
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 23:57:40 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.192650.33978@bas-a.bcc.ac.uk> uctlxpd@ucl.ac.uk (Peter Bartlett) writes:
>golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>
>>The solution to the funding crisis in higher education is to reform
>>the way it is financed.  The solution I would advocate is to replace
>>direct government funding of universities with a student voucher 
>>system, where any qualified student would be eligible for voucher
>>to spend at the institution of their choice...the voucher would
>>be considered a loan which could be paid back by paying back the
>>loan directly, specified types of service, or through a higher
>>marginal income tax rate for a period of time.
>
>>There would be several advantages to such a system, the most important
>>being that institutions would have to compete for students to get
>>their financing, and this would lead to a greater emphasis on
>>quality teaching...       
>
>I'm debating as to whether this is simply a red herring or not.  When I
>went to university in Ontario (as late as the mid-1980's), you had to 
>*apply* to get in.  And universities were funded according to the number of
>students they got (FCE's, or full course equivalents, they were called).
>So if universities are still primarily paid according to the number of students,what is the big difference advocated by Gerald?
>

The difference is that you must stick that voucher in the hand of the
student and force the university to interact with the student rather
than with the government.  Then when a students association goes to
a university administration and complains about the quality of teaching
or the size of classed, they will have some clout...they will have their
vouchers...and will be able to walk away with them.  If the university
is taking their enrollment numbers to a government bureaucrat for
numbers, there is no serious threat to the jobs of everyone at the
university...if half the student body decides to withhold their
vouchers, the university administration and faculty will take notice.

I'm essentially talking about privatising the university system...
the government will fund students, and students will fund the
university. 

>Secondly, I find it difficult to believe that further emphasis on packing the
>students in will really improve education.  What it means is that universities
>become economically viable when they have large lectures and few highly paid
>staff (and *don't* give me grief on this-- I am watching it here in England.
>Apart from Oxford and Cambridge, I have grave reservations about whether one
>can get what we from Ontario would consider a quality undergraduate education
>here.  And notice that Oxford and Cambridge have lots of money from 
>endowments-- they are financially the institutions *least* dependent on 
>student enrolment for their economic continuation).
>

What student is going to give their voucher to a school that treats them
like "shit".  I'm talking about a system where universities are almost
entirely dependent on their student enrollment for their economic
continuation.  The reason why there tends to be lousy teaching and
large classes at most universities is exactly because universities
are not dependent on their student enrollment for their survival.
That is what I would want to change by funding students instead of
funding universities.

Gerald


Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics