Reinventing education: replace tuition with training income?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Today's calls on the left re. education are usually for no tuitions for higher education. However, when considering the oligopolies or monopolies of professional organizations, should tuitions be replaced altogether with training income for employment careers not unlike national pension benefits or unemployment insurance?

[Die Neue Zeit]

...


In the former Yugoslavia I seem to recall that education wasn't actually free, there was a scheme where various companies (which were under worker's self-management, nominally at least) would sponsor students who were willing to study a field which was in demand at that company in exchange for working there for a few years after
Or something of the sort
Perhaps the way to do is it to have a system whereby we fund those who are seeking education in an area that is in demand
But refrain from funding those who aren't
In order to prevent over-saturation in given fields

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I completely support the idea of training income, largely because it removes one of the main reasons why people support inequality of wages. Higher education is seen as a sacrifice. "I made the effort to go to university, so I deserve to be paid more" - that's how the thinking goes. Well, if university is not a sacrifice, but rather a source of income, then that argument is completely undermined. And we can safely establish income equality between people with different education levels.

Of course, some measures will be needed to ensure that the training income system is not abused. For one thing, there should be a limit on the number of university degrees that a person may pursue, so that we don't get people becoming "professional students" for their entire lives. Also, regarding this issue:


Perhaps the way to do is it to have a system whereby we fund those who are seeking education in an area that is in demand
But refrain from funding those who aren't
In order to prevent over-saturation in given fields
I think all students should get the same training income, but the number of available seats in areas with demand should be greater than the number of available seats in areas with little demand. So you can get paid to study something that no one really cares about, but you'll have to compete with other students for the tiny number of seats available in that field.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

This is a really interesting idea. I'm surprised I've never heard of it. Is it known under some other name that I could research it under?

If not, go write a paper and publish it. That's a really good idea. As for the professional student issue, I disagree. I think social benefit should be incorporated into the education process. For all intensive purposes, I think people should remain a professional student for life. Why do we have doctors who are able to be years behind on current research? Or who haven't opened their text in years when, if they had, they would've known little Johnny had a rare early sign of cancer?

If work and education were merged completely, I think society would benefit all the more. Education would, of course, require a complete restructuring that limits the competition and stresses. However, that's the same problem for most people in the workforce anyway.

I think this would work because people naturally like education. They naturally dislike how we educate them. When you shock someone every time they eat a chocolate cookie, they'll dislike chocolate cookies. That's not the way things actually are without the interference from capitalist structures.

[MarxSchmarx]

It's important to distinguish between higher, primary, and secondary education. It seems higher education is the focus of the discussion, but there is no reason why many of these principles can't apply to secondary education.


This is a really interesting idea. I'm surprised I've never heard of it. Is it known under some other name that I could research it under?
Some companies already offer many of these benefits, for example in the form of helping to pay for a worker's education. In fact a few people in my family have/had their company pay for at least part of their night classes to pursue degrees in business-related fields while they are working at the company. Of course part of this is so that the company can boast that "we have X MBAs working on your project" but I am almost certain somebody has published a paper somewhere about whether this sort of scheme benefits the firm. It seems like a straightforward thing to test.

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

For one thing, there should be a limit on the number of university degrees that a person may pursue, so that we don't get people becoming "professional students" for their entire lives.

People shouldn't be paid to study an unlimited amount of degrees, but they should definitely be allowed to study for however long they want.

[(A)narcho-Matt]

Today's calls on the left re. education are usually for no tuitions for higher education. However, when considering the oligopolies or monopolies of professional organizations, should tuitions be replaced altogether with training income for employment careers not unlike national pension benefits or unemployment insurance?

The current model of education is focused more on careers than actual education. Students already get bursaries, grants etc if they are studying in an area that is going to be benificial to industry.

I think the argument comes down to what the purpose of Higher Education is. In the UK the Labour govt and the National Union of Students hold the view that HE is there to prepare us for the workplace. We reject this view because we see education as something different, as a way of understanding abstract concepts and questioning the world around us.

To only push students towards subjects that are beneficial to industry (whether that is capitalist or worker controlled) would be to deny the student the oportunities to study just for the sake of it.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The current model of education is focused more on careers than actual education. Students already get bursaries, grants etc if they are studying in an area that is going to be benificial to industry.

That's the point. The tenth point in the ten-point program outlined in the Communist Manifesto calls for the "combination of education with industrial production."

Also, it depends on the industry. I don't see law students getting bursaries and grants, yet they enter the unproductive law profession to make shitloads of money.


To only push students towards subjects that are beneficial to industry (whether that is capitalist or worker controlled) would be to deny the student the opportunities to study just for the sake of it.

What is being proposed here is a carrot approach and not a stick approach. The obvious stick approach would be to ban studies like philosophy, certain fine arts, etc.




Some companies already offer many of these benefits, for example in the form of helping to pay for a worker's education. In fact a few people in my family have/had their company pay for at least part of their night classes to pursue degrees in business-related fields while they are working at the company. Of course part of this is so that the company can boast that "we have X MBAs working on your project" but I am almost certain somebody has published a paper somewhere about whether this sort of scheme benefits the firm. It seems like a straightforward thing to test.

That's individualized, though. I'm thinking of a scheme similar to unemployment insurance contributions required of employers. The bigger pool formed from these employer contributions would be the central source of training income disbursements.

On the way home, I thought about the class-strugglist ramifications of this proposal: it would be one of the select few demands in a properly formulated minimum program that would come into direct conflict with the interests of a Marxist-defined coordinator class (mid-level corporate managers, doctors without businesses but with underlings, academics with research staff, etc. but not including lawyers and other unproductives as per in parecon theory).

Moreover, with this kind of demand, would "the institution of income-based or preferrably class-based affirmative action, especially in the sphere of education" be redundant?

[MarxSchmarx]

On the way home, I thought about the class-strugglist ramifications of this proposal: it would be one of the select few demands in a properly formulated minimum program that would come into direct conflict with the interests of a Marxist-defined coordinator class (mid-level corporate managers, doctors without businesses but with underlings, academics with research staff, etc. but not including lawyers and other unproductives as per in parecon theory).


Having not given the matter much thought, I suspect the impact on the coordinator class would be very much of a mixed bag. For instance, on some level we might be tempted to say increasing the pool of doctors at society's expense would lower the power of practicing doctors of the sort you describe would suffer. But on the other hand, many doctors without their own business are specialists (GPs generally have their own practices) which means that if you work in one speciality, you will need people in other specialties to compliment your work, and therefore it would be in your interest to foster other specialists, and better if they come from the ranks of your technicians for example. Nor do I think that of the examples you mentioned, this is unique to those in the medical profession. For instance, plenty of academics already engage in collaboration with other academics to compliment their own limited skills.


Moreover, with this kind of demand, would "the institution of income-based or preferrably class-based affirmative action, especially in the sphere of education" be redundant?

The principle of abolishing class hierarchy, which presumably what the sort of affirmative action described here seeks to accomplish, should take precedence over an individual's career mobility, which is what this proposal seems to be about. As such, while you raise a valid point that the two are very similar, their underlying motivations are still distinct.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Hmmm, I thought the underlying motivations were reverse: career mobility for affirmative action and attacks on obscene inequality of wages for training income. :confused:

Care to elaborate?

[MarxSchmarx]

Hmmm, I thought the underlying motivations were reverse: career mobility for affirmative action and attacks on obscene inequality of wages for training income. :confused:

Care to elaborate?

Suppose radiology is THE field to get into for career advancement, and candidate X who is an unknown small town dentist from a middle class family is doing quite well but wants to study radiology, versus candidate Y who is an hospital orderly in a major city who is the first in the family to study medicine wants to study radiology. Odds are candidate Y does not enjoy many of the perogatives the dentist does. However, both are arguably in need of "career advancement".

Suppose there are only a limited number of prospective radiologists that could be trained that year, and both candidates are equal on exam scores etc... Then the orderly should be given the training spot, because while the dentist will enjoy as much career mobility, from the perspective of social inequities making a radiologist out of this orderly does more to promote broader social mobility than having the dentist switch from one technician post to another.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Thanks. Likewise, for unproductive studies like full-time philosophy, affirmative action would help minimize "bourgeois-fication" of the study.