Where are the big ideas on education funding?

The big controversy of the past week has been that of how to fund higher education, following a report which wants to introduce unlimited tuition fees for courses in England.

There are of course two main factors which have lead to this situation arising; firstly the increasing number of students going to university (or other higher education providers) and the recession which has left the government with much less money to spend.

In all the furore that has followed this report - not least as the UK government accepted its recommendations - the focus has been completely on the extent (if any) to which students should have to pay for their own education; however there has been little discussion of some other relevant issues.

It is of course a valid discourse to consider who is most liable to pay for a student's education. The student obviously gains by increasing their qualifications and so earning potential (although it is debatable by how much). The country benefits by having a better qualified workforce that (arguably) produces better services and creates more wealth.

However the reality of these points is for discussion elsewhere, instead this post aims to consider if there are alternative actions to do with higher education which could at least minimise the contribution students may have to make to fund their studies. It's also a chance to consider if we can improve the way education at this level is provided.

In a Scottish sense there is one striking suggestion - should the four-year degree continue? In England students generally complete Honours courses over three rather than four years. There are obviously reasons for this including the different schooling systems in the two countries but should this continue?

If we are concerned with issues of graduate debt then for many courses, not least in the arts and social sciences sector, then it is hard to justify such a system, beyond the need to preserve a 'Scottish identity'. Professional degrees such as medicine have legal limits about how long must be spent studying them and so are a different issue.

Most graduates in History, English or such like will not work in a job where they directly use their degree knolwedge each day; instead they will utilise the specific skills the courses taught them. If so would it really make much difference for these courses to be reduced to three years, thus saving the student and government funding costs?

Beyond this it is also worth considering the specific purpose of education and whether or not many higher education courses could be delivered in a different manner, one which would in fact be more beneficial to the students undertaking such studies.

For instance - and this is not picking on any one university, merely giving an example - Glasgow Caledonian University runs a four-year degree course on Entertainment and Events Management. Given the size of this sector in Scotland (and the potential for students beyond these borders) the course content is perfectly acceptable to pursue.

However reading the details about what this course is meant to achieve it is legitimate to ask if these outcomes could not have easily been achieved over three years. Furthermore taking this idea on a stage it's also worth considering if there are more alternatives. For instance if the student completed this course over two or three years alongside direct work experience they would surely be even more prepared for post-studying life.

Achieving this would require a massive shift in how we structure many of our courses. It would also need businesses across the country to be prepared to offer real and valuable work experience to students (not merely getting them to make the tea). The ultimate result though would surely be students that are more ready to enter the workforce, whilst also allowing them some educational freedom too.

The counterargument to changing the structure of post-school education and potentially reducing the number of graduates has always been that countries with a higher number of graduates tend to be more economically prosperous. It's worth noting that the above suggestions do not end tertiary education involvement, merely reform the manner in which it is delivered.

It may be that none of these suggestions would be appropriate for Scottish higher education however it would surely be beneficial to at least discuss them? And an additional advantage of people rejecting these ideas would be that it would force them to make their own suggestions.

Education is obviously of benefit to both the individual and country-at-large, if this was not the case we would simply close down all schools and save a vast sum of money. However we obviously also reach a stage after which education (certainly on a full-time basis) becomes less valuable or we would never leave school.

If the current financial crisis forces a change in the way we fund education (at a post-school level) then it is surely incumbent upon us to consider all issues related to education, including whether or not the way we deliver it is appropriate. Otherwise the net result could be students paying more for a service which falls below standard.