download this debate as a PDF - The Economist

Economist Debates: The cost of higher education
outrage felt by those who have to pay through the nose for
something that until recently was far cheaper, or even free.
But I suspect that the biggest reason for the “no” vote was
that the very many readers who thought the cost of higher
education should be shared between students and taxpayers
tended to vote against the proposition. That made the task of
Alison Wolf rather difficult. As she pointed out, nowhere in
the world do fees from students in higher education cover
the entire cost of their tuition; nor did she want to argue that
they should. Simply stated, her central point was that those
countries where students pay nothing at all are making an
unjust and unwise decision about how to spend taxpayers’
money. No one will be surprised to be told that The
Economist agrees entirely.
As the number of students in higher education soars, it
remains to be seen how long those countries that charge
nothing for higher education can continue to do so—and what
are the implications for quality. Everywhere else,
governments, citizens, employers, students and parents will
continue to debate how the cost should be shared between
them. The Economist will be reporting on their conclusions—
and the consequences.
Though we have counted our votes and declared a winner,
you can still comment on the debate and its outcome until
Monday November 17th. I look forward to seeing what else
you have to say.
61