The cost-benefit analysis on education

MiaS has just had a chap round to quote for a new boiler. He seemed smart enough, but as the part of the talk afterwards about the benefits and advantages of this proposition started to stretch on I started to brace myself for the key detail, the price. And it was just as well that I did. Ouch - I could perhaps still expect to save money over the next 10 years, but most of the benefit would be going in the cost of the a certain gas company's services. ( The fact that I might still do it shows they have their pricing point just about right. )

Today the MSM is full of horror stories about student fees being uncapped ( or to put it another way more of the fees being paid by students, less by the general tax payer. Since the general taxpayer is, I'm guessing, much poorer than graduates this is a negative redistribution which is what makes some of the left's defence of it hard to understand. They use a spurious argument about putting poorer students of University - which is an argument that fails on so many levels - including the fact its the poor the state tax collector is robbing to pay for all of this anyway.)

The Universities will need to explain the benefits of these course more fully than the "education is good guff" we normally get, and then they will have to judge from the reaction if they have their pricing points right.

Of course ( no pun intended ) there is loads of room for innovation in the tertiary education market. Cost could be brought radically down. Indeed I've seen this done twenty years ago as Aston University which instead of rolling up a dying when the Red Bricks persuaded the Govt to cut its and Salford's grant by about a third made the necessary changes and became one of the UK's top universities. ( Indeed for all those who bang on about public school types dominating University, Aston is dominated by state alumni and does very well thank you. )

Now there are factors such as reputation which mean that some Universities can charge highly for a poor product, in value terms, but where employers are still happy enough and hence it'll make economic sense to pay their high fees. But surely there is a massive gap in the market developing here for quality and value.

Wat Tyler has all the figures over at Burning our money. MiaS can remember such data coming out from the economist a while back showing the added earning potential of doing a degree. ( Hint if you a chap studying microbiology will actually damage you economically ).

There are issues about certain Universities being able to protect their real market - that for blue chip employers taking their graduates - but these could be addressed.

Its time to sober up and face facts. Tertiary education is not the universal good and benefit that has become an unquestionable article of political faith. Its time for the iconoclasts to get to work.

Why is taxpayer's money spent on...

... advertising for a college open day ?

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.2

Damaging allegations about Warmism and Science

The following letter has been posted in full by James Delingpole on his blog in the Telegraph.

It speaks for itself and raises issue that really should ring alarm bells in our government with its plans to commit billions to the faith of Warmism at times on national financial austerity and when it will damage the chances of the growth we need to pay of the disastrous levels of debt Labour have saddled us all with.

Dear Curt:
When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago). Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?

How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:

1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate

2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer “explanatory” screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.

3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.

4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.

5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members’ interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.

6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.

APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?

I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.

I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.
Hal

Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety
Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)

Why do degrees cost so much ?

Various headlines are flying round about the prospect that the cost of degrees may have to be born by those who most directly benefit from them. ( I've just seen one at £80k in the Daily Mail. I'm slightly at a loss as to why only evil middle class students need to pay these bills - surely every student benefits equally and should be charged the same. )

What's strange is there is not enough effort to ask why they are so expensive.

I guess this will become more of a concern when people pay for them directly rather than socialising the cost to other people - when the cost is of no consequence to the individual.

Given that we are competing with Eastern Europe, China, Brazil & India its perhaps time to look at our cost base and ask some hard questions.

Cameron's Ted Heath moment approaches and the country should hold its breath

There are manoeuvres to try to get the Coalition to back away from the necessary austerity. There are reports of a Treasury plan B involving putting some cuts back ( I wonder if that isn't always the case and in many ways it would be worrying if the Treasury didn't always develop alternative scenarios - but they are great for leaking ).

Chris Huhne has given what might be an ill advised interview ( though in politics you can never be sure it isn't the intention ).

The press contains warning about the international situation, and the friction of unintended consequences of any change in taxation and hand outs has already cause much consternation ( though mostly amongst journalists who are in the main group impacted ).

So here we are - apparently Ted Heath knew the Unions had to be dealt with in the 70's, but he lacked the nerve and frankly cunning of Lady Thatcher in carrying out the needed reforms to save the country from left wing destitution.

We all know the debt has to be brought back under control and repaid. But if David Cameron flinches now then it will be another Conservative leader in a decades time who has to confront the same problem - after deadbeat #RedEd and his shallow talent pool shadow cabinet have made things far worse.

So Dave - what's it going to be ?

Further: For those interested in the full horror of our situation read Watt Tyler here.

The Martyrdom of Miss Snuffy

As I feared the left are moving to punish and crush Miss Snuffy - the ex-Marxist teacher who has realised that left wing attitudes are really just keeping poor children poor and dared to stand up at this years Conservative conference to say so.

She has been sent home for the rest of the week whilst the governors and head try to figure out "what to do".

Her current head is one Dr Irene Bishop who apparently allowed a certain political activity at her school a while back. ( However - a certain cycling Mayor has taught a Latin lesson at her school - so perhaps we shouldn't jump to conclusions ! )

The Left are viscous(H/T Tim Worstall - duh) vicious and desperate to defend the pain and damage they think its their right to inflict on children - as part of their campaign to bring about the destitution that will allow their socialist utopia to be created.

Many people think they are just misguided, but I'm becoming convinced that the damage they do is deliberate.

I dare say Katharine Birbalsingh's career will continue, but perhaps not where she is most effective.

Update: Iain Dale has more information on the political activity of Irene Bishop in his update here.

See also: Tory teacher sent home from school.

I wonder if the BBC has anything on it - off to look .... Just had a look (12:30pm 8Oct10) - not a sausage. No real surprise there I suppose given the BBC's left wing editorial viewpoint.

7pm Fri 8th Oct - looks like she's going to be allowed to return to work. The Telegraph reports that parental support has been key. Too right - all of us parents want to see teachers like Miss Snuffy teaching our kids ! I fear however this won't be the end of the trouble she will get from the left.

Still nothing on the BBC of course ....

9Oct - Katharine Birbalsingh has written a short article in the Daily Mail reiterating her points here. Looks to me like she's not going to let this go...

In the National Interest

And as if the reinforce the point Ireland has just had its credit rating downgraded by Fitch. Frankly I think we should consider putting Labour minister on trial for the mess they caused for their personal selfish interests.

Enemy of the almighty state

Of goes the alarm this morning and into my barely conscious brain goes the latest line from Radio4's Today program.

The mischief fromfor today is that Tories, at least some ( in BBC terms bad Tories ), would really like to shrink the state.

On comes Dan Han to explain how the efficiency of the state drops of after 20%. Then there was a Nick Boyles (?) on about how he loved the NHS but that didn't make us socialists like the Germans.

Of course the BBC is making trouble - but on this occasion they also have a key point. The contest is between those who want to make the case that a large parasitic sector is bad for the patient, and those who don't want to lose votes from those is state dependency.

We should be making the bold case, but I fear we won't.

Watching last nights Newsnight ( in part ) I saw the reasons that an alleged Tory insider had leaked to Newsnight for the less than stellar performance in the election. The lack of a decontaminated brand came up - and this is the argument that the don't scare the horses brigade will use. Unfortunately it wasn't the case - we failed to be bold enough. And its a mistake we could be about to repeat.

If we want to take on the state that has grown to self sustaining parasitic proportions we're going to have to bolder and the target of a lot more Radio 4 Today attacks. IMHO.

Getting the Tory pain in first

Over the last few weeks we've had plenty of noise about the defence review and cuts that are to come. This makes Conservatives very nervous, after all we are the party that traditionally support a strong national defence. ( Yes you can find New Labour triangulation guff saying something else - but their deeds on helicopters and funding show otherwise. )

Now we have the abolition of child support for much of the middle classes - which will dominate the media today as journalists compete with each other to find the starkest example of that journalistic gold "the loser". Odds are the big losers will be Tory voters.

So what's up ?

I suspect this is a deliberate policy so when the rest of the inevitable cuts come middle England will say we've suffered too, and their hearts will bleed a little less as the realisation that Labour really have run the country into the ground finally takes hold.

Further: Peter Oborne making some similar point in the Telegraph 15 Oct 2010 here.