wolfigor
Emperor
In my personal view the state should sponsor high education because it's a value for the country itself.
In the west, the only way to compete internationally is by having the best educated people ... if a country let its education system go down the drain it's destined to see its economy go down in the drain too in the long term.
The approach to support high education is different in many countries.
For example in Italy each university can define its own maximum fees, the more prestigious universities have higher costs (and usually higher ROI for the students).
However the fees are "discounted" depending on your and your family income (Italian stay "at home" far much longer than their north Europeans counterparts).
So if your family income is over a certain threshold you pay full fee, but under that the fee is reduced until goes down to zero for people with income is under a certain level.
If I remember correctly there are 14 levels (brackets) of income.
At the same time one can access to some scholarships.
The Italian system is based uniquely on wealth and tries to equate people to each other: If you can pay, you pay full price, if you are poor you pay less.
It allows people from every class of society to access to high education if they wish to.
The system also take in consideration the fact that in Italy young people remain "under their parents roof" for very long time... being 30 and live with your parents is not shameful.
Rich people pay larger fees indirectly subsidizing their poorer fellows.
The state will gain buy a larger number of educated workforce (better job, better salaries, better tax revenues and consumer spending)
The MOST expensive university in Italy will cost you a maximum of 7000£ a year (if your yearly income is more than 75000 / 64000£ ).
The Scandinavian (Swedish) system is a bit different.
The students get loans from the state at a very low interest rate to be paid back once at work.
Part of the loan is in reality free money (no need to pay back) the other part is a real loan.
The amount of money you receive depends on how many exams you pass... good students get more.
This is a way, again to equate people: rich and poor can both access all higher education, with a small twist to give more to worthy students.
As far as I know there is not difference in the money you receive depending on the type of study you choose..
The system is not strongly based on wealth because Scandinavian young get "kicked out" of their parents' home when they are 18.
The state is a loaning entity in this case, with a long term bet to get paid back when the students will get a job (you have to pay back the loan when you have a job, but you dont pay if you don't have a job).
Naturally the state also gain from a more educated population, better jobs, etc.
Unfortunately (in my personal view) the system gives the same money to students of engineering as students of medieval Aramaic poetry (in which cases the chances of ROI are pretty much zero).
UK system is just screwed.
If you interested in the cost of studying in a university in Italy:
In the west, the only way to compete internationally is by having the best educated people ... if a country let its education system go down the drain it's destined to see its economy go down in the drain too in the long term.
The approach to support high education is different in many countries.
For example in Italy each university can define its own maximum fees, the more prestigious universities have higher costs (and usually higher ROI for the students).
However the fees are "discounted" depending on your and your family income (Italian stay "at home" far much longer than their north Europeans counterparts).
So if your family income is over a certain threshold you pay full fee, but under that the fee is reduced until goes down to zero for people with income is under a certain level.
If I remember correctly there are 14 levels (brackets) of income.
At the same time one can access to some scholarships.
The Italian system is based uniquely on wealth and tries to equate people to each other: If you can pay, you pay full price, if you are poor you pay less.
It allows people from every class of society to access to high education if they wish to.
The system also take in consideration the fact that in Italy young people remain "under their parents roof" for very long time... being 30 and live with your parents is not shameful.
Rich people pay larger fees indirectly subsidizing their poorer fellows.
The state will gain buy a larger number of educated workforce (better job, better salaries, better tax revenues and consumer spending)
The MOST expensive university in Italy will cost you a maximum of 7000£ a year (if your yearly income is more than 75000 / 64000£ ).
The Scandinavian (Swedish) system is a bit different.
The students get loans from the state at a very low interest rate to be paid back once at work.
Part of the loan is in reality free money (no need to pay back) the other part is a real loan.
The amount of money you receive depends on how many exams you pass... good students get more.
This is a way, again to equate people: rich and poor can both access all higher education, with a small twist to give more to worthy students.
As far as I know there is not difference in the money you receive depending on the type of study you choose..
The system is not strongly based on wealth because Scandinavian young get "kicked out" of their parents' home when they are 18.
The state is a loaning entity in this case, with a long term bet to get paid back when the students will get a job (you have to pay back the loan when you have a job, but you dont pay if you don't have a job).
Naturally the state also gain from a more educated population, better jobs, etc.
Unfortunately (in my personal view) the system gives the same money to students of engineering as students of medieval Aramaic poetry (in which cases the chances of ROI are pretty much zero).
UK system is just screwed.
If you interested in the cost of studying in a university in Italy:
Spoiler :
