A discussão sobre a subida das propinas para níveis menos distantes do custo real dos cursos é urgente em Portugal. Não só pelos problemas orçamentais do país, mas também pelas graves distorções fomentadas no sistema de ensino superior pela dependência quase exclusiva do financiamento do Estado e pelos mecanismos para-estatais de avaliação e distribuição de recursos capturados por grupos de interesses firmemente instalados. Tudo boas razões para ler com atenção este excelente artigo de Philip Booth: How to raise fees the painless way
The cap leads to direct government subsidy of university places and this, in turn, leads the Government to restrict the number of places on particular courses, preventing successful courses from expanding and others from contracting. There is also an equity argument in favour of raising the cap – why should poor taxpayers pay for the education of those with much better prospects?
(…)
Currently, all universities charge the same fee for all courses because it is capped at such a low level. Someone with a degree from a former polytechnic learning in huge classes pays the same as a Cambridge undergraduate with, more or less, personal tutorials.
If universities could charge their own additional fees there would be competition between courses and universities. Yes, mass tuition in a course of doubtful academic rigour may not lead to such high potential earnings as a course in economics at the LSE – but the fee would be less too.
(…)
This income would more realistically reflect the cost of higher education. Incentives would also be aligned in ways that were beneficial to both universities and students: if universities had a poor reputation for teaching, students would go elsewhere – possibly taking courses with lower fees.
Even more pertinently, if a university did not have a good reputation for academic standards, the long-term job prospects of its students would be poorer and the university would be less likely to receive the income-contingent, deferred fee.
Overall, this mechanism seems like a sound, pragmatic way forward: competition should be effective; standards should rise; universities will be more independent of government funding and the poor will still be subsidised.
Pedro Sette-Câmara
André Azevedo Alves
Carlos Guimarães Pinto
Helder Ferreira
Bruno Garschagen
João Luís Pinto
LA
Bruno Alves
Miguel Botelho Moniz
ruicarmo
Miguel Noronha
Elizabete Dias
António Costa Amaral (AA)
LT
Rui Oliveira
BZ
dos ∫antos
André Abrantes Amaral
planca12
rui a.
Rodrigo Adão da Fonseca
Adolfo Mesquita Nunes
Michael Seufert
Luciano
Carlos M. Fernandes
Maria João Marques
jtcb
Nuno Branco
elisabetejoaquim
filipeabrantes
Tomás Belchior
Bruno Gonçalves
Ricardo G. Francisco
Tiago Loureiro
Ricardo Campelo de Magalhães
Filipe Faria
Ricardo Arroja
no caso da fac de farmácia de lisboa a generalidade dos profs devia pagar para ocupar o cargo
a melhor reforma é a dos profs e não haver vínculos à função pública
a maioria não vale um peido (ruidoso ou silencioso)
o rectângulo mumificou-se
Comentário por balde-de-cal — Fevereiro 12, 2010 @ 21:25
A maneira mais simples de melhorar o ensino superior é ter as universidades a depender tanto quanto possível dos seus “clientes”: os alunos, as empresas e a sociedade em geral. Faria muito mais pela qualificação e pela inovação do que qualquer “desígnio” nacional inventado pelo Governo.
Comentário por Tomás Belchior — Fevereiro 13, 2010 @ 10:35