Originally Posted by Scucca

He's stated the obvious really, but you can see how the fellow supported public education. The problem, however, is that simply increasing tertiary education places (as in the case of Britain) is insufficient to narrow the income distribution.

Come now, you have the required material to point your finger in the air and slightly sigh. This is about changes to social mobility generated by changes in education investment. Instead of it providing a means to enable the more able student to break the class shackles, it has further imprisoned the Brits. At best, this suggests that the education system struggles to meet the human capital goal that the Adam Smith fans hope for. We're not getting the most able student investing such that the return from education is maximised. This partially reflects wealth differences (in simple investment talk, the silver spoon spod can borrow at a lower interest rate given his background). Attempting to remove this problem via university grants has not worked (although to be fair, the student never received a sufficiently high subsidy). Students drop out further down the education system (thus, the preference for 'further education' subsidies)

Feckin ell thats an argument and a half (for Utah!)

Whinge n whine from someone that hasn't got to the first base in the debate. Limp their and then get back to me...