much nicely to say about democracy, but there are days when it does not show itself from its best side. Monday was such a day. It was then that a strange alliance of the Labour party, the centre party and the Progress party, trumfet through in Parliament that the government's proposal for a new financing scheme for higher education shall ensure that universities and colleges are financially rewarded when their students get relevant job after their studies or not.
, in short, a terribly bad idea. There was a proposal in Progress with good reason not adopted for at Granavolden, but as they got sold at bargain prices to the Labour party, although the new and small sessions sengepartneren obviously don't have any faith in this myself.
Nina Sandberg, that sits in the utdanningskomiteen for the Labour party, declares himself well satisfied with the arrangement – interestingly enough, since the same Sandberg two years ago called the same suggestions for "small thought". The "Rigid micromanagement, where schools only receive funding for studies that currently have good transition from studies to work, it will work against multiple intentions," said Sandberg at the time. It is also striking that the Progress party is working hard to present the changes as important and that the Labor party, just as persistently trying to make them unimportant.
Jonas Gahr Støre speaking as though the proposal barely exists and says that "I can assure that the Labour party neither want to remove philosophers or political scientists", even if, in practice, is that he contributes to. One should not brood long before one comes up with at least seven reasons why the proposal would be both destructive and fundamentally unsustainable.
first: the Proposal implies that the economic future of the universities and university colleges is characterized strongly by something they themselves cannot control. If young people get a job or not is controlled as much by the recession and the upheaval in society that of which studielinjer students select. There are plenty of them who have chosen the so-called safe studies that have woke up five years later and discovered that society no longer is so enthusiastic in what they have to offer: be It the civil engineers for oljeprisfallet in 2017, or journalistspirer that would try to get into a mediebransje in a panic after nettavisrevolusjonen was a fact.
second: Relevance is almost impossible to define. In regards to the humanities and social sciences, there are many who use them as støttefag in the job they end up with. Those studies that are not clean profesjonsstudier will often send people out in the world that will try himself as a self-employed, and gradually build themselves up from nothing. It is wrong about a subject which has many such students should be punished because they can't show the candidates in a permanent job after a few years, or because they'll get more specialized missions for each.- Beyond the
third: the Proposal seeks to remedy a crisis that does not exist. Most students in the Uk come out nice out in the work. To say it with the Sandberg herself, before she tied herself to the mast: "It is not an students who are in the greatest degree contribute to unemployment. In general, it is the opposite – the less education one has, the easier it is to be unemployed".
It does not mean that institutions and government should be working for it to be better match between social needs and the student's competence. But there are many ways to do this, and the government has its methods that are here are far wiser than opposisjonens: Create additional student places for, for example nurses and teachers, and facilitate better and more agile continuing education.
fourth: It should not be so that business and employers should be able to dictate utdanningspolitikken in this country. They are, of course, in its full right to work in order to get their wants and needs met. But these will almost by definition be more short-term and nearsighted than what responsible politicians ' perspective must be. Those who take the policy decisions are responsible for that we generate new knowledge, that we take care of and extend the knowledge we already have, that we are equipped to handle unexpected situations and ensure that students can create new ways to work, instead of obedient to align itself with that which already exists.
fifth: Incentives work, and a proposal such as this will naturally make it less important for the universities and university colleges to maintain education where the road out in the permanent job is not as quick and straight as the other. Many humanities and social sciences will be affected. This testifies again about a distrust of the student population, who will have less to choose from.
sixth: the Proposal is an almost unheard of strike against the academic freedom. Universities and colleges should be independent and critical institutions, which should be free to stake out the roads that they believe are appropriate, and free to investigate the other sectors of society. This is in principle extremely important that they retain their autonomy.
For the seventh: the Proposal testifies to an almost staggering lack of respect for the institutions themselves, which barely had delivered their høringsforslag before partitrioen came brasende and the coup the whole thing. In a process where the different aspirations, objectives and principles must be weighed carefully against each other they came in with a sledgehammer. The timing is bad. It also.
a Lot can yet happen. Even though the government is now required to assess the proposal, these formulations through Parliament on new. It is time to try to make those who are behind, and perhaps, in particular, the party's representatives, sufficiently ashamed that they are thinking about. It should not be so difficult.Turn On the LydErrorAllerede plus customer? Log into herError POSITIVE: the Leader of the Labour party, Jonas Gahr Støre speaking with the Newspaper after today's press conference. Photo: Marte Nyløkken Helseth Show more You can submit your article and opinion piece in Dagbladet here
Want to discuss?Visit Dagbladet debate!