Jim Eagles: Degrees of education

They didn't have student loans when I left school and I never went to university anyway, so I find myself somewhat bemused by the fuss about student loans.

As a teenager I had always assumed I would go to university, get a science degree and become a biochemist. I even had a little laboratory in a spare room at my grandparents' house.

However, when the time came my parents felt they could not afford to have me go through university, and as a naive 16-year-old the prospect of paying my way by the traditional method of holiday employment at a freezing works seemed remote, so I abandoned biochemistry.

There was nothing unusual in that. While we babyboomers are reckoned to have enjoyed the golden days of the welfare state, the fact is that only a minority went on to any sort of tertiary education. We certainly didn't have the option of low-interest student loans.

I did come close to taking a far more dangerous course, signing up to one of the teacher training scholarships they used to offer in those days. I'm sure I'd have been a terrible teacher.

Instead I got a job as a cadet reporter on the Herald and have had a fantastic time ever since.

Would my life have been even better if I'd had the benefits of a university education? Maybe.

Over the years I have paid to go on courses on subjects I wanted to learn more about - political science, economics, industrial relations, international affairs, Maori - and acquired a hotchpotch of knowledge, mostly from books.

A few years ago my wife, for whom university was financially unthinkable as a teenager, tried the university experience, passed several papers and hugely enjoyed herself. She thinks I should do something similar but I'm not so sure.

On the whole I haven't been particularly impressed by the courses I've attended that have been presided over by university lecturers. I think I might be better off continuing to read books and magazines, surf the web and listen to talks and television programmes.

That's a choice I can make and, really, choice is what it's all about.

Even the present Government, which has hugely increased the tax take during its six years in power, recognises there is a limit to the amount of money you can take from working people, investors and companies.

There is never going to be enough in the budget to satisfy the demand in areas such as health, education, superannuation, child welfare, housing, benefit levels, the environment, law and order and so on. That means choices have to be made over what the available funds are spent on.

One of those choices at present - though it hasn't really been debated - is whether to spend the extra money the Government has found for education on preschool, primary, secondary or tertiary education.

All the evidence I've seen suggests that the greatest value would come from investment in early childhood education which, for some strange reason, always seems to be at the bottom of the financial pecking order. Even with the promises of extra help being thrown about during the recent pre-election policy auction, many children, and especially those most in need, will still have inadequate access to preschool services.

By contrast, tertiary education gobbles up a disproportionately large share of educational funding, despite the fact that it can only ever be available to a limited number.

There is also increasing evidence that, contrary to what may once have been thought, pumping ever more students through universities and polytechnics, doing ever more esoteric courses, is not the magic ingredient for creating a more successful society.

If there is an extra $300 million or $1 billion to be spent on education why not use it to make a range of free, good-quality preschool education - playcentres, kindergartens, private providers and all - available to everyone.

That would give all children the chance of a better start in the education system, regardless of geographical location and family income (and at least we know none of the kiddies will blow the money on cars, trips and fancy sound systems).

If there is money left over after that, I'd like to see it invested in primary education, not least in making it an area where more men want to work as teachers.

As for tertiary education, scholarships will continue to ensure the brightest students can go on to higher things. For the rest, taxpayers will continue to subsidise the cost of courses, and the student loan scheme will give families and individuals a choice about whether to pay the remaining fees.

They can decide for themselves if it's worth borrowing the money and investing it in a university degree.

There is plenty of data to suggest that getting a degree greatly boosts an individual's earning power so it's hard to see why they shouldn't expect to pay for the privilege.

Certainly I've never understood why waiters, labourers and truck drivers should pay higher taxes to fund free education for doctors, veterinarians and lawyers.

Anyone who doesn't think a tertiary education is a wise investment for them can go into the workforce and learn on the job. They, and their employers, can also choose whether to invest in short-term courses to provide added skills.

My parents and I made one choice years ago and I've never regretted it. My wife and I made a different choice with our two daughters and we've never regretted that, either.

* Jim Eagles is the Herald's travel editor