Effective arguing

My dissertation taught me two incredibly eye opening things that I want to remember for the future. Funnily enough, both of these two findings had absolutely nothing to do with the actual topic I was writing about.

"Is it worth going to study at University aged 18 when students finish with so much debt?" This was a seriously popular topic within my social circle, so I studied the pros and cons and wrote my Final Year Dissertation paper on it. Seemed like the smart and sensible thing to do at the time.

It took me a long time to research and write, and I am proud of the finished product (in fact, as a 2 for 1 offer, I'll paste the Abstract and Introduction under this post because it is a real shame that the energy and effort put in to this dissertation will have 0 impact now that University is over!).

However, once I finished, I reread the formalised version of what started with just my personal opinion, and I learned two things that I wasn't very proud of:

1) The initial message I wanted to portray had been watered down by all the frill and long words I had added in to try make me sound more knowledgeable.
2) The conclusion of all the formalised works I quoted to 'back me up' was actually the complete opposite of what I originally felt.

So there it is. My real-life lessons about arguing my point that I learned from completing a dissertation: when I want to communicate my opinion effectively without losing my initial intended message, just say it how it is. The more frills and justification I use, the weaker the message I portray.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

The social consequences of the decision to withdraw government funding toward Higher Education in England.

Abstract 

Highlighting the limitations of each theory, this paper studies the potential consequences of the withdrawal, by the Coalition government, of funding for Higher Education in England. Written after the Browne Report was published in 2010, this decision has been the subject of much debate affecting millions of people across the country. In this paper I find that the reasons for these decisions can in fact be justified, and furthermore have a potential benefit to society which far outweighs that of previous policies attempting to deal with this issue. Theoretically, the new policy can be described as having its roots in a mixed Mill-Rawls theory. Assessing why these two highly regarded theories of justice fail when applied to the issue of fair provision of Higher Education as individual theories, it recommends ways in which shortfalls identified in the new proposals can be corrected.

Introduction

Having proposed to withdraw £2.9 billion of public investment in Higher Education (HE) in England annually until 2015 to reduce public sector borrowing requirements and the deficit, the government has faced uproar by present students, future graduates and parents from across the country. From riots and silent protests to pleading journalism and hateful vandalism, the shift in funding away from partial government provision has been ridiculed by skeptics as being politically motivated and ‘unjust’ to those affected. While student loans for tuition fees will be offered to all potential students in an attempt to ensure that no one is exempt through an inability to pay, problems stem from the risk or relative payoff attached to taking on the debt.

Given that increased intellect, innovation and skills are of the most benefit to graduates, it becomes clear to see how HE is a tool used for improving labour productivity of the future workforce. This increase in productivity allows for higher relative economic growth, social mobility and global competitiveness: imperative for maintaining a high quality of life. 45% of young people currently enter HE and an extra £59billion of output is estimated to be produced annually as a result. However, in recent times, the prosperity of these benefits in England has recently become eroded by countries such as Japan and Korea whose graduates proportionality produce a higher financial output- hence undercutting any gains made in England. The prevention of becoming competitively disadvantaged and having lower quality standards of living thus becomes the principal incentive for reinventing the HE system with such urgency.

This paper acknowledges that emotion and reason - though complementary, and dependent on each other - are different. Chapter 1 attempts to look past the initial reactions over increasing tuition fees and instead approach the idea from a social welfare standpoint: addressing welfare economics as reasoning, and comparing theories of justice to analyse which offers the most plausible logic behind these changes in practise.

Sen (2010, 12) summarised the importance of such reasoning as being “the rule of intellect” (Akbar as cited by Sen, 2010, 39) by looking at injustice through the illustrative paradox of the ‘children and a flute’. Bringing this into the context of education, we argue for whom it may be justified to be given a place at university (assuming there is only one place). Should it be Anne, the candidate with the highest IQ or A Level grades? Bob, the student from a low-income family who struggled to attain the minimum entry requirements? Or Carla, who is passionate about a subject and has already completed research in the field? A Utilitarian would argue that Anne would benefit from the highest marginal utility of university education; hence the one available place should be given to her to increase the average utility of society. Conversely Liberal Egalitarians would be in favour of Bob, arguing that in order to bring society closer to total equality those who are worse off should be made as better off as possible. Libertarian thinkers sympathise with Carla, arguing that she has the right to HE as it is an extension of her being.

After comparing such motives of different ethical theories of justice such as those mentioned above, I have found John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarian ideal of maximising the arithmetic mean of utility to ensure society is made the best off, and John Rawls’ Liberal Egalitarian ideal based on improve fairness in distribution by maximising the utility of those least well off in society, to be the most applicable specifically in pertaining to sustainable provision of HE in terms of society’s collective utility (whereby utility is assumed to be the measure of an individual’s happiness). Neither of these two theories comes without its limitations, as found when using basic examples to test the differences in motives and outcomes of a government following Mill’s approach as assessed in Chapter 2 nor Rawls’ in Chapter 3. Where Mill succeeds in setting policies that theoretically improve total welfare it comes with the opportunity cost of the happiness of those already experiencing low quality of living, which I believe is neither ethically nor economically favourable. Where Rawls succeeds in setting policies that aid those at the bottom to minimise inequality, he hinders those who happen to be better off. This too does not solve the problem of eliminating injustice to all those affected by changes because in practise the regressive nature would outweigh the fairness brought about.

It seems that both theories counteract each other, as shown by mathematical examples which find opposing outcomes resulting in numerous failures to meet objectives. Yet they each propose ideas that can be used to correct the shortcomings of the other. Chapter 4 uses the findings from the previous two chapters to compare potential consequences with the case of funding and its direct effect on tuition fees in England. Assuming universities are non-profit organisations who choose their fees and admission policies in order to enhance social surplus, it is clear that neither pure Mill nor pure Rawlsian policies describe those of the Coalition government. Alternatively they can be described by proposing an intermediate: a mixed Mill-Rawls strategy which takes into account both the weighted average of total utility and the weighted average utility of the least advantaged through fairness, privatisation and information whereby iso-elastic welfare maximisation is the perfect consequence of any policy. I argue that this can best explain government behaviour implemented in England, and that it will produce a better consequence than previous policies.

This paper concludes that the best possible policy would be brought about by universities responding to the proposed changes by using private information about students more accurately to determine optimal fees at a specific degree below their marginal cost to encourage specialisation, producing the most sustainable prospect for the HE system.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Yours truly,
TML.