Skip to main content

What if All Higher Educational Institutions be Privatized?

Some time ago I wrote an article explaining why subsidies for higher education is such bad thing to have. It is highly regressive and favors the rich instead of the poor, and might in fact widen the gap between them. But now an idea came across my mind, is it possible to have a completely privatized higher education system? A system where the government does not interfere with the provision of higher education, and let private enterprise work it out.

Let’s start imagining things here. A completely private education system would provide society with the kind of graduates which are needed by the private sector. Private companies will have a stake at how well universities are doing their teachings. It will help make sure they produce the efficient amount of graduates of different subjects. It will make sure that the kind of pedagogy the students receive in university will turn them to useful graduates later on that can work well in the private sector without much more training being necessary.

A good example is Indonesia’s own Bakrie University. As a private group with dozens of subsidiary companies, the Bakrie group has a large incentive to make sure its future employees endured quality education and will be eloquent for their jobs when they graduate. I imagine other private institutions could follow suit, or if establishing their own universities is such a tough ask, they can then invest or buy shares in existing current private universities.

The debate that always arises when this kind of question is put forward is ‘how about the kids from poor families who cannot afford private education?’, or ‘the state should have a responsibility to provide affordable education for the less fortunate’. Now let us think about it. The pricate sector has a huge incentive to make sure the kids that enroll in universities are the best students around, regardless of their economic backgrounds.

Let us twist our mind set a little: we should not think of how privatising higer education means universities will act as business institutions trying to grab as much money from students. Instead, think of it as the private sector needs these universities to produce quality gaduates for them. I believe they will then make sure bright but financially lacking kids will get ahead in the enrollment than the not-so-bright kid with a lot of money. Scholarships and student loans might be provided for these kids. It is simply in their interest to make sure the best kids get in.

A legitimate question to ask though is this: will the private sector backed education system underproduce graduates of subjects which are not beneficial for the private sector, but might be good for the society in general to have? Let’s say (apologies) literature or arts. The society might benefit from having poets or artists in town but if the private sector do not see the benefit in them, these graduates will be underproduced.

What to do then? The government should step in. If such graduates are considered a public good, or might produce positive externalities to the society, the government then might step in and provide educational institutions for such subjects. Just as any other government interventions.

PS: I am generalizing a lot of things in this writing. It is simply an imagination that might never happen in real life. Hence the title ‘What if’.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ke Gereja Tiap Minggu, Apa Benar Wajib?

Oleh: Nathaniel Rayestu Abdulrachman Semenjak kecil, kita sering didoktrin oleh orang tua, guru, pastor, pendeta, dll untuk senantiasa pergi beribadah di gereja setiap Minggu. Namun, apakah benar hal tersebut wajib hukumnya? Apakah benar jika kita adalah orang Kristen "Natal-Paskah" maka kita bukan orang Kristen yang baik? Mari kita telaah lagi. Dasar kanonik dari wajibnya ke Gereja tiap minggu, berasal dari prinsip dasar iman agama-agama Abrahamik, yakni 10 Perintah Allah yang diturunkan pada Nabi Musa di Gunung Sinai. Perintah ketiga berbunyi "Kuduskanlah Hari Tuhan". Pada jaman Kristus (circa 0 Masehi) perintah ini diinterpretasikan sebagai larangan beraktifitas pada hari Sabat. Pada jaman awal Gereja perintah ini dilakukan dengan pergi beribadah di Gereja selama ber-jam-jam. Sekarang, perintah ini diterjemahkan sebagai kewajiban pergi ke Gereja untuk merayakan Ekaristi. Tetapi, apakah itu satu-satunya cara "menguduskan Hari Tuhan?" Buka

Kurikulum Sejarah Hapalan dan Pola Pikir Feodal, Kunci Elektabilitas Prabowo

Dalam dua bulan terakhir elektabilitas Prabowo seakan meroket. Beberapa alasan tentang hal ini diungkapkan banyak pengamat sepertinya cukup valid: maraknya black campaign terhadap Joko Widodo, buruknya koordinasi dan logistik kampanye pasangan nomor 2, performa pada seri Debat Capres-Cawapres, dan sebagainya. Saya punya dua hipotesis lain tentang mengapa rakyat bisa seakan menutup mata pada fakta-fakta dan seakan terhipnotis oleh sosok Prabowo Subianto. Pertama, kurikulum sejarah di sekolah-sekolah di Indonesia dari Sekolah Dasar hingga Sekolah Menengah Atas cenderung bersifat hapalan. Saya yakin anda yang sedang membaca artikel ini masih ingat bahwa Perang Diponegoro terjadi pada tahun 1825-1830, dan bahwa Perang Dunia I terjadi diawali dengan terbunuhnya Pangeran Franz Ferdinand. Tapi jika kita diminta mengaitkan apa yang terjadi saat itu dengan konteks kekinian untuk melihat ke depan, kita akan kebingungan. Padahal, sejarah seharusnya bukan untuk dihafal, melainkan untuk

Why Fuel Subsidies Might Actually be Pro-Poor

Just a simple thought that flashed through my mind after hearing many people say that fuel subsidies in Indonesia is pro-rich. Yes, I know that more than half of the subsidies is enjoyed by the top 10% income earners, the bottom 10% only get like 2-3% and yada yada yada, but come to think of it, maybe our government just believes in trickle down economics. It’s basically a tax cut to stimulate the economy, right? Here it goes: Fuel subsidy leaves middle-up people a little bit richer, giving them a little bit more disposable income. Now, the richer you are, the more you save, meaning that this extra income for the rich/middle up will lead to more national savings compared to if the money is distributed towards poorer people. Theoretically, a one rupiah increase in national savings should lower interest rates just enough to induce one rupiah additional investment. In another word, more savings also means more money there is in the money market to be borrowed to fund inves