教育專業(yè)外文翻譯---高等教育成本分擔中的財政與政治-教育教學-文庫吧在線文庫
【正文】 either toward improving the quality of the university (and thus presumably the educational experience) toward the overall institutional budget, thus reducing the amount that must be passed on to parents and students directly, or toward some students, in the form of grants or scholarships, presumably in substantial measure based on the students’ financial need, or the students’ and/or their parents’ low ine. These donors may be long since deceased but whose substantial past gifts to the university have been preserved as endowments (as is mon in the US), with only the ine earned spent for scholarships or for the current operating budget to reduce the need for other sources of revenue. These donations, in effect, go on in perpetuity. Or, donors may be individuals or foundations giving currently, thus lowering the higher educational costs that would otherwise have to be borne by one or more of the other parties in our costsharing paradigm. The university itself may seem to be a donor as it grants special needbased scholarships to able students from poor families. But the actual donors in such instances are more likely to be the parents of wealthier students, who may be paying more than would otherwise be required to meet the institution’s real average instructional costs, but who may perceive the university’s ability to give some needbased scholarships as essential to enhancing the quality and prestige of the institution—and thus as a legitimate institutional expense. II Forms of CostSharing The term costsharing as it has e to be used in higher educational finance, and as used in this paper, refers to the shift of at least some of the higher educational cost burden from government, or taxpayers, to parents and students. Costsharing is most associated with tuition and with fees or “user charges,” especially on governmentally or institutionallyprovided room and board. However, a policy shift in the direction of greater costsharing can take one or more of seven main forms: 1. The beginning of tuition (where higher education was formerly free). This would be the case in China in 1997, for example, or Britain in 1998, or as most recently announced (in November 2020 to begin in 20202) in Austria. 2. The very sharp rise in tuition (where public sector tuition already exists). A shift in the direction of greater costsharing requires that the rise in tuition be greater than the rise in institutional costs generally in order for the government’s, or taxpayer’s, share to be lessened, and the parent’s and / or student’s shares to rise mensurately. This has been the case recently in the US, where many state governments have failed to maintain their former “shares” of public university expenses and as public university tuitions have been increased very rapidly to “fill in” the gaps left by the withdrawal of state government funding. 3. The imposition of “user charges,” or fees to recover the expenses of institutionally provided and formerly heavily subsidized residence and dining halls. This has been happening in China and in most countries, including African countries where subsidized living costs were said by the World Bank to absorb the bulk of many country’s higher educational budgets. In the Nordic countries of Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Denmark, for example, where higher education remains “free,” the expenses of higher education are exclusively the costs of student living, which are very high in those countries, and which are “shared” neither by the taxpayer nor (at least officially) by the parents. They are thus borne entirely by the students, largely in the form of student loans (which are indirectly shared somewhat by the taxpayer in the form of repayment subsidies). at were once part of the former Soviet Union 4. The diminution of student grants or scholarships. This is sometimes acplished sometimes simply by “freezing” grant or loan levels, or holding them constant in the face of general inflation, which then erodes
畢業(yè)設計相關推薦
鄂ICP備17016276號-1