The Khan Academy, Philanthropy and The Big Society

It gets 2 million hits a month but I've only just heard of Salman Khan's Online Academy, and it's very impressive.

The free resource, provided through the effort and commitment of Khan himself with philanthropic backing from the likes of Bill Gates, has gone from strength to strength since he started tutoring his niece in maths (or math as our American friends insist on calling it). The 2 million visits a month are to over 2,300 separate tutorials covering subjects not just limited to mathematics (which includes everything from simple arithmetic to calculus) but also several science subjects (biology, physics etc), history and finance.

For all those who snort in derision at the concept of the Big Society and the idea that people may give up their time to pursue worthwhile projects (albeit voluntary work is only an element of the rather nebulous concept), this is an excellent example of how it can work (at least in the US). Salman Khan was a hedge fund analyst before developing this idea. He now commits all his time to it relying on donations to continue development, and to live.

Admittedly, philanthropy is much more common and engrained in US society. But it would be nice to think that we too could develop a similar culture of giving amongst the better off in this country to support the bright ideas and efforts of others. But before that happens we have to remove the attitude and, in many cases legal and commercial obstacles, that discourage or stop private individuals or organisations from contributing in health, education and other public services.

Recent events point to a lack of political will to drive the agenda forward. I hope this has been just pragmatic, tactical manoeuvring and that the strategy remains alive and well. Because I'm sure there are just as many great ideas and people in this country that could complement public services and improve our quality of life without having to rely on the approval, control and largesse of the state.

Student Loan Compromise

I've just read that the Government is close announcing they've agreed on one of the most contentious policies between the Tory and LibDem coalition partners - student tuition fees and student loans.

It seems likely that they have settled on a "progressive graduate contribution" - a loan repayment scheme that increases in proportion if the graduate succeeds in earning more than average. The idea being that those students that earn less will end up not having to pay back as much as higher earners.

The agreement, and the likely recommendation from the Lord Browne review (due to be published on Tuesday), is that the tuition fee cap will raise from £3,290 to £7,000. This will be a major issue for the LibDems whose manifesto promised no tuition fee increase, but the hope is that the progressive nature of the new loan payback plan will satisfy their concerns.

For my part I'm happier with this idea than Cable's graduate tax but still not convinced it is completely sensible.

The tuition fee does not have to be paid upfront, it goes towards the amount owed after the course is finished. So, there's no upfront cost to make each potential student think deeply about whether or not they are really committed to achieving a good degree or, indeed, if it's the right thing for them and their aspirations. I'd like to see a modest initial fee, payable within the first year, that would really focus the mind of a student. It would discourage some from going to University, but I think we need to move away from the idea that the more Uni educated people the better. It should be about quality, not quantity.

Then there's the "progressive" element of the proposal. Once graduated, there'll be a real disincentive to succeed. Although it's not clear what the exact figures will be, it seems that higher earners will pay a bigger percentage of interest on their loans than lower earners. Those that end up
forging ahead with their careers will be penalised for no other reason than they dared to succeed. Those that aren't so bothered, or worse, only went to Uni to avoid work for a few extra years, will earn less and will not be expected to pay back as much. Some will say that it's only fair that the better paid pay more, but they do anyway - in taxes. They earn more so they pay more. There's no justification for making them pay more for their loans.

There's no easy answer. But I'd have preferred to see a system that encourages young people to make the right choices for their aspirations and abilities while encouraging ambition and a drive to succeed once graduated. This proposal looks like a political compromise and it doesn't seem to do either.

We'll have to wait to see the actual details of the proposal. There could be a lot more to it than we're seeing in the latest leaks. I certainly hope there is.

Are Exams Designed to Discriminate Against The Motivationally Challenged?

After Gary Liniker blamed his son's school for his failure to get good enough results to get into university, research in America has shown that it may be the exams themselves that are discriminating against lazy kids...


In The Know: Are Exams Designed to Discriminate Against The Motivationally Challenged?

Damn You Sexist Media!

I have to admit, in previous years, I've never consciously realised why I've been inexplicably more interested in the news of A-level results than is really justifiable for one who has no personal stake in them.

It was a tweet from Andrew Collins that opened my eyes to the reason... the gratuitous use of pretty young ladies to sell the story (and so their papers and TV shows). What a terrible state of affairs! Those poor naive girls, used by sexist men to sell their tawdry media output. Tch!

But what would be a more acceptable image?

Would you rather this...

All A-level students are attractive women, mostly with blonde hair

Or this...

Give us a kiss and I'll get you a place at University

I know which I find more unacceptable.


PS. Actually, I'm a big fan of Mr Gove. But he is a bit odd looking, isn't he?