Stu Dent and the UniVan

21 Jan, '04 23 Comments

There once was a boy called Stuart Dent. His friends called him Stu for short. When Stu Dent grew up he wanted to sell apples. The problem was that to sell apples Stu Dent needed a UniVan (the van manufacturer obviously being a company called Uni).

Current to buy a UniVan you needed to pay lots of money. Almost £10000. Stu Dent knew this was a lot of money, but he could get the bank to loan him that money he knew that this would mean high interest rates and would be tough to pay back. But Stu Dent wanted to sell apples so that he could make lots of money and enjoy the good things in life. Stu Dent liked selling apples, so he thought it was worth paying the money for the UniVan.

However the manufacturer of the UniVans said one day that UniVans where getting much more expensive to build and maintain and they would have to stop letting so many people buy UniVans as they couldnâ€™t manufacture decent UniVans anymore. Stu Dent was very upset. He really wanted a UniVan so that he could sell apples, but he didnâ€™t want a broken UniVan.

Then the national head of UniVan said that he had an idea. Instead of charging upfront all this money that was very hard for people to pay, especially if the price of UniVans had to go up (as things do), they would give people UniVans for free. When Stu Dent started selling enough apples he could then pay for the UniVan. The more apples Stu Dent sold, the more money he would make, and the more money he would make the more money he could pay back for his shiny UniVan, that without he couldn't make as much money.

Now Stu Dent was happy. He could get a great UniVan, a UniVan that wasn't broken and was one of the best in the world. And the best thing was he didn't have to get a nasty loan from the bank or ask Mom and Pops Dent for money. He could just pay it back interest free when he started selling apples. What a brilliant idea.

Then Stu Dent saw a lot of other people complaining. They thought of a better idea. They thought that everyone should pay the UniVans. Stu Dent didnâ€™t understand this. He didnâ€™t think it was fair that other people paid for the UniVan. Not everyone earned as much as apple sellers. Especially apple sellers with really good UniVans that where fast and shiny and helped him sell lots of apples. Stu Dent thought these people where selfish.

But everyone else got their way, and Stu Dent got his Free UniVan. Lots of people got free UniVans. But because people got free UniVans, they didnâ€™t take care of them properly. And the UniVans got more and more expensive. And everyone had to pay more and more for the UniVans. Then people realised that they where paying more and more for UniVans but not everyone had a UniVan. And the people who didnâ€™t have uniVans got upset. It wasn't fair that people like Stu Dent had nice things because they could sell lots of apples with their UniVan, and people without UniVans didn't.

The people without UniVans then rose up and killed Stu Dent and everyone with UniVans because they got tired of paying for UniVans that made other people rich because they could sell more apples.

And Stu Dent was sad (even though he was dead) because all he wanted to do was sell apples with his UniVan.

[Written after watching too many people say "Debt Adverse" meaning "I want it for free"]

2 TrackBacks

27 Jan, '04 2:24 PM

mad musings of me

Revolting studes

I just popped out for lunch. I couldn't quite understand the discreet, but nevertheless, heavy police presence. Until I saw... Read More

27 Jan, '04 5:09 PM

Ulterior

Tuition fees

Once upon a time, it was decided that the role of the State was to support the society contained within it. The belief that by helping Peter, Paul too was helped, and that access to that help was on the... Read More

23 Comments

21 Jan, '04 8:01 PM

1. Daisy

I’m still undecided on this one but excellently done!

22 Jan, '04 8:01 AM

2. steve

Stu Dent, name sounds familiar but just can’t put a face to the name.

22 Jan, '04 4:44 PM

3. stroppycow

Stu’s grandma was wondering the following though. If Stu is really going to make that much more money with the van than he would without then Stu is going to pay a bigger share of his proceeds to the manufacturer than somebody who does not have a van and does not sell loads of apple. It seems unfair that if Stu bums around instead of making the most of his business he will not only have to pay anything but if he does really well he will have to pay the money back really quick and pay a bigger share of his profit away, effectively paying twice for his univan.

22 Jan, '04 5:34 PM

4. Adrian

If I follow you correctly Stroppycow, what you are saying is that if Stu sits on his arse he only has to pay back his loan very slowly or not at all (after 25 years), where as if he works very hard he has to pay it back quite quickly?

Either way I don’t see how he ends up paying twice? Just quicker.

22 Jan, '04 6:37 PM

5. Lori

Woah! That needed an unnatural amount of brainpower on my behalf. I just don’t understand why some people seem to think that just because you’ve got a UniVan that you must be earning loads of money. I’m certainly not sigh

23 Jan, '04 8:03 AM

6. steve

I’m doing so well that I have a DuoVan.

23 Jan, '04 10:20 AM

7. Adrian

Lori, on the balance people with a UniVan earn more money. Yes it may not be a linear curve, but people with UniVans on average undoubtedly earn more money. Which is why linking your ability to pay for a UniVan to how much you earn makes sense. It just needs to be done right.

Even if you don’t necessarily earn more because of your University Degree, why should someone else pay for the experience and the knowledge you gained as result. You are still getting something, that someone else is not. Why should they foot the bill?

23 Jan, '04 2:47 PM

8. razorhead

But then some bright spark would realise that though people wanted to eat Golden Delicious, they could still sell more of Granny Smith’s if only they priced it lower. Soon, everyone was selling Granny Smith’s because it was uneconomic to produce and sell Golden Delicious. The real problem, though, was that none of the consumers ever got to try an Orange because it was too expensive to produce that type of UniVan.

(OK I can hear the metaphore screaming in agony, but the prospect of an /entire/ generation reading Media Studies to too horrific to contemplate - and besides I like a pineapple from time to time)

23 Jan, '04 2:56 PM

9. Adrian

OK but supply and demand, would mean things would even out, and since the Universities are 5/6 funded by general tax anyway there would still be ‘uneconomic’ course taught that have little economic value but a high educational value.

And if an entire generation wants to do Media Studies they can bloody well pay for it themselves. Either way, the funding is needed, and it has to come from somewhere, be it for apples, oranges or pineapples.

23 Jan, '04 3:15 PM

10. Dave

Excellent. Nice analogy. I’m with you on this one. The way some people are reacting you’d think students were being asked to pay the full costs of their university education rather than just a portion of it.

As I’ve said elsewhere, I think completely free education should end at the point where most of the population can’t take it. That means that people in higher education should be prepared to pay towards it.

23 Jan, '04 4:13 PM

11. Joe

UniVans can also be taken on the Open road, where you pay in advance - a fraction of the cost - and still are able to work. Hence, you don’t work up lots of debt to be paid either when you start selling your apples - or by your parents whilst you are still waiting for your UniVan delivery. I think I followed the analogy correctly. You’d think now I am no longer a Stu Dent I’d be able to do things like this. Ah well…

26 Jan, '04 8:40 PM

12. stroppycow

Stu ends up paying twice if he works hard and earns loads with his univan because the more he earns the more taxes he pays. If it is true that having a university education means that you will gain financial advantage then surely it is in the interest of the state that more people have a university education so that more people pay more taxes in absolute terms. They not only repay for the benefits afforded by a superior education through more taxes but they also tend on average to cost the state less money by being “on benefits” for shorter periods, suffering from less deprivation linked diseases, retiring later and generally having offspring who are more likely to be succesful in later life than that of less well educated parents. So it is less a case of wanting something for free than a case of feeling the state is not beeing entirely logic/honest in its reasoning.

26 Jan, '04 10:02 PM

13. Adrian

That is true. But to do that you would specifically have to raise further tax over and above what people are already paying, as the issue at the moment is that the universities need MORE money and the present tax doesnâ€™t cover it. So aside from a lot of people at the moment who would have to pay more to tax for a university education they wont get, you have to raise the tax level. Raising the amount of general tax being charged does not stimulate an economy, in fact it hampers it. A specific graduate tax on the other hand as this is, has proved successful in other places like Australia.

27 Jan, '04 4:00 PM

14. Huwge

Some questions questions: a) Whatever happended to sponsored Univans? (b) To what extent is the number of apples you sell related to your Univan? (c) a Univan is not a licence to sell Apples, what happens to those who decide to just watch them grow? (d) What if the Univan is used to sell apples in a foreign markets? Is the Univan then free?

27 Jan, '04 4:08 PM

15. Adrian

a) You’ll probably still get them b) Statistically there is an overall relation. If you have a UniVan you have more chance of being able to sell more apples. Doesnâ€™t hold true in every case, but the relation is there. c) They will still have to pay for their UniVan d) Depends on how the Government implements it. That is an issue of how it should be done not if it should be done.

27 Jan, '04 6:54 PM

16. Huwge

On (d) I agree, but seeing as how I am in that category and now have to be considered an Apfelverkaufer I wonder how it might be practically / fairly applied (particualrly as I have to pay a higher commission here for selling my apples!). Aren’t metaphors wonderful? What’s the next subject?

27 Jan, '04 10:12 PM

17. Adrian

The next subject is how metaphors can result in brain death. Somebody should have warned me how dangerous the damn things were.

03 Feb, '04 9:56 AM

18. matt

Why dont you just have different taxation bands attached to your earnings to fund high edu. so the more apples you sell the more you pay, but not just taxing the rich but having diff bands for the middle class’ and working class’. But why other people should pay for obvious gain to the econemy that higher edu brings, hmm cause raises te standard of living and gives oppertunity to students from any social class or background. Not having univan setting the price of the van to what ever they want by 2010, so if you earn 25-30 grand a year you not only pay twice but you do it for the rest of your life. Which do you think is ‘fair’taxing us out of education or actually educating us.

04 Feb, '04 9:17 AM

19. Adrian

Just adding taxation bands sounds easy, but it will just make the taxation system more complex and will not realise the easy benefits everyone thinks it will. Also there are no guarantees that that tax would go to universities.

What you could do is add a tax called “Higher Ed” tax onto everyones salaries. That way you could guarantee the money goes to the universities. Oh wait, the general taxpayer will have a fit if you increase their tax for something they wont get. Probably wont work then huh …

11 Feb, '04 2:04 PM

20. matt

The who will pay, the general tax payer does not want to pay so the stu dent must pay twice which they don’t want. so i’ve come the conclusion so make old people pay i mean what do they do anway give them apples and oranges as a reward. Maybe thats a bit harsh how about kids we should make the kids pay after all there the ones that a going to benifit form are money ,and are time and of coarse are apples, yes rob those little critters of their pocket money, but what, maybe the middle aged generation will benifit with higher pensions. We will benifit with higher pensions, but hey if everyone doesn’t pay then why should anyone pay at tall after all why educate us let the uni’s crumble why try educating this country. Or maybe we should just get pepsi to sponsor are schools like in the good old US of A, so are univan kids can speak 2or3 different language’s but cant conduct any trade in any country because they’ve got no teeth. Or maybe after all that we could just introduce some stealth taxes, on ,on motorists yes lets tax those por b-stards again. Think that would work huh….? So why should you pay? Cause capitalism is a greed culture and in are pursuit of the ‘money god’ we have forgotten the true nature of education, not as tool for greed but the evolutionary process of man to beter our selves and this society into a non eliteist one. to have the freedom to learn and to be given the hope or chance of change. For some people money is their life’s motivation (a small ‘degree’ of sadnness has struck me, like a parking fine)and these people I pitty, but having a the chance of a good and free education will taste a little sweeter in the mouths of future generation than a rotten apple.

11 Feb, '04 2:26 PM

21. Adrian

Matt,

Please leave no link rather than a fake link. I donâ€™t mind comments from people I donâ€™t know, but I would rather you didnâ€™t leave an email or link in your details than rubbish data. That said

stu dent must pay twice The students are not paying twice. I honestly see this as a nebulous argument. The student is paying once for a commodity they he is receiving (the UniVan i.e. degree). The student is getting something quite tangible for his money. If the student then goes onto be successful, the student pays taxes same as everyone else who is successful. Taxes that go to transport, health, education and so fourth. The two are mutually exclusive. It’s not like only successful people with degrees pay tax.

Cause capitalism is a greed culture and in are pursuit of the ‘money god’ Again a nice sounding argument, but of no actual value. That like saying socialism is all a bunch of tree huggers. Capitalism is capitalism and nothing more. People are greedy. People’s greed is irrelevant of whether they live in a capitalistic society or not. Capitalism also encourages ambition and progress and growth and the development of goods that ultimately benefit everyone. We live in a free market economy, which brings both good and bad. Distilling it down into ‘capitalism is evil’ is not only pointless, but wrong too.

true nature of education, not as tool for greed but the evolutionary process of man to better our selves and this society into a non elitist one. to have the freedom to learn and to be given the hope or chance of change. That’s all very good and well, but someone has to pay for it. And education has only become non elitist in recent years. For the thousands of years before that it was always very elitist. So don’t decry today education as being elitist when it is the least elitist it has ever been, just because it needs to be paid for.

11 Feb, '04 3:54 PM

22. matt

Sorry but your site would’nt let me enter my comments with out a e-mail address, and i don’t like giving out my e-mail to site’s “damn junk mail”. Any way ‘We live in a free market economy’ controlled by muti national corps but I don’t have a problem with capitalism just the way it is implimentented in the west mainly the USA. I surpose thats the greatist fear to end up with company sponsored institutions such as education and even the BBC. The large majority almost came back and bit it in the arse, Labour that is (the modern dictatorship with 173 maj i think?) needs to have better scrutiny procedures in place if it’s true motives are to be establish. For example war on Iraq talks with Cliton on how to pay for education i guest the idea of an american style eu system scares me I mean look at the yanks. Someone does have to pay, no all of us have to pay and if all else fails Tony can put a tax on windows that if a high edu tax is’nt preferable. “So don’t decry today education as being elitist when it is the least elitist it has ever been, just because it needs to be paid for.” Yes it is the least elitist education we have ever had and by 2010 when fees are increased we shall be back to the begining ( of the modern edu system) and yes standards will be improved if mummy and daddy can pay Â£60,000 for your good degree, the same standard of degree as a lesser established uni but the Â£60’000 degree is there to beat down that pathetic Â£10,000 degree with it’s metaphorical money stick off mummy and daddies money tree.(probably planted in indus rev) And if your daddy is unable to aford education for his children, your screwed, yiu the child deterred form higher education due to lack of jobs and increased fees as 50% of us have dgrees and the actual value of them is steadily decreasing as the rates for top uni’s is steadily increasing. And the top-middle class will become to new for of heritical lords and the socail mobility that was present a few years ago takes a blow from that money stick right arround the kneecaps. what about grants for ‘poor’ students, yes a very good idea and for the low middle class’s, drum roll please, nothing yes a big fat zero so these are the people that will pay for there education these are the people that could’nt earn (intellectually) their right for a good education. After all if degree’s are the same the govt may grant the student Â£1500 to go to their local uni knowing their grades could of got them into oxford and all along the brightist minds of society are not being educated by a best institution in this country where is the benifit for us then? “God bless this country God bless social class God bless money”.

12 Feb, '04 3:21 PM

23. Adrian

Matt, I’m not sure what your point is. You simply are not constructing and argument that I can agree or disagree with. I really am not sure what you are trying to say.

I disagree with Razorheads on this issue (as can be seen in his comments here and mine on his site) but he puts forward a clear and concise argument. I’m not sure if you are saying you donâ€™t like a class system (not really related to who should pay for education) or the fact that education is elitist (which again doesn’t explain why the general tax payer should pay) or that you just don’t like capitalism as it’s done in America.

The advantage of this system is it doesnâ€™t cost anyone anything to go to university until they start earning appropriately. It’s the same as tax but just appropriate to those who want a university education. Yeah if you come from a rich background you have advantages. You wont equalise those advantages by making the general tax payer pay. Rich people will still have advantages, and still have access to better education.

If I am successful and have the ability to give my children better education as a result of that success, then why should my children benefit from my success.

You give the impression that capitalism, and success are the result of some people taking advantage of other people. It’s actually often the result of ambition and hard work and motivation and a desire to do well and be successful.

[I have changed the config to allow for comments without an email address now]