PORQUE É QUE UM DEPARTAMENTO/CURSO "BEM SUCEDIDO" PODERÁ SER OBRIGADO A ENCERRAR? A resposta é parcialmente explicada em artigo intitulado "Bad chemistry", saído no The Economist em Novembro passado. Nele se constata que uma procura elevada por parte dos alunos dum curso universitário (em si, um indicador de sucesso) não é garantia de sobrevivência desse curso. Dá alguns exemplos de cursos com procura claramente superior à oferta mas que serão extintos pelo facto dos seus custos serem incomportáveis. O The Economist não hesita em associar a causa do problema aos excessos do planeamento centralizado que rege o ensino superior. Vale a pena ler o artigo todo (acesso restrito); em todo o caso fica aqui um extracto possível.
"PLANNED economies are bad at matching supply and demand. That was well-demonstrated by the collapse of communism, but clearly not conclusively enough. Over-subscribed university courses are closing for the same reason that Poles used to queue for bread: because state-controlled prices and subsidies don't make it worthwhile meeting consumer needs. On November 29th, dons and students in Cambridge will be demonstrating against the mooted closure of the university's architecture department. Its teaching is highly rated and it has 11 applicants for each place. But, according to Marcial Echenique, the department's acting head, it costs £10,000 ($19,000) per year to teach a student, while the fees, set by the government, are just over £1,000 and the state subsidy £4,000. The rest comes from research funding. This has just been cut sharply, leaving a £400,000 hole in the accounts. The university, which makes a big loss on undergraduate teaching and has a £9m accumulated deficit, is not in a state to plug the gap. If Cambridge shuts down architecture, it will be the first time it has closed a department. But other universities have already faced a similar squeeze. The most vulnerable courses are the expensive ones. (...) The logical way out is to make home students pay more. University fees will be allowed to rise after 2006, but only to £3,000. That may cover cheap courses in bad universities, but will not pay for expensive teaching in good ones. Meanwhile, Britain's only private university, Buckingham, which charges undergraduates £11,580, is considering expanding its science teaching in response. As with communism, the economics is obvious: the problem is political."
"PLANNED economies are bad at matching supply and demand. That was well-demonstrated by the collapse of communism, but clearly not conclusively enough. Over-subscribed university courses are closing for the same reason that Poles used to queue for bread: because state-controlled prices and subsidies don't make it worthwhile meeting consumer needs. On November 29th, dons and students in Cambridge will be demonstrating against the mooted closure of the university's architecture department. Its teaching is highly rated and it has 11 applicants for each place. But, according to Marcial Echenique, the department's acting head, it costs £10,000 ($19,000) per year to teach a student, while the fees, set by the government, are just over £1,000 and the state subsidy £4,000. The rest comes from research funding. This has just been cut sharply, leaving a £400,000 hole in the accounts. The university, which makes a big loss on undergraduate teaching and has a £9m accumulated deficit, is not in a state to plug the gap. If Cambridge shuts down architecture, it will be the first time it has closed a department. But other universities have already faced a similar squeeze. The most vulnerable courses are the expensive ones. (...) The logical way out is to make home students pay more. University fees will be allowed to rise after 2006, but only to £3,000. That may cover cheap courses in bad universities, but will not pay for expensive teaching in good ones. Meanwhile, Britain's only private university, Buckingham, which charges undergraduates £11,580, is considering expanding its science teaching in response. As with communism, the economics is obvious: the problem is political."
