I feel I must reply to Herr Fellows assertion that this article, "free degrees to fly" is
Just an extreme example of a highly non-objective article from the Economist- it is not an incontestable dogma that the private sector always and everywhere does everything better than the public sector! That is why we have a public sector :)
Let me reply to his sentences one phrase at a time. It is not an extreme example of anything, for a start. I don't think I have extreme views regarding Universities, but I certainly felt that while I was at uni, private enterprise was limited by too much government control and interference in the hierarchy of learning. It seems to me you are demonstrating that it is non-objective because "the Economist" is the only journal that is taking this line. In this case, I am asserting that it is all the other journals which dismiss this kind of argument which are the ones that are not objective! My point being that virtually every other entity which would even talk about this subject has a vested interest in Government funding! "The economist" is one of the only journals in the world which is not afraid of offending government sensibilities of one country or another. I admit that "the Economist" is big on ideology of liberalism and privatisation, when the political reality of a lot of countries don't lend themselves to possible changes, but they don't claim that it is "incontestable" they are actually contesting the need in particular facets and are clearly on the side of more privatisation in most cases. There was however articles and surveys from time to time about the sorts of things which should not be privatised and from memory, the judicial, law enforcement and lawmaking sides as well as most aspect of the military. Even basic education and emergency health were thought to be necessarily a function of government. I am not sure why Herr Fellows would think banks should be nationalised? It doesn't make sense to me.