Search results

A recent paper by James Hughes in this journal arguing that in the recent past the regional distribution of Government Training Centre (GTC) capacity has been sub‐optimal, stirred me to write an article both criticising the criteria he used in reaching this judgement and, more positively, offering results from a cost benefit study addressed to the same issue. Hughes' more recent, discursive paper is a reply to this. Whilst his paper is replete with minor points of detail, I shall concentrate here on his major points only. These are:

A major justification for the state subsidy of university education at public institutions (and, in some countries, of private universities too) is the economic and social benefits accruing to society as whole from a significantly university-educated workforce and citizenship. Based upon a broad range of research findings, a particular societal benefit emanating from higher education relates to good citizenship: that it leads to more open mindedness and tolerant political attitudes. We examined these issues using a representative sample of students from Israeli universities to clarify the extent to which these outcomes would be paralleled in the Israeli setting, where the university experience differs markedly from that found typically in the West.

The research is based on a comparison of political tolerance levels between first- and final-year students enrolled in regular undergraduate study programs (of four days a week or more). However since a change in tolerance is likely to be contingent also on the amount of time that the student spends on campus during the study year, we introduce, as a control group, students enrolled in compressed study programs (of three days a week or less) and compare changes in their tolerance levels with tolerance changes of students enrolled in regular programs. Research questionnaires were distributed to undergraduate students at three universities from the three major districts in Israel–north, south and center. The achieved sample size was 329 students.

Using Difference-in-Differences techniques, we looked for any changes in students' general political tolerance, over the course of their studies. Surprisingly, we found no such effect on political tolerance attitudes. Israeli students are older and often married and though nominally full-time students, they often hold down a full-time job. Thus they come and go to attend lectures but do not otherwise spend much time on campus. Given the somewhat perfunctory nature of the university experience for most Israeli students, it does not to lead to more open-minded and tolerant political attitudes.

Some broader, practical applications of the research, beyond the Israeli case, are presented, particularly related to distance learning and to the impact of COVID-19. Attention is given to more recent “Cancel culture” developments on university campuses.

The results have wider implications, to other university setting in other countries. Changes in political attitudes may occur in university settings where campus life is well developed, with opportunities for student interaction, formally in extra-curricular events or through social mixing outside the lecture hall. Where the university experience is more minimally confined to attendance at lectures these desirable outcomes may not be forth coming. These findings are relevant to other university frameworks where campus attendance is marginal, such as in open university education and, even more explicitly, in purely internet-based higher education study.

In recent years Adrian Ziderman has applied the tools of cost‐benefit analysis to the evaluation of government training and his latest paper analyses the regional location of Government Training Centres (GTCs). Although he is kind enough to suggest that his paper was stimulated by an earlier paper of my own, he has nevertheless been severe in his criticism of me. He claims that I eschew the cost‐benefit approach because I find it wanting. Furthermore, he argues that the alternative criteria that I suggest for evaluating the regional location of GTC capacity are seriously deficient and give rise to policy recommendations which must be “treated with caution”. Here I attempt to meet Ziderman's criticisms of my earlier paper and in passing I comment very briefly upon the paper by Nicholas Adnett which is also critical of the main policy implications of my analysis.

Reports that although the results of the World Bank’s programme of policy research on vocational and technical education and training are available in published form, the process through which these publications are developed is known only to those directly involved. Asserts that the process of policy research is as important as the product. Reviews the policy study programme and research conducted or sponsored by the World Bank and other international agencies. Reviews the literature and addresses key policy areas with recent information.

It is just over fifty years since the British government instigated the scheme that was to lead to the setting up of Government Training Centres (GTCs) shortly afterwards.