Dear Thawhidul,

I do not know the education market. I know only my national and local education environment. I experienced that salaries do not correlate with knowledge, abilities and performance because the salary budget is very limited (a young tutor in Great-Britain or Belgium earns much more than an old professor in Hungary or Russia). Another trouble may be that the old rule - flexibility towards bosses – matters more than knowledge and performance. Regarding these and similar conditions, your question must be an irrelevant illusion.

Dear Thawhidul,

I do not know the education market. I know only my national and local education environment. I experienced that salaries do not correlate with knowledge, abilities and performance because the salary budget is very limited (a young tutor in Great-Britain or Belgium earns much more than an old professor in Hungary or Russia). Another trouble may be that the old rule - flexibility towards bosses – matters more than knowledge and performance. Regarding these and similar conditions, your question must be an irrelevant illusion.

Modern society can not function without educated people, therefore, does not work state economy. How to quantify it? This is a problem, which to some extent can predict - but I am not able to do it. And to the economy the money always belongs.

Dear  Thawhidul Kabir,

I do not know what would be the best method to make the monetary evalutation of education.  But lets assume that that such method exist.  Then my prediction is the following: An education system that will come higher with this method will be the worse of all.  I come to this prediction with the following reason.  What is of true value into an education is the formative and the part of the formative that is of value for itself for how it bring the maximum reward for the person not in term of money return but value in their life.  And this is at the complete opposite of the value for other which is best expressed by money.  So the best method to monetarily evaluate an educational system will give us the educational system that will generate the most values in money which is market value , not what please you intrinsically but what please other.  This method of monetary evaluation is actually a method of devaluation of any intrinsic form of truly valuable education. TAll that is humanly valuable is invisible into the accounting sheets.  Long live to the accountants!!!

Can we measure EDUCATION in terms of money? It depends on the kind of educational institution where this question is applied. Not all expensive schools provide high standard education. Not all non-expensive schools provide low standard of education. I also believe that education of high quality and excellence is expensive meaning there is no high quality education at low cost. In my experience development of expertise through advanced education is expensive. Your posted question is suggestive of an investigation of the cost and quality of education of different colleges and universities. Your posted question can be answered with accuracy if  cost of education and the productivity of the graduates will be investigated.

This is a good question which needs "settling" since there are some universities, in some countries, which claim that the students' fees are fractional compared to the "real" costs of their education. I tried, throughout the years of my academic career, to work out how this claim is figured out in order to sort out the fact from fiction.

In many places, nearly all the buildings & most of the facilities are made by donations so they cannot be included in the calculations. The first item of a university's expenditure is the salaries bill and then come other items such as what is spent on "theoretical" lectures & on "practical" sessions. Since practical courses are generally far less in number than theoretical courses in nearly all study programs, then the costs paid are not alarming.

My colleagues & I found out that universities really make huge profits. For example, a university in which there are 25000 students can easily get about 30 million $ from their fees/year. Subtract all the items of expenditure & you can easily find an annual profit of at least 12 million $ which accumulates year after year into an account that is invested in banks.

On the other hand, I do not think that most university students get a knowledge or education that is equivalent to the money they paid except in few cases. If the students acquire "practical" skills that are relevant to the competitive markets, then they have gained something but if they are given information to pass in exams today & then to forget them tomorrow, then they have gained very little.

In my opinion, the university is still a good place to be utilized in invaluable inculcation of positive attitudes, ethics, values, ways of thinking, tolerance, broadening horizons, and how innovations could be reached to solve existing challenges.

Formal accreditation processes force universities to think about education in terms of investment money. Accreditation means a lot of expenses for any educational institution because having all the technology, faculty and physical elements means a huge amount of money every ten years when the next accreditation process begins. For most public universities, keeping up with accreditation requirements is a challenge not all universities can cope with. When I see non-accredited universities being able to offer excellent education despite lacking accreditation makes me wonder what is the real use of making so much sacrifice for a piece of paper that certifies your institution as "accredited". Accreditation is a money machine that may impoverish some institutions. Very good question. Thank you!

I agree with Lilliana Ramos-Collado in what he observed about non- accredited universities being able to offer excellent education despite lacking accreditation. Compliance for Excellence through accreditation is expensive.

Accreditation is largely based on evaluation of inputs to quality such as facilities, faculty credentials and other areas rather than of outputs such as performance of graduates in the professional licensure examination, employability of graduates, service to society, and extent to which the institution’s mandate and vision are being met. This observation explains why school not accredited manifests high quality education and excellence than accredited school. In my opinion accreditation status does not always indicate a balance between inputs and outputs in all accredited institutions. Though hard to measure, the outputs are ultimately more important in defining quality and excellence of educational institution.