The Game of the Goose is one of the oldest printed board games, dating back 400 years. It has spawned thousands of derivatives: simple race games, played with dice, on themes that mirror much of human activity. Its legacy can be traced in games of education, advertising and polemic, as well as in those of amusement and gambling - and games on new themes are still being developed. This book, by the leading international collector of the genre, is devoted to showing why the Game of the Goose is special and why it can lay claim to being the most influential of any printed game in the cultural history of Europe. Detailed study of the games reveals their historical provenance and - reversing the process - gives unusual insights into the cultures which produced them. They therefore provide rich sources for the cultural historian. This book is beautifully illustrated with more than 90 illustrations, many in color, which are integrated throughout the text.

Higher Education in the UK is at a crucial juncture in its history. Its funding is in crisis, and morale amongst students and academics perilously low. This monograph offers two contributions to the debate. Like many of the nationalised industries of old, producer-driven higher education suffers from inefficiencies and lack of responsiveness to its consumers: Adrian Seville shows how modularisation - the introduction of 'quasi'-markets in higher education - could ameliorate some of these problems. His paper explores fundamental issues, and challenges whether the current quality control mechanism in higher education can be considered satisfactory even in a traditional university setting, let alone when modularisation is introduced. Tooley's contribution takes the debate a step further. The suggestion of 'quasi'-markets in higher education begs the question as to why bot 'genuine' markets? Hence he examines the fundamental assumption which remains unchallenged in much of the current debate: why should government be involved in higher education at all? He looks at the major justifications given for government intervention, and finds each wanting.Government is not needed to make higher education opportunities available. Indeed, there are negative effects of such intervention, including qualification inflation. Finally, the desirable goal of equity in terms of access to higher learning only needs the minimal intervention of private income contingent loans for tuition and maintenance, not the gamut of interference with which we are familiar.