Higher Education should be freely available to all, however in its current state it is not. Only those who are academically able can enter the current system of HE. We need more technical colleges and alternative further education institutions.
Tony Blair aimed to get 50% of people into university, by the end of Labour’s term they had achieved 45%, Lord Browne wants to go another 10% further. These are admirable aims. Admirable, but in my opinion wrong. We should aim to have much more of the population complete some type of higher education, but it should not necessarily be in academic institutions. Lord Browne’s report dealt with the system as it currently exists, but did not look to fundamentally change our system of HE, if he did he may have had the ability to come up with more inventive measures to remedy the funding problem existing in HE at the moment.
One of the main problems with fees, whether paid for by a loan or not, is that it is essentially a regressive tax. Yes it is still a tax, by whatever name it is given. The reason it is regressive, even if only those earning over £21k pay is that the people with the means to will be able to pay off their loans quicker. So for the same income, they will have a higher disposable income. Therefore the richest will have a head start. Apart from this ability to pay off the fee earlier there is little difference between a graduate tax and the loan – especially now that the fees are not being asked for upfront.
On Saturday Vince Cable sent an email giving 3 reasons why a Graduate Tax would be unfair.
His second reason about foreign students not paying Tax was ludicrous; they would be charged fees as they are at the moment. As in Scottish Universities where English students pay, but Scottish students do not.
The first reason was an interesting one, in essence he is saying that people may pay more than they cost, or in loan parlance more than they “borrowed”. I think it is time to start seeing education like the NHS, very few people would say that it is unfair that someone who is rich and lives a healthy lifestyle and never uses the NHS should pay so that the less vulnerable in this country can be protected. The difference is that currently less than half the population go on to a university. If everyone has the ability to go to higher education and was in fact encouraged to do so then it would be fair that everyone pays for HE through a progressive tax system (let’s call it income tax).
This is where I think the Browne report failed. It looked at HE as purely the academic university system, where it should have looked at the entire system of Higher Education, including more practical courses, apprenticeships and training schemes. This way it would be possible to charge for HE through income tax (not as a separate hypothecated Graduate Tax). The income tax system is progressive. It will not unfairly target those less able to pay.
The problem is, we don’t have the money to pay for the education system as it is and we don’t have the infrastructure to roll out a universal HE system because the Conservatives closed down the technical colleges and polytechnics and Labour concentrated on building purely the university sector. Keynesian economics would have us spending to get out of the recession, exactly on things such as education and training, but Labour turned Keynesian economics on its head and spent when times were good so there is no money to build a universal HE system.
I would have liked to have seen Lord Browne’s proposal have an interim solution, the one which is the minimal spending solution, but still achieves the goals of making HE freely available to all at the point of use. But this should be coupled with the long term suggestion of where the HE sector should be going.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Calling them out
The railway wars come to Market Harborough
Constructive opposition: a phrase you will hear a lot
Friends of Riverside Nature Park AGM #dundeewestend
Hugh Young
Roland
Kevin Hawkins
Steve Trevethan
24 Comments
Very good post, I can not agree more.
oh, hang on a minute, wasn’t that the phrase that Nick Clegg used yesterday morning on the BBC regarding the Browne report? ‘Free at the point of use’ …… just charge the earth afterwards.
I sincerely hope Clegg doesn’t start to believe that The NHS should be like HE with his version of ‘free at the point of use’ .
I agree that HE should be paid for out of general taxation in the same way as A levels or GCSEs. I understand the difficulties we are having with the economy at the moment but I don’t believe the problems are so big that we have to cut university funding so drastically. If they way student loans are paid, fine. The method proposed does sound better. Despite this, our MPs have pledged to vote against a rise in fees and they should do this.
“the Conservatives closed down the technical colleges and polytechnics”
Actually the Conservatives didn’t close down Polytechnics they offered them all the opportunity to become Universities instead which they did. Not disimilar to how most of them bacame Polytechnics from FE colleges before that.
If you are looking at the NHS as an analogy you could infer the solution is to have a two tier system, just as in health you have private healthcare and the NHS. The NHS may not offer as many bells and whistles, it may not get you treated as quickly, it may not offer access to the very best specialists in the world, but it does a very good job.
Surely if you are comparing education to the NHS, it would follow that universities like Oxford and Cambridge, perhaps even Bristol, Durham and the like, would be the equivelent of “going private”. This is not just an education, this is an M&S education. Or, for those who cant afford that, there could be a second tier of free universities – sorry, to take your very good point – higher education establishments, be they technical colleges, unis or whatever. So those who can pay for the best can do so, and those who cant can still educate themselves.
I am not advocating this by the way, it just popped into my head as I read your piece.
I dont know what the answers to these questions are but my instinct has always been that the principle of a good, free education has always resonated more lower down the age scale. So we should pump public money into primary and secondary schools (and other related activities, keeping kids off the streets etc) to ensure everyone gets a world class education to that level (which they patently do not at the moment).
A level playing field among teenagers, all getting a great secondary education, would increase social mobility. More poor children motivated at school, developing a taste for learning, would be willing to take on some level of debt in the knowledge it would boost their earning potential. And providing more competition for the rich but only averagely intelligent rich kids that end up going to university because it was always expected of them, where they pants about for 3 years, basically treating it as a 3 year holiday before they have to join the rat race. One silver lining to higher fees would be to dissuade at least some of the people who go there by default, and perhaps create more insentive for people who do go to make the most of the opportunity.
@nige, yes this is the phrase that was used by Nick Clegg, but it is one I have used before (and indeed before I read the BBC article). Free at the point of use would mean that we do pay for our higher education, through our taxes (one way or another – and not necessarily for the amount we “use”), but that it is freely accessible to all. At the moment it is neither free in monetary terms (at the point higher education commences) or freely accessible to all. The NHS on the other hand is, and I too sincerely hope the NHS stays this way.
So how much would taxes have to go up for those who are on low incomes who aren’t `academically gifted`?
@TheDruid Thankyou for your indepth response, and sorry to be treating it with a brief reply. I believe private universities could potentially work within the current system and will soon be writing an article specifically on this issue. The question with private universities is actually one of quality control and the funding associated with quality. I’m sure in the UK we do not want the situation an Apollo situation (owners of University of Pheonix and newest private university in the UK BPP) which is currently being investigated by the US government for manipulative recruiting practices. But with private universities (either for profit or not) it would be possible to create competition in the UK higher education not necessarily through fees, but through purchasing power, etc. This also did not seem to be mentioned in any detail in Lord Browne’s report, but the QAA function within British HE needs more power over private universities and regulations need to be set out before we encourage them.
It should be like the NHS – paid for out of direct taxation.
Cut the number of courses that are not worthy of a degree – about half I should imagine and there should be little problem meeting the cost.
The people no longer on these removed courses could enter the workforce for vocational training etc – er, just like they used to.
Come to think of it, how did we manage to have to all intents and purposes full employment, high rates of income tax, good pensions, stability in our lives and strong unions in the past? And we’ve had an ‘economic miracle’ since then. Mmmm,,,, what gives? Did I miss ameeting somewhere along the line?
@Norfolk Boy
Come to think of it, how did we manage to have to all intents and purposes full employment, high rates of income tax, good pensions, stability in our lives and strong unions in the past? And we’ve had an ‘economic miracle’ since then. Mmmm,,,, what gives? Did I miss ameeting somewhere along the line?
Yes the meeting was called the ‘1980s’ it was chaired by MRS M Thatcher I believe. 🙂
Come to think of it, how did we manage to have to all intents and purposes full employment, high rates of income tax, good pensions, stability in our lives and strong unions in the past? And we’ve had an ‘economic miracle’ since then. Mmmm,,,, what gives? Did I miss ameeting somewhere along the line?
Less people then, less easy credit, lower house prices, very few pressures on our economy from overseas (ie China), no internet so people didn’t question authority as much.
@Norfolk Boy: We also had stagflation, rampant strikes, the three day week, over a million unemployed despite government policies aimed at full employment, a massive trade deficit, a rising national debt, inflation at 20% at points, and to top it all off we had to go cap in hand to the IMF because we’d run out of money.
As for the article, it makes a reasonable point. More needs to be done to allow those whose talents are not academic to progress and learn, particularly in the field of apprenticeships. I’m not sure that free at the point of use is the right answer, though. Would we be paying back graduates who have already paid back their loans, for example?
One of the main problems with fees, whether paid for by a loan or not, is that it is essentially a regressive tax.
No, they are not. Under the current system of zero real interest then the lower your income the longer your pay back time and the higher the real subsidy.
Frankly claims that HE should be “free at the point of use” are drivel – post graduate courses have nearly always been paid for with fees.
No, they are not. Under the current system of zero real interest then the lower your income the longer your pay back time and the higher the real subsidy.
But the government wants to change that to an interest rate which will make a profit. Browne himself claimed that zero interst rates were unsustainable if they wanted to cut HE spending due to the deficit, as you would be effectively be giving most people a grant which they will be paying back much later in life. He suggested a 3% interest rate.
That would mena that those who pay off the loan qucikest will have to pay less… due to interest, whilst those who cannot pay off the loan for a long time could see them paying far more than, perhaps double, the cost of their course.
Good post. We must not let the Tories and New Labour change the terms of the debates about Higher Education into one purely about a financial transaction. General taxation is the fairest method, just like we pay for defence, NHS etc..
http://aboutpower.org/2010/10/13/tuition-fee-rises-a-step-too-far/
“Good post. We must not let the Tories and New Labour change the terms of the debates about Higher Education into one purely about a financial transaction.”
Face facts please: The LibDems have no real influence over political direction on any subject in this country. Here’s how many many people now view the LibDems:
57 MPs are available for hire to any party willing to cede a modest amount of power after winning a general election but with no majority. These MPs will work selflessly to meet the hirer’s strategy and objectives and will support any policies declared by the hirer without question.
This is in effect what the LibDem MPs are for – isn’t it? For they have no Principles of their own that they need to uphold; almost any and every policy that was previously dear to them has been dropped when challenged by their Tory masters. So what other purpose do they serve other than hired help for a dominant party? The latest and most blatant abandonment of Principle is of course related to the Tuition Fees.
Despite signing a pledge for fight against a rise in Tuition Fees, the LibDem seniors have accepted the Browne Report without so much as whimper. In an interview with Mr Paxman, Vince Cable stated, without much conviction, that the economic situation gave them no choice; clearly there is a choice and if they really believed in what they stood for, they would find alternatives.
The Economic argument does not hold much water anyway; it’s quite clear when listening to the Conservative’s views that this is as much about ideology as it is about costs. Mr Willets was keen to point out that that the changes being proposed would create competition between the Universities for student places, which would have a downward pressure on costs anyway (or so the theory goes).
Come the next General Election, who will vote for the LibDems? Who would vote for a party with evidently no bedrock policies or principles?
I really like the idea of treating further education, apprenticeships, vocational courses and HE as one group of post-school education which should be treated in the same way in terms of funding. I think that is a good solution to the real issue of asking non-graduates to fork out tax for higher education, since everybody would have a chance to get access to the common post-school education pot.
However, I fear that this would hardly be feasible. As it is, with top-up fees and all, the HE sector feels a bit like the NHS was back in the late 1990s, after years (decades?) of chronic underfunding.
I just cannot see how we could find the money to make post-school education ‘free at the point of use’. I love the idea – but I would need to see a realistic long-term funding plan to agree with it as a realistic proposal.
The argument for “free” (cf. funded by taxpayers, most of whom are a) working class/poor/without children going to university and b) don’t seek the advice of philosophy graduates on a daily basis) higher education is that it would “benefit society if everyone were better educated”. May I posit that what would actually benefit society is if secondary education ACTUALLY worked, and ACTUALLY provided every child with a decent education (say it does if you like, but there are huge numbers of children leaving secondary school without the requisite levels of numeracy, literacy, and general educational standards.) Until this happens, I don’t understand why some people consider it morally defensible to throw money that nobody has at a huge-scale middle-class prestige project. I don’t pay tax yet, as I grew up under a profligate Labour government that lacked a basic handle on economics, but next year I hope to pay tax, and I don’t want it frittered away to fund people going to university because they can’t think of anything else to do.
PS- to declare, I graduated from university with a philosophy degree three years ago, so I have seen first hand, and contributed to, the craven misuse of public money that currently passes for a “university experience”.
Where is your evidence that ‘huge numbers’ are leaving school poorly educated? I would posit that social problems are the reason for some children’s failure – it’s hard to do school work if your parents are looking for drugs or your caring for sick parents. My children are receiving a very good education from the state thanks. People should believe the evidence of their own eyes, not propaganda put about by those who wish us to pay (regressively) for everything, so they can pay less tax on the city bonuses.
If all secondary education teachers and university lecturers were obliged to put their lessons and lectures on their establishment websites and/or on a specially created BBC education channel, access to education would be available for everyone. And savings could be made because then Ofsted could be abolished.
@Bob.
I think you are largely right about how people view the LDs. I was having a discussion with a family member just last night. I have voted LD all my life, she is a long term Labour voter who voted LD at the last election. And the way she now perceives the LDs is almost exactly as you describe.
I think the LDs need to do a lot more work on their PR to combat the perception they are just basically, if you will excuse the expression, the Tories’ bitch. Because rightly or wrongly, a lot of people on the outside looking in see it that way.
@Bolivia Newton-John
You have articulated what I was trying to say better than I managed. Excellent post.
So, what are we doing here:
1. restricting the opportunity for people to get a university education (at a time when the rest of the world is increasing it)
2. screwing down supply normally leads to an increase in price but, no, we also want to provide a big fat subsidy (paid for by those denied the opportunity to go to university) to the remaining cohort of middle class kids whose parents can afford to send them to the best schools so they get the right grades.
3. locking kids from poorer backgrounds into ‘vocational courses’ presumably allocated by government on the basis of the supposed current needs of the economy, thereby saddling those people with qualifications that become worse than worthless as they get older and the demands of the economy change.
Tell you what, why dont we bring back grammar schools too. That should fix it.
Simple solution: scrap trident and spend the money on a thorough reform of higher education (to make it truly free at the point of use) and invest more in science and green technology. I know it’s politically impossible at the moment but if the government had the necessary courage, that is exactly what they should do.