There has to be another side to any policy of free university education and that is either 1. tax increases 2. spending cuts elsewhere 3. reducing the numbers of students

There’s not a great deal of difference between loaning students money that they only have to pay when they are earnings a good wage, and giving them a free education than taxing them more when they earn a good wage (one difference is that high earners who didn’t go to university have to pay the tax).

But I am worried about whether higher fees will limit access to the good universities to rich kids, because despite the “you only have to pay it back when you’re earning it” loan structure, poorer kids may still be put off. Would like to see some research on that.

The odd thing is that, thanks to the compounding effect of the trend rate of growth, Britain is today at least twice as rich as it was when I was sitting behind a desk at a school instead of a desk at a workplace.

not odd! google Baumol’s Cost Disease

“There is no good reason whatsoever why higher education should not be funded entirely from general taxation.”

Does ‘we can’t afford it’ not count?

The Conservatives froze student grants and introduced loans whilst I was at university 20+ years ago. Higher education hasn’t been ‘free’ since the end of the 1980′s. And of course, it’s not free to the taxpayer. The numbers in higher education have risen by 150% since 1990, so it would be rash to assume that a system which worked then will still work now. We may yearn for the days of free university education, but perhaps it’s only possible if that’s restricted to a smaller, and more affordable, number of people.

I couldn’t agree more with this article.

It’s not just the right thing to do. It also makes sense economically. We need a highly educated population.

And to all those who say that graduates should pay for their education because they are the main beneficiaries, I say this: “Fine, introduce a graduate tax of 1-2p on top of whichever tax-rate people pay for ALL graduates.” Then those that before my time got free education and reasonable grants can pay for it too.

AFZ

Britain is today at least twice as rich as it was when I was sitting behind a desk at a school instead of a desk at a workplace.

In 1980 around 70,000 people a year got an undergraduate degree. In 2008 around 280,000 did. (UK-origin students at UK universities only). We’d need to have got considerably more than twice as rich to provide the same per capita funding (without either cutting back elsewhere or increasing the tax rate specifically to pay for it).

It’s an interesting hangover from the party of the people’s 13 years isn’t it.

University for all. Even if they simply shouldn’t be at univeristy. Even if the place shouldn’t even be a university.

How to pay for the massive influx and expansion? Fees.

No the huge increase in fees will result in less and less people going to university, the poorest probably being reduced in number the greatest.

So shortly we will be back to a lot more ‘universities’ dishing out courses to fewer and fewer students at ever increasing cost to cover the shortfall resulting in an American system where trust funds are set up for uni at birth and the poorest go to rubbish local colleges that have no respect from employers.

Blair, in effect, completely destroyed this country’s univeristy system as well as it’s primary and secondary system.

There’s now no real way back, it has to open to market with universities allowed to charge was is needed. In ten years time higher education will be no different from Eton et al/ public school / charity school / decent school / poor local comp.

If you are poor and brilliant, that’s you done.

In the spirit of rectifying the generational injustices outlined by David Willets (whatever happened to him?) in his recent bookie wook, I suggest CGT should be applied to sales of first homes in order to fund higher education.

Anyone got Cameron’s number, I’m sure he’d be up for it.

We need a highly educated population.

I’m not sure millions of media studies, drama, art, journalism, film, music, psychology and english students would fit the bill. Most degrees today – in an academic sense, at least – are a waste of time and money, which is a problem as they’re almost seen as obligatory.

Full disclosure: I’m still bitter after squandering a year on a creative writing degree. Be thankful you didn’t fund it.

Bensix,

Conflating education with actual skills is not helpful. If you learn to think and problem solve (which if you have any good degree, you should be able to do) then you have gained valuable skills. And the reason why a university degree is required to show this sort of expertise nowadays is simply because schools no longer do it.

david

““There is no good reason whatsoever why higher education should not be funded entirely from general taxation.”

Does ‘we can’t afford it’ not count?”

But if we can’t afford to pay for a certain level of higher education through general taxation, we must be even *less* able to pay for it through targeted taxation or tuition fees. General taxation, after all, is by far the best way of spreading the cost of higher education in a way that makes it more affordable for each individual contributor – it involves the largest number of people making the smallest contributions over the longest period of time.

“But I am worried about whether higher fees will limit access to the good universities to rich kids, because despite the “you only have to pay it back when you’re earning it” loan structure, poorer kids may still be put off. Would like to see some research on that.”

If we are honest – the “good universities” are already largely for rich kids and most notably for kids whose parents went to university. They always have been and they work hard to keep it that way.

But the real challenge is getting over this rather silly “good universities” mentality.

I read about a decade ago that for years students across Europe flocked to Brunel to study engineering because firms across Europe wanted Brunel graduates above all others (generally a Brunel graduate was considered to be the best equipped to star their career).

Yet Brunel tended to get fewer applicants from Brits than Cambridge for its equivelent courses – effectively disadvantaging British students if they later went looking for work abroad.

That was the case about 10 years ago. I don’t know if it holds true now. But the tendancy to talk in terms of “good universities” the way we do suggests it may still do in many courses even if not in engineering.

@ 1 Luis Enrique

There has to be another side to any policy of free university education and that is either 1. tax increases 2. spending cuts elsewhere 3. reducing the numbers of students

Oh! Oh! I plump for number 1! (not now of course but when – or rather if – the economy gets better).

There, not so difficult was it?

BenSix:

I’m not sure millions of media studies, drama, art, journalism, film, music, psychology and english students would fit the bill. Most degrees today – in an academic sense, at least – are a waste of time and money, which is a problem as they’re almost seen as obligatory.

You forgot PPE, but never mind.

Of course, you could increase the number of trained art, drama, film and music professionals simply by giving the money to the conservatoires and art schools instead, but expecting coherence from any of the three parties regarding HE is a lost cause. And Browne clearly thinks ‘word of mouth’ and the market will get rid of the allegedly crap courses, so all those who keep moaning about waste of space degrees at Holby Metropolitan will finally get what they’ve always wanted when such universities go bust (and then sold to the private sector at a knock-down price).

“More and more American students are forced to take cheapo-cheapo degrees delivered over the internet.”

I have a very strong feeling that it’s exactly this which is going to overturn the whole argument that we’re currently having.

Given the ‘net the idea that the only way education can be delivered is by assembling everyone in one room seems to me to be absurd.

I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see (well, if I’m still around to see) in 30 years most degrees being run along Open University lines. Get together on campus for a week each term perhaps and then everything else is done online.

Indeed, my stepdaughter started just such a degree last month at U Canterbury.

New technologies are, after all, disruptive.

Tim

Up to a point. Yale, for instance, has filmed a range of its top courses and is making them available for free on its website. Good. I have watched and enjoyed a couple of them.

But pedagogically it’s not the same as half a dozen seriously bright young people thrashing out ideas in a seminar room, is it?

For Luis Enrique:

‘Poor students will be priced out by high tuition fees, warns charity’: “There are obvious concerns that such large variations might deter students from less privileged backgrounds. Certain universities and courses with the highest financial return may become off-limits for less privileged students.”

‘Working-class revolution not reaching ‘posh’ universities’: ‘In a survey of over 150 institutions, eight of the 10 universities with the lowest proportions of working-class students were in the prestigious Russell Group of research-intensive universities.’

You can get some nice crunchy data here as well: ‘Using this measure, Oxford University has the lowest proportion of working-class students, with 11.5%. London Metropolitan University has the greatest proportion, with 57.2% The average for all universities in the UK is 32.3%.’

Have fun.

I was extremely lucky to start my degree the year before the loans came in. I still ran up an overdraft that took a few years to pay off, but still.

Education’s a right – not just for the young either. Free, lifelong learning should be as available as the health service. Education isn’t just about teaching specific subjects, it’s about developing critical faculties and keeping the mind sharp.

Tim Worstall:

I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see (well, if I’m still around to see) in 30 years most degrees being run along Open University lines. Get together on campus for a week each term perhaps and then everything else is done online.

Maybe, but there’s still the start-up, staffing and technology costs. My money’s on an explosion of part-time students (skewed in terms of social class), now that Browne has suggested that part-time and full-time students are funded the same way.

Shatterface @16 is bang spot-on. As is the OP.

It is some years since I was involved in the US higher education system, but it is still, I think, a bit simplistic to categorise it in the way that Mr Osler does. What struck me was the wide diversity of provision: by courses available, by full-time or part-time, by cost, by means to pay, by research famous to community college. Credit transferability is widely accepted – so that students can progress from community college (say), to State University, to graduate school at a top flight institution. Standards are not uniform but there are well developed regulatory mechanisms, plus numerous guides (both on line and paper) so that prospective students are well informed. Although there are a wide variety of different subjects taught, there is a certain regularity about what is in certain courses. For example, Economics 101 will contain a standard introduction to Economics, whether taught at Texas A&M, Northwestern, or State University of San Diego. I was amazed at the amount of student support that was available, both money and kind. Many current British students would find they would have a better experience than they are presently getting. We must not close our eyes to different ways of doing things; like it or not we have moved to a system of mass higher education with a model still stuck at a time when 5% of the age group went to Uni.. I think we should try to find the best of the American system and move in that direction. Lord Brownes proposals will make that transition easier.

“But pedagogically it’s not the same as half a dozen seriously bright young people thrashing out ideas in a seminar room, is it?”

But if we’re educating 50% of the age cohort at university, then the vast majority of what is being done at a university is not “seriously bright young people” is it?

If we’ve got 50% at uni then a vast amount of what uni does is simply grind through a syllabus: exactly the sort of thing that the internet will be good at.

Yale, yes, I know, but the important thing will be access to the exam and grading systems: the accreditation part.

Something which the UK is already very good at actually. I think I’ve got this right, U London has more external students than on campus ones?

Conflating education with actual skills is not helpful. If you learn to think and problem solve (which if you have any good degree, you should be able to do) then you have gained valuable skills.

But in at least some of these degrees you don’t. Trust me!

Here’s my problem. In a lot of careers, it seems, a degree represents a minimum standard of value and competence. Lots of people don’t attend Unis for education, then, but sign up to seem qualified. Lot of courses – film, art, drama, meeja studies and, yes, maybe PPE – don’t, I’d guess, prepare one for the *groan* careers market. So, that’s three/four years and thousands of pounds for a slip of paper that, for no good reason, acts as a key to the door of professionalism. More people will try to attend and gain scarce little that’s of worth.

I’ve been thinking for a while that a lot of the disadvantage poorer students from less educated backgrounds suffer is because they don’t know that some degrees are better and more useful than others nor that some Unis will carry better job prospects than others. [All the anecdotal evidence I've got from talking to parents who didn't go to Uni about their kids' educations backs this up.] If you’re not an educated consumer of education, how can you know if you’re making a good choice where to go and what to do, and what to spend your money on? That means students from less educated families are more likely to end up paying for things that weren’t worth it.
Have others thought this?

The thing is, this is a side discussion really. What we really should be discussing is access to jobs and routes into careers, and the ways in which poor students can be funded through internships, work experience etc that discriminates against working class kids. It is no good getting a first if you don’t have mummy and daddy to fund the next 2 years of internships.

Tim W is also right. I actually think the days of the 3 year degree are over, replaced by a series of short modules in most subjects that people fit around their careers. Its only a limited number of professions that benefit from having people solidly study for 3/4 years before an entry level job.

(Not, I should say, that I think careers are the be-all end-all – I can’t stand the bloody things. But some people seem to think they must be prefaced by degrees which is, to my mind, utter rot.)

All education should be free, the public monies should be spent on new green industries, education, homelessness, poverty, and a more holistic way of living.
The system is broken and no amount of red tape is going to fix it. Let’s sort it, unity of the people and a call for justice.
Stop the cuts, join the resistance, demonstrate 20th Oct Licoln Inn’s Fields WC2 5pm, Rally downing St, 6pm On the day of the spending review
coalitionofresistance.org.uk

BenSix: Lot of courses – film, art, drama, meeja studies and, yes, maybe PPE – don’t, I’d guess, prepare one for the *groan* careers market.

Not even one in the arts?

Not even one in the arts?

Heh – well, yes. But my assumption is that there are more arts students than there are careers in arts.

David Hepworth wrote on that…

http://whatsheonaboutnow.blogspot.com/2010/04/dont-put-your-daughter-in-meeja-mrs.html

There are far too many universities they should close lots of them and make them more competitive. Also delete some of the rediculous courses I.e travel and tourism what’s that all about!

“There is no good reason whatsoever why higher education should not be funded entirely from general taxation”

Yes. The shortfall can come from the magical money tree that will also plug the deficit and pay for supporting 2.5 million unemployed.

Or we can invest instead in industry, reduce the benefit bill, and get folks on Monopoly-money-per-annum to pay a bit more for the cost of their educations.

Grow up Osler.

@30 Skooter: “Also delete some of the rediculous courses I.e travel and tourism what’s that all about!”

There is an economic benefit that people working in travel, tourism, golf course management, equestrian event organisation et al should have relevant skills. Don’t slag off the idea entirely.

Sensible questions might be whether the subjects require three years of full time study and whether the students benefit from such courses.

In many cases it would be more appropriate for elements of these courses to be taught in continuing education. Continuing education is not cheap; the serious stuff is very expensive once you account for a paid worker being absent whilst on education.

One of the many things unmentioned in the “free education” debate is that the protagonists only argue for free teaching of 18+ year olds entering full time education. What about free or cheap teaching for 30 year old brickies who wish to learn (part time) technical or managerial skills, or learn a bit more about poetry?

Too much of the debate about post 18 education has been framed by the proposal that 50% should enter university shortly after passing A Levels. I have been dismayed by how many previous posters have taken it as an assumption rather than a problem.

@Charlieman

Maybe my remark was somewhat flippant but the point was do you really need to go to university to study those type of courses? This is just indicative of Universties attracting numbers and funding.

In my view the value of a university degree has diminished over the years and that is reflected in the employment market.The best degrees are still those that are obtained in the better universities which of course the rich are disproportianately advantaged.

I love this idea that poor people will be priced out of higher education. When exactly were they priced into to it? There has been a huge expansion of public funds going into higher education since the 1970s. Some people from ‘ poor ; backgrounds benefited. However, when you get the chance sometime have a look at the charts and see the income groups who benefited the most from this expansion in public spending. The middle classes grabbed most of the benefit and those on the lowest incomes got the least.

Anyone got these figures?

1 – cost in lost revenue of increasing tax threshold from present level to £10,000
2 – increased HE funding required to keep tuition fees at current rates, or (2a) abolish them

My hunch (I can’t find the numbers) is that figure 1 is going to be higher than figure 2 and maybe even 2a – meaning this hike in tuition fees is basically only necessary because the Lib Dems are hellbent on tax cuts.

(Same could be said of some of the Tories’ tax cuts too no doubt, e.g. corporation tax).

This fits the pattern established by Child Benefit: find any way you can to increase the net contribution people are making to public finances – any way you can take more money out of people’s pockets – just so long as it’s not *actually* a tax rise.

Doesn’t matter if it feels exactly like a tax rise to everyone on the receiving end, doesn’t matter if it has the same economic impact as a tax rise (in terms of disincentivising high earning, taking money out of people’s pockets etc), doesn’t matter if it does the same job as a tax rise but does it less fairly – just so long as you can say you’ve cut spending rather than raising taxes.

But this isn’t ideological of course – there’s simply ‘no alternative’.

If ever there was a defining issue for the LD’s in coalition, then surely this is it?

Given their pre-election promises, the move towards implementation of the Browne proposals should send a shiver down the spine of all LD members and supporters. If the LD’s can’t achieve any change in this area, their claims to ANY ameliorating influence on general governmental policy will be seen for the sham many of us always suspected they were.

Moves towards a US style system in tertiary education are not something we should be bounced into as a result of fiscal panic. Uncle Vince’s Damascene conversion notwithstanding, I’d need a lot of convincing these moves are justified (and not only because my daughter has just started a degree course!).

These plans will of course hit middle income families hard, as well as making it even more difficult for those from lower incomes to elbow their way into the better universities or courses.

By all means, let’s have a debate about the current state of tertiary education, about whether we need the number of Universities or graduates we have, about increasing the scale and quality of vocational training, about how we increase the amount we spend on education, research & development rather than decreasing it.

At the moment we seem to be sleep walking into an ill-considered, half-baked, idelogically motivated revolution in tertiary education largely because the LD’s don’t have the balls to stand up for their convictions.

Why not “free” education, Lord Browne? Because nothing is for free. And because mostly middle class students go to university, so why should working class taxpayers shell out for it?

37 blanco

And you think implementing the Browne proposlas will increase the number of students from working class backgrounds getting into University (still less top flight Universities)?

There is nothing instrinsically ridiculous about paying for education through direct taxation rather than by fees: it’s a matter of priorities granted, but I can think of many things where billions could be saved to fund it……

Fairness and promoting equality don’t really seem to enter into these plans, whatever ideological somersaults the LD’s perform.

@Galen

I disagree with Browne, but you must also accept that his review is a logical extension of what was started when Labour not only brought in fees but also set a target to get 50% into uni.

Intrinsic or otherwise, you can never fund uni through general taxation if 50% aspire to go.

Either the target is scrapped, or the fees go up.

39 blanco

The 50% target was nonsensical because it was an arbitrary figure, not based on what was needed, or on the basis of a well thought out plan on the relative merits of vocational vs academic needs, or the structure of tertiary education needed for the future. One could hardly expect much better from New Labour admittedly.

I’m quite sanguine about scrapping the target: what I’m not convinced about is the wisdom of the policy being mooted by the Coalition.

Fees going up is just another way of taxing the middle income earners in a less “fair” way than funding things through direct taxation following a meaningful re-assessment of the whole system, as well as ensuring that those from less well off backgrounds have even less chance of getting in.

I can see the attraction for social conservatives…but not for anyone on the progressive left.

No fees for education. People earning over £100,000 a year should be taxed at 100%

Like I said, I agree with you that Browne is wrong.

But I’ll reiterate that it’s a logical extension of what Labour began – Mandelson commissioned it, of course, and knew it would only report after Labour lost the general election. The coalition has two options: raise fees and try to make it fair with some bits round the side like raising the threshold; or to tell Labour to STFU with its opportunistic and hypocritical haranguing, and start a debate about what kind of higher education system we need in the UK, how many humanities graduates we need, and what alternatives to going to university we should be funding.

The former is the easiest and probably most viable option, but the latter is what needs to happen. Even the Tories, with their middle class voters and darling little angels who want to go off to uni and “find themselves”, don’t really want higher fees.

@Radfax HAHAHA. You muppet.

October 20th STOP the cuts
March from Lincoln Inn’s Fields, London WC2 5pm
Rally @ Downing Street, London SW1 6pm
Take the power back

42 blanco

“The former is the easiest and probably most viable option, but the latter is what needs to happen. Even the Tories, with their middle class voters and darling little angels who want to go off to uni and “find themselves”, don’t really want higher fees.”

In which case it is a relatively “easy win” for someone (perhaps, assuming we ever have one a progressive, radical, centre left party…. faint hope I know, but a guy can dream right?!) to articulate “the latter”, rather than carry on supporting “the former”?

blanco,

The coalition has two options: raise fees and try to make it fair with some bits round the side like raising the threshold; or to tell Labour to STFU with its opportunistic and hypocritical haranguing, and start a debate about what kind of higher education system we need in the UK, how many humanities graduates we need, and what alternatives to going to university we should be funding.

The number of humanities graduates we need is equal to the number of people who want to complete a programme leading to a humanities degree and can find a place and have the ability to do so. Seems fair to me – after all, it’s their money.

And I think this is probably the key thing – we have a choice between government deciding how many of anything we need or people chosing what they want to learn for whatever reason. In any system other than people paying for their education themselves, government can intervene and tell you what you can and can’t do. This seems plain wrong. What the Browne review allows is far more freedom of choice to individuals, and a clear statement that your education is about what you want, not what government deems acceptable.

People earning over £100,000 a year should be taxed at 100%

This reminds me of Jerry Sadowitz’s line that old age pensioners should be slaughtered at birth…

Over 3 million people march throughout the lands, from A-Z
Assembling together united at the houses of Parliament on this one day.

All the people remain there peacefully demanding their rights to a new just constitution, and a rebalance in favour of the people.

On arrival a manifesto of their plans and demands is presented to number 10 Downing Street, the Houses of Parliament and the House of Lords.
It reads as follows;

Submission of demands by the People of England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales including British Isles, collectively known as the United Kingdoms
This Manifesto requires immediate attention and action
No parts of this contract are negotiable.

The People’s Charter

The 26 Points

We the People are demanding a fully transparent and a just system favouring democracy of the people, whereby the government and police are held to account for their actions against the people.
We the People are demanding that members of parliament appointed and acting on behalf of the people shall have no other vested interest other than that of the people.
We the People are demanding an end to injustice.
We the People are demanding an end to illegal wars.
We the People are demanding banks give their bonus money back and return monies borrowed from the public purse.
We the People are demanding that all Mp’s pay back their expenses claims, any members who are shown to have claimed more than 10,000 in any one year will be sacked unless just cause can be shown as to why it was so excessive.
We the People are demanding that banks stop operating as high profit businesses, and stop investing in non sustainable assets. Furthermore that 50% of their gross profits will be directly reinvested to benefit all people and the environment.
We the People are demanding an end to mortgages.
We the People are demanding affordable housing for all
We the People are demanding all taxes that are raised from petrol and diesel will be invested in renewable energy
We the People are demanding all taxes raised from motorists will be used to invest in cheap affordable green transport.
We the People are demanding where public monies are spent, or public assets are sold, full and transparent consultation will take place with the people and in favour of the people’s needs and wishes.
We the People are demanding that all future investments of public funds will be for the benefit of all people and the environment
We the People are demanding an end to corporate control.
We the People are demanding an end to oil exploration
We the People are demanding an end to Poverty
We the People are demanding that a cap be set on maximum wages, whereby people earning over £100,000 a year will be taxed at 100% on anything above that thresh hold.
We the People are demanding that all businesses with a gross profit exceeding 1 million pounds must show that the rest is invested in sustainable growth, or given to the treasury to be reinvested in the country.
We the People are demanding that all revenues taken in taxes will be just and fair, furthermore that these taxes will be used to benefit all people and the environment.
We the People are demanding investment and a realistic holistic approach to all self sustainable environmental innovations and practices.
We the People are demanding jobs for now and the future
We the People are demanding a free education for all
We the People are demanding an end to Homelessness.
We the People are demanding investment into renewable energies
We the People are demanding all industry becomes green, investing in sustainable holistic practices including green energy, methods in sourcing, production and the recycling products from start to finish.
We the People are demanding an end to nuclear energy

@48

Who wrote that manifesto? & you do realise that a 100% tax on income above £100K would result in a) no-one bothering to earn that much (taking pay cuts to £99K for example) and b) putting their money elsewhere [gold, wine, shares, etc]? And how does one go about abolishing mortgages?

PS no disrespect but if you get 3,000,000 people marching on London I’ll set-up a hat-making business purely to feast on them for decades to come.

48

Don’t tell us…. it’s a GCSE project right?

Meanwhile, back in the real world….

@9 Yes, we can afford it. We have a higher GDP than Finland, though not by much, and they manage to get 80% of their young people through university, entirely on grants & state funding. If they can do it, so can we.

51

I absolutely agree with your conclusion, and see where you are coming from.

Sadly, I don’t see it happening, as I don’t think enough people in the UK are actually that interested in creating a society which is more egalitarian and socially liberal like those in Scandinavia (would that they were!).

What you do get is the tub thumping ravers coming out of the woodwork banging on about not wanting to subsidise “meeja” studies/fine art/social sciences [delete appropriate hobby horse depending on the raver involved].

Perhaps this is one of those defining issues for people? Either you are quite happy to see our educational system go the same way as that in the USA (followed presumably by the health service), or you think there has to be a better way.

It’s a shame Newer Labour hasn’t got the idelogical cojones to articulate the case for a Finnish style solution.

“Finland, though not by much, and they manage to get 80% of their young people through university, ”

Eh? What are you talking about?

1) Finnish system divides into academic and vocational at 15….in tertiary education there is a distinct difference between universities (academic) and polytechnics (vocational).

2) Nowhere near 80% go to uni. Can’t find the exact numbers but cobbling them together we get 60,000 births a year (so that many in each age cohort passing through the python) and 10,000 or so first degrees awarded each year and 10,000 or so advanced degrees each year. Yes, you must have a basic degree to do an advanced one. So it’s more like 15%.

3) Your 80% number seems to have come from here.

http://www.stat.fi/til/opku/2008/opku_2008_2010-05-20_tie_001_en.html

Of those who started at university in 1995, 80% had a degree by 2008.

Really, rather a different thing, don’t you think?

48 – I’d quite like a pony.

54

Tim, what use would a one trick pony have for a pony?

55 – I have several tricks, though very few of them involve ponies.

@ Galen10

I am quite happy to accept that all knowledge and learning has value.

Every person who has the ability should be able to attend university.

We all benefit as a society with the expansion of knowledge.

Graduates who earn more pay more tax.

None of those points are disputed by me. However, I have paid lots in tax back to society but the benefit was disproportionately to me. The issue to me is how the system should be funded in the most equitable manner. Full financing through general taxation does not seem equitable to me when the benefits do not accrue equally.

57

Of course there will always be an element of compromise in any given allocation of resources. However I’m not sure that the current system or Brown’s proposals are necessarily more equitable than full funding from general taxation. We all pay for the NHS and defence expenditure from general taxation too.

Like you, I have benefitted from the provision of partially funded tertiary education and have also paid lots of tax back in my working life. My own kid has just started at one of the top Universities, partially funded by me. If they are planning to radically increase fees it would have a big impact on my finances, and those of others like me.

Saddling students and their families with greatly increased debt is a sure fire way of decreasing diversity at universities, and reducing the numbers from less affluent and state school backgrounds getting in, particularly to top flight Unis.

I’m open to the argument that more needs to be done for vocational training, even that those who benefit should be expected to make some contribution; I’m just not convinced this is the way to do it, or that the alternatives have been properly investigated.

Galen…

I don’t think enough people in the UK are actually that interested in creating a society which is more egalitarian and socially liberal like those in Scandinavia (would that they were!).

What you do get is the tub thumping ravers coming out of the woodwork banging on about not wanting to subsidise “meeja” studies/fine art/social sciences [delete appropriate hobby horse depending on the raver involved]

But that wouldn’t be egalitarian at all. Some would do medicine/engineering/architecture and the like and – with some luck – get high-paying jobs. Others would cram into writing, theatre and art courses, get out and find no one wants their skills. (And I’m not just tax-tubthumping: I don’t pay the darned stuff!)

59

Well, my point about promting a more egalitarian society (as in less class ridden than we currently have, and with less of a disparity between those at the top and those at the bottom) was more general.

I’m not saying everyone should be absolutely equal… obviously there will always be disparities, and all universities are not created equal etc, etc. What you are describing has always happened, and would no doubt continue. Hard sciences are not something everyone can do, same goes for languages.

There is a place for “art for arts sake” in my view, but I doubt many people doing middling degrees at middling institutions are under any illusions they are going to be as employable as someone with a first in Engineering from Oxbridge, not that a degree is everything of course.

Yes, clearly I was generalising: if Universities just shaped their students to fit careers then, well — *shudder*. My vague point is that people should be given the chance of going to University but it shouldn’t be seen as the natural, best or most ambitious choice. A degree’s only inherent value is that employers (wrongly) use it as a bottom of line competence…Which is a pretty crummy reason for going!

61

We’re in violent agreement then

WE MOST CERTAINLY ARE!!1!