The teach-in is a great idea, although would have involved more organisation than existed at Millbank, which was a spontaneous occupation. It would be more likely to happen at a future protest now that activists are talking and planning an ongoing campaign.

Please don’t buy into press and police spin by using the word “violence” to describe breaking windows. Vandalism and destruction of property is not the same thing as violence against the person. The only “violent” act at Millbank was the fire extinguisher incident, which was regretted by almost everyone there.

Great piece.

I love the idea of a teach in.

I don’t know whether the following claims are correct or not, but commenter cim could have explained how: “Browne looks very similar to the NUS Graduate Tax proposal – though Browne is marginally better for low-earning graduates and somewhat worse for high-earning ones than the NUS proposal).” and jay: “if unis were paid for out of general taxation it would cost 2p more on the standard rate – which would cost someone on £25k per annum an extra £29 per month. Under the loan repayment scheme, a graduate earning £25k would be charged £30 per month.”

I don’t know how “teaching” those smashing shit up in the Millbank offices this information would have gone down. Maybe they’d have left to smash up the NUS offices for proposing something a bit more regressive.

[n.b. I am being contrary again. I thinking funding education out of taxation is the better policy]

A point to bear in mind is these students have parents who probably also vote. Those (possibly conservative-voting) parents may feel that “firm” policing is necessary if property is being destroyed. They may find their conservative sympathies hard to maintain if their peacefully demonstrating sons and daughters are whacked by heavy handed policing. They may also be more inclined to believe the reports of their kids than the reports published in newspapers.

Indeed Luis.

As several people have pointed out, the current proposals are nothing other than a particular form of graduate tax.

cjcjc

on the other hand even if the financial implications are very similar, I suspect it feels different to have a £18,000 loan hanging over your head than to face a higher-than-it-would-be-otherwise rate of income tax. If we’re going to take behavioral and notionally irrational factors seriously perhaps another reason to prefer funding out of taxation is that it’s easier for people to kid themselves they’re getting it for free so they’re happier?

I don’t know, a counter argument would be about inefficiency, and that the general taxation route leads to an excess of university educations in society.

But it’s a very strange kind of “loan” isn’t it?

And in what sense is it “hanging over” anyone?

On what other kinds of loans are payments proportional to income (that is income only over a certain threshold) and will be forgiven if you never get to that level?

It needs to be renamed as what it is – a graduate tax.

yes it is an unusual loan. but the proof of the pudding I’m talking about is found by asking people whether they feel like they have a loan hanging over them, or not.

“pah at violence – just tories being wusses” – copyright ‘Hard Man’ Hundal

Luis

the proof of the pudding I’m talking about is found by asking people whether they feel like they have a loan hanging over them, or not.

True. But you’d also have to ask them what it felt like to have a bigger tax burden pressing down on them if you went for paying the cost of higher ed out of general taxation.

My hunch is that a “loan” you only have to pay back if you can comfortably afford to do so is less of an incubus than taxes collected with the full coercive enthusiasm of HMR&C.

well, who knows. although I’d note its much more common to hear people talk about students leaving uni saddled with debts than it is to hear people talk about students leaving uni saddled with future tax liabilities.

“well, who knows. although I’d note its much more common to hear people talk about students leaving uni saddled with debts”

That’s true Luis, but it is in part to do with the failure to explain what student loans really mean. In many people’s minds it is like an enormous credit card bill that will drive the young into bankruptcy.

CJCJ – yeah I’d agree with that – the failure is essentially a marketing one. They are not loans in the commercial sense.

However, I think people are missing something important though about the proposals.

The proposals are not so much about increased fees, but the greater introduction of market forces into it. With different universities charging different fees (i.e. only the “best” ones will probably charge the full 9k) then finance becomes a far greater factor into the choice of what uni and what course to do. It is this part that has the worst effect on social mobility.

It has always been the case that rich kids were more likely to move away for uni, but this process will be enhanced by variable fees. Plus rich kids have also been able to use the bank of mum and dad to help with living costs. So even under the old system poor kids would graduate with larger debts than rich ones – Even if they were’t really debts. In other words, the fees/loans system was a regressive way of funding education. However with limited fees people still made their choice of course based upon what they felt was good for them, and location of university was also less of a factor. Basically a degree cost you X if you moved away, and Y if you stayed at home.

Now with variable fees of up to 9k (and anyone stupid enough to think this cap won’t go up or go altogether needs to learn some history) finance will play a greater role in what course and where kids study. There is a difference between having to pay 10 grand out of your future earnings or paying 30 grand out of your future earnings.

Imagine you are a poor kid living somewhere without a local uni (or where the local uni is a really bad ex -poly) so you have to move away. You can study your chosen subject for 9k a year at a really good uni, or 2k/year at a bad one. Is anyone seriously suggesting that the difference between having to repay a 27k loan or a 6k loan isn’t going to influence choice of uni?

Another factor you have to consider is the career paths available after. It really isn’t the case that a degree automatically translates to higher earnings. Even for those degrees in ‘markatable’ subjects, the graduate jobs in the field go to those with the social connections and financial ability to support you through internships, MAs etc. Frankly it’s a scandal that loans aren’t available on the same terms to help graduates start their career paths.

I could honestly see the long term effect of the proposals being that we end up with 10-15 elite universities charging high fees and attracting more rich thick kids than poor clever kids. The rest will be charging lower fees for fast food education, and attended by people in the lower catchment area.

If instead of loans we had finance through general taxation then although the financial effect on the median individual may be the same in terms of money taken off one’s wages, the effects on social mobility may be far smaller.

“magine you are a poor kid living somewhere without a local uni (or where the local uni is a really bad ex -poly) so you have to move away. You can study your chosen subject for 9k a year at a really good uni, or 2k/year at a bad one. Is anyone seriously suggesting that the difference between having to repay a 27k loan or a 6k loan isn’t going to influence choice of uni?”

It may do, but that is what choice does, it gives you the freedom to set your own priorities instead of having them set for you. What is the problem if a young person turns down a place at Cambridge because he cannot see its value? Shouldn’t that place go to someone who does?

It isn’t so much people turning down cambridge because they cannot see ‘value’ but because it costs 30k for them compared to 6k at the local uni. That 30k doesn’t seem like a good deal when you factor in that the career path afterwards will have to involve internships, socialising and networking etc if you want to fully benefit. This means Cambridge will end up the place for rich thick kids, rather than poor kids with good grades. The top universities should be taking the top kids, not the rich kids.

13

“I could honestly see the long term effect of the proposals being that we end up with 10-15 elite universities charging high fees and attracting more rich thick kids than poor clever kids. The rest will be charging lower fees for fast food education, and attended by people in the lower catchment area.”

Exactly. The Tory response to this of course is basically “so what?”, because they are not now, and never were, interested in promoting social mobility or equality either in the provision of education or elsewhere. They are not just sanguine about the Americanisation of our University system, just as they will be with the deconstruction of the NHS, they positively revel in it.

Of course this is the start of a slippery slope, and of course it will have an adverse impact on the number of kids from poor backgrounds and state schools will get into top Universities. Once the New Labour dolts opened the door for charging, the rest was childs play for the Tories and their dupes in the LD’s.

I’m not sure which is most depressing; the fact they are actually getting away with this, or the fact there is no effective opposition.

Going back to the basic point – it won’t cost them *anything* until they earn more than 21k.

If the value doesn’t materialise – they don’t have to pay.

Is anyone paying attention??

“Of course this is the start of a slippery slope”

I’d say it was the middle. We started 10 years ago.

Yes CJCJ. The point I was making was that there is a difference between paying a 10k loan out of a 25k salary, or paying a 30k loan out of the same salary. The issue isn’t so much fees, but variable prices. (actually I’d say the main issue is post uni career paths and social mobility more than anything)

“What’s the price we pay for smashing windows?”

Chicken feed,

to what we pay to bail out the global bankers.

just a thought – most of the lecturers I talk to are of the opinion that video lectures and other internet based goodies are going to blow away the standard uni model in coming years anyway. who knows what innovations universities looking to make money by attracting customers are going to introduce.

@19 – is there?

It’s £30 either way.
Though obviously for a longer period in the latter case.

I would be amazed BTW if the range of fees was that wide.

£30/month that is

Planeshift @19

The point I was making was that there is a difference between paying a 10k loan out of a 25k salary, or paying a 30k loan out of the same salary.

But the whole point of the new system is that there isn’t a difference. Your repayments will be the same whatever the size of your loan: 9% of earnings over £21k.

The only difference will be the number of years you pay. But after 30 years any unpaid amount is written off anyway.

14

“It may do, but that is what choice does, it gives you the freedom to set your own priorities instead of having them set for you. What is the problem if a young person turns down a place at Cambridge because he cannot see its value? Shouldn’t that place go to someone who does?”

The problem is they oftentimes won’t be turning it down for that reason, they’ll be turning it down because they can’t afford it. Of course some will get financial help, even scholarships if they are particulalrly bright, but the overall effect will be to make top flight universities more and more a middle and upper class preserve. In general that’s not an issue for Tories and those who beleive life is just like that, but for many others it represents a huge change in direction for our society and its approach to higher education, and something to be resisted.

15

“This means Cambridge will end up the place for rich thick kids, rather than poor kids with good grades. The top universities should be taking the top kids, not the rich kids.”

No, it means it will just end up reverting to a place for rich kids with good grades with progressively fewer and fewer kids from poorer backgrounds, and similar numbers from middling backgrounds struggling to finance top end fees. In universities which have 10, 15 or 20 qualified applicants for each place, they aren’t going to go short of people applying, they are however going to see the pool of such applicants increasingly unrepresentative of society as a whole.

“struggling to finance top end fees”

Again, sorry to bother you with the facts.

But they won’t have to “finance” anything.

They will be taking on a potential tax liability which will only be triggered at a certain income level, will cease once a certain amount has been paid, and will cease altogether after 30 years even if nothing has been paid.

Luis, I’d agree with that. I think the traditional model of the uni needs to change radically, just not in the free market direction.

I’d say part of the social mobility problem lies in the post-uni path of internships, networks etc that mean a degree – even from the top unis – becomes worthless for poor kids who can’t afford to finance that path. Part of this problem must lie in the fact the degree has been de-valued so that employers have to find other ways for candidates to distinguish themselves.

So I’d say the solution was to cut the number of degrees and universities funded by the state. Have the state pick 15-20 (number negotiable) universities and fund them to global standards. Admission to these unis based entirely on ability (not grades), with extensive efforts and positive discrimination in favour of poor kids. Those who get in get all fees paid, accommodation paid plus living expenses. Furthermore extensive post graduation funding to help them on their career paths through internships and professional development.

The other universities basically change what they offer. Instead of the 3 year degrees they offer, they start offering something different and designed to complement people’s working patterns and careers. Rather than considering higher education as something for 18-21 year olds.

The idea being perhaps that people do a 1 year course, get a job, then do a module a year as they work their way in to a career. Funding for these courses based on free market lines – with loans available to people on the same terms as currently (i.e. you pay back out of earnings after you complete the course), and perhaps tax breaks for firms who pay for their employees to do courses.

“It isn’t so much people turning down cambridge because they cannot see ‘value’ but because it costs 30k for them compared to 6k at the local uni.”

That is just saying the same thing. If they don’t think the Cambridge education is worth the extra money (to be paid from earnings later in life) they can choose the cheaper degree. If they have a Cambs place they should be well able to make this sort of calculation.

[17] Going back to the basic point – it won’t cost them *anything* until they earn more than 21k. If the value doesn’t materialise – they don’t have to pay. Is anyone paying attention??

Can anyone think of a graduate profession that expects to earn LESS than £21k – I doubt if there are many (certainly not teachers, nurses, social workers, etc) – all can expected to be laden with chunky debts and no control over tomorrows repayment demands (compound interest anyone?).

And all this drivel about ‘choice’ – the odds are ALREADY stacked against ordinary people getting into our top unis (statistically speaking) – factor in the prospect of a large financial burden and do people think these existing inequalities will get better or worse?

So, yes, there may APPEAR to be ‘choice’ but choice that is largely influenced by how well off your parents are (or more likely aren’t).

“And all this drivel about ‘choice’ – the odds are ALREADY stacked against ordinary people getting into our top unis (statistically speaking) – factor in the prospect of a large financial burden and do people think these existing inequalities will get better or worse?”

There is good reason to think they will get better. We will see. But I don’t see how it improves people’s lives to reduce their choices.

Does paying £30/month out of £1600 take home pay (approx monthly post tax pay from gross 25k) count as being “laden”?

One thing I haven’t seen discussed is whether or not the proposed “market” for fees will materialise. I seem to remember that’s exactly what New Labour envisaged when they introduced top-up fees, with the result that pretty quickly everyone started charging the full £3k. If the cap is raised (but not scrapped), what’s to stop this from happening again, just at a higher level? Or will the “market” actually be tightly regulated to prevent this?

Good post, and excellent point by James from Durham @ 5 who recognises the importance of alliances and support across generations.

The way that there so many threads on this student fees story makes me think that it’s less about the detail of fees and more a Socialist Worker style attempt at mobilising the masses in an ideological battle against the government and the cuts in general.

Any ex-student who faces paying off student fees will already be in a better position than factory and supermarket workers, so it’s hardly that the sky is going to fall on their heads.

If people are deterred from going to a prestigious university because they can’t grasp how little 9% of earnings over £21,000 is, then they are just willfully ignorant.

But I fully accept that the 9% figure could rise once in place.
Then I would think people would have the right to be really annoyed.
If it went to 15% for example.

But even at 15%, someone on average earnings of £25K would still only have to pay back an extra £50 a month.

“the odds are ALREADY stacked against ordinary people getting into our top unis (statistically speaking)”

Well that problem doesn’t lie with the universities.

eg Cambridge (you can find the data on their website) admits state/private students pretty much in proportion to the numbers who apply.
It is the (relative) dearth of state applicants which is the problem.

“No, it means it will just end up reverting to a place for rich kids with good grades with progressively fewer and fewer kids from poorer backgrounds,”

Why? Why should kids from poorer backgrounds offered a place at Cambridge not be able to make the calculations that cjcjc keep urging on us and calculate the Cambs is worth the money to them?

“The only difference will be the number of years you pay”

But there is a difference between paying £30 a month for 10 years and paying the same for 20 years, as you’ve said. You also need to consider that rich kids generally speaking won’t have repayment obligations as big as the ones poor kids will have- even for the same course at the same uni. This is because generally their parents will pay some of the living costs, wheras the poor kid will borrow. Its a regressive funding system – a graduate tax isn’t.

Planeshift/13: “The proposals are not so much about increased fees, but the greater introduction of market forces into it.”

Yes, they are. But not in the way you said.

Let’s assume £7k fees as a minimum. Universities will need to charge that much to substitute for the removal of most of the block teaching grant [1], so they all will. Assuming a three-year course, a student who takes out the maximum maintenance loan (which is likely, unless they get the full maintenance grant as well) will “owe” around £32k in student “debt”. To repay this within the 30-year period, they will need an average annual salary (AAS) of around £38k over those thirty years, assuming no career breaks, unemployment, etc. (For a 4-year course, the AAS is around £44k instead)

That’s fairly high even for a graduate’s salary – it’s getting on for twice the median salary. They’re also not going to be earning that much to start with unless they’re phenomenally lucky – so they’re going to need to earn much more than that later in their career to make up for that.

The consequence is that many graduates will have at least some of their “loan” value written off by the government after thirty years. The consequence of that write-off is that any extra student “debt” accumulated will make absolutely no difference to them – they’ll pay exactly the same in “loan” repayments whether they have a “loan” that requires £1 to be written off or a “loan” that requires £10,000 to be written off.

Therefore, there’s – perversely – no incentive not to take out a greater student “debt” than they already have. They may as well go to a university charging £9k a year instead (AAS £41k for a 3-year course, £48k for a 4-year course) because unless they become very rich (and annual real-terms personal earnings of over £40k, most likely over £50k towards the end of the 30 years is definitely rich) it won’t make any difference to how much they “repay”.

And this of course leads to there being no incentive for universities to charge anything other than £9k, because the cost to the student/graduate is the same, but they’ll be able to provide better facilities to them.

So, where are the market forces? In the student numbers. The major (stealth) impact of Browne, carried into the government proposals, is that UK undergraduate student numbers will no longer be regulated by the government. Universities will be able to teach as many as they want to, so long as they can attract them. Some universities will be able to expand significantly. Others may shrink, merge, or even collapse. It’s unpredictable, somewhat terrifying, and doesn’t come with protest-worthy big (but largely irrelevant) numbers attached.

[1] This isn’t a cut in teaching funding as such, though it’s being presented as one. It’s a change in the way it’s allocated, with the potentially huge “market forces” implications above, by allocating teaching funding to actual student numbers, rather than allocating to “expected” student numbers and fining universities with too large a discrepancy between “actual” and “expected” numbers.

26

Nonsense. Let’s take a fictional student from a poor background attending Cambridge; they will now be in a worse position financially than they would have been before they had tuition fees, and those in future will be worse off still, because when they get a decent job they will be paying off the debt. It’s a system that doesn’t work in America, and the best the dolts here can come up with is to copy it.

As a&e says @ 28 it’s only going to make inequalities worse, not better: so much for progress!

“Why should kids from poorer backgrounds offered a place at Cambridge not be able to make the calculations that cjcjc keep urging on us and calculate the Cambs is worth the money to them?”

Well CJCJ has kindly informed us that the issue is the relative lack of state school pupils applying. So we already have the situation where kids from poor backgrounds calculate cambs is not worth the money. One reason they may be calculating this is that already know that they won’t be able to fund the internships afterwards. Another could be cost of moving away to do a degree is far greater than studying at the local uni. Higher and variable fees make this situation worse.

[30] not for those who are lucky enough to have mummy or daddy pick up any shortfall.

Every penny counts when you are living in one of the world’s most expensive cities;
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/london-among-most-expensive-cities-20100629-zfg8.html

Anyway, something seems to have upset our slumbering students, and I think even Paul Calf might understand their concerns on this one?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsZ10ydh59w
(see from 3:30)

“Nonsense. Let’s take a fictional student from a poor background attending Cambridge; they will now be in a worse position financially than they would have been before they had tuition fees”

That’s true but they won’t be in a bad situation. They will still be getting a heavily subsidised elite education that they will be able to convert into high earnings if they choose.

“So we already have the situation where kids from poor backgrounds calculate cambs is not worth the money. One reason they may be calculating this is that already know that they won’t be able to fund the internships afterwards”

Why should going to Cambs require more internships? If you start in the City, say, you will begin on something like 25K and be earning twice that in 5 years. Isn’t it more likely that people from poorer backgrounds just don’t even consider applying to elite universities?

Damon/33: But I fully accept that the 9% figure could rise once in place.

As an aside, this is one of the big advantages (to graduates) of a “loan” over a “graduate tax” even if the repayments are theoretically the same under both. Because it’s a loan (even if one with rather bizarre repayment terms), the repayment terms can’t be unilaterally varied once it has been taken out. A graduate tax, of course, could have its level altered every budget, even retrospectively.

If it went to 15% for example.

You’d still have to be earning more than £30k a year for 15% above £21k to be higher repayments than the current 9% above £15k, though. Someone on upper-quartile income can definitely afford that.

Planeshift/36: This is because generally their parents will pay some of the living costs, wheras the poor kid will borrow.

Well, the “poor” kid will also be eligible for over £3k a year in non-repayable maintenance grant, which the “rich” kid doesn’t get.

The people who do get harmed by this system are those who have parents who are rich enough to support them but unwilling to do so. Students disowned by their families for being LGB and/or trans, for instance. I’m very disappointed that the proposals don’t have something to deal with this situation in them, but they at least don’t make things worse. (It’s not the only place in government in which family support is wrongly assumed, either)

I understand that the facts are not going to prevent you from trying to turn this into a touchstone anti-cuts issue, perhaps in the hope of more Millbanks.

Well, go ahead.

What would be a total disgrace would be if some poorer students were put off by your scare stories rather than looking at the actual numbers.

Because, for good or ill, this will be going ahead.

[34] “It is the (relative) dearth of state applicants which is the problem” – yes, because state schools do not provide the intense sort of coaching required to obtain x3 A* at A-level – neither can ordinary families pay for private sessions on ‘interview techniques’, just one of the scams necessary to nudge other potential applicants out of the frame.

Or put another way the multiple disadvantages associated with the experience of many bright working class children is largely an irrelevance when it comes to getting a place at the likes of Oxbridge – the energies of these institutions is hardly geared to such inequalities but rather raising more dosh from the next generation upper middle class families (not to mention rich families from overseas).

41

I’m not saying they aren’t relatively lucky, or even that they aren’t still subsidised, I’m saying that all this rightist nonsense about it all being a big fuss over nothing, and it not being a real debt and actually a benign sort of graduate tax etc., etc, is just so much hot air.

Students in that situation will be relatively worse off than if tuition fees had not been introduced. They will be even worse off when Unis start charging what they like (which is going to happen sooner or later). We will therefore end up with a tertiary education system which looks much more like the US system, which isn’t something the majority of people want.

It’s a disincentive which will make the already stacked odds even less favourable for poorer students. It will decrease access, decrease social mobility and decrease the promotion of equality. Something that regressive is no part of what anyone on the centre left should want.

OK, we have got to 40 comments here mainly discussing the issue of paying for degrees and how this will affect recruitment, and no-one seems to have mentioned a key part of the Browne report. The bursaries for students from poor backgrounds – which all universities will be expected to provide. Ring any bells?

Amidst the noise of people positing what will happen (with no evidence – all the evidence is for increased numbers of people from poor backgrounds going to university despite funding changes…), perhaps it is worth remembering that those who put together the Browne Report were on top of the issues and thought this one through.

I think that the key argument is not what will happen to various ‘types’ of student (please note one thing about student loans is they should ensure there are no ‘poor’ students). After all, if talented students start to increasingly attend local universities (which are being classed as ‘bad’) then I’d suggest that this will improve the universities (if only because talented students paying money will want better service and teaching than some currently offer). And the issue of internships is marginal – most graduate careers do not use them, many companies offer competetive internships and to get one through the ‘old boy’ network you either need to know someone in the business or be particularly well-connected (and I am not sure how this latter one works). None of my friends from university (almost all middle class, alas – hence many were socialist…) got internships through family connections; they all seem to have got good jobs in their chosen fields.

No, the key argument which is being lost here is not about paying for degrees (we pay for them one way or another) but about which direction universities go in. Do we have them as extensions of the state education system or world-leading institutions at the forefront of research, or try for both? Because that is the key question with funding, and the problem underlying all of this.

“t’s a disincentive which will make the already stacked odds even less favourable for poorer students. It will decrease access, decrease social mobility and decrease the promotion of equality. ”

This keeps being asserted but what is the argument for it? Why should a poorer student give up her place at Oxford because she will have to pay for it out of future earnings? I have noticed that in all this it is always assumed that poor people cannot value the education in itself, but only for instrumental earnings raising aspects, but that isn’t actually true, is it?

“Well, the “poor” kid will also be eligible for over £3k a year in non-repayable maintenance grant, which the “rich” kid doesn’t get.”

I confess to not knowing this, and yes it does mean my opinion gets revised.

48

Don’t be crass. Of course people realise that the poor are just as able to value education for the sake of education. The issues are both that the prospect of being financially worse off will be a direct disincentive to some to attend prestigeous universities which start to charge more, and that indirectly the switch to such a system from the one we used to have is regressive.

It’s not rocket science.

how large do people think the poor-household-debt-aversion disincentive effect is?

it’s a bit hard to come up with clean comparisons – lots of people are talking about students being “worse off” because of higher fees, without thinking about the spending cuts and/or tax increases that would happen in no-fees world.

let’s say we want to hold that quantity of students attending uni and the level of spending on education constant, and we just vary the payment mechanism.

1. no fees and funding out of general taxation (say an extra 2p on the pound from current levels)
2. payment via loans and fees as proposed, but no tax increase.

now say in the general taxation scenario, we’d have 100 out of every 1000 poor households apply to a top rank uni (those likely to charge £9k, Russell Group)

if we switch to the loans scenario, how large do those who object to the policy think the change would be? would it be tiny (now 99 out of 1000 apply) or gigantic (now only 20 out of 1000)?

this might seem like an odd question to ask, but we have all these passionate debates without anybody ever giving a sense of the magnitude of the effect they are talking about.

my guess is rather small. I think that out of all the factors that determine education decisions, this is just one amongst many, and I think that the level of encouragement smart kids from poor backgrounds are given to apply will not change too much, and their own debt aversion will not be that strong, so I’d guess at change to 95.

Luis,

Can I up that to 97-98, and considering the efforts that said universities are putting in to attract students (can we stop saying kids – they are adults once they come to university, and need to be treated as such) from poor backgrounds (all Russell Group universities have teams dedicated to this) then I would not be surprised to see 100+.

52

“can we stop saying kids – they are adults once they come to university, and need to be treated as such..”

Jeezus.. precious much? It’s shorthand, not derogatory.

on second thought that was a dumb question, we’re just going to see estimates the correspond to everybody’s already known point of view on this debate.

Please don’t buy into press and police spin by using the word “violence” to describe breaking windows.

Helen – doesn’t matter if you see it as spin, that is how the public sees it, and they don’t like it either.

The point that James makes at #4 is also spot on.

“The issues are both that the prospect of being financially worse off will be a direct disincentive to some to attend prestigeous universities which start to charge more”

It will be but only to those who do not see the value in the elite education, either because they do not think it will return higher earnings, or because they do not highly value the learning (or believe that it will be superior). In all those cases it is just better that that student goes elsewhere and someone who does value the place takes it. Nobody loses (unless the students who opts out is mistaken).

But what evidence is there that higher fees will act as a disincentive? I haven’t seen an argument. And many people are ignoring Luis’s point that there is an HE funding crisis that has to be paid somehow. It will be fees or taxes. The poor pay taxes even if they don’t get a university education.

“Anger dissipates into minor satisfaction, then consolation, then resignation: all the while the coalition carries on regardless.”

That’s all well and good, but unfortunately it doesn’t really fit with recent history does it? Recent history where countless mass marches have been completely ignored (not least on tuition fees) whereas ‘violent’ protest has achieved real results – from the Brixton riots through to the Poll Tax Riots. Any sensible look at the issue has to stop adopting a finger-wagging ‘you’re only letting yourselves down’ approach to violence-against-property. By all means disagree with it, but don’t keep parroting the false line that it’s ineffectual while ‘legitimate’ protest gets real results.

The poor pay taxes even if they don’t get a university education.

which is why if we need to raise more money to fund university education out of taxation, we ought to do it by increasing progressiveness of tax system.

56

People keep trotting out the “oh the poor pay taxes too” as though it were some logical knock out, and made what was going on the right thing to do. Lots of areas are paid from direct taxation: the issue is whether this should be one of them. I, like many others believe it should be – it’s hardly unusual, as most European countries do it this way. Like so much else about the cuts agenda, it comes down to a decision of which areas to cut, where to raise more money, and the balance between those things.

You also seem to believe that the decision to go to university is some straight arithmetic trade off, whereby student X will go if they think it is going to leave them better off. It’s hardly likely to be that simple. I know plenty of students who stayed at home rather than study away for financial reasons: it had nothing to do with academic abilities or whether it was the best place for the subject, or best place for them.

Of COURSE people lose: we are all losing out when people don’t attain what they are capable of, and when regressive measures are regarded as acceptable.

Helen [1], you’re right to point out the difference as to whether violence is perpetrated on humans or inanimate objects, but I don’t think it changes the point. Not only because, as Sunny notes [55], of how it’s presented in the media, but also because smashing windows does release anger (probably more effectively than smashing a policeman/tory). The point is less that violence is wrong per se (although I’m not a fan of it personally), than that in this particular instance it’s strategically unwise.
Which means, Bill G [57], that I’m not ruling out all forms of violence at all times, just arguing it needs to fit with a strategy. As you say, it was crucial to fighting Poll tax. But anti-Thatcher protest had reached a completely different level to where we are now, which meant that mass anger, when it came, had an impact. 200 teenagers kicking in a few windows isn’t going to do that.

“Lots of areas are paid from direct taxation: the issue is whether this should be one of them.”

Higher Education will still be paid for out of general taxation, but not completely. And the issue is that we need to massively increase the spend (I don’t think anyone disagrees with that).

“You also seem to believe that the decision to go to university is some straight arithmetic trade off, whereby student X will go if they think it is going to leave them better off. ”

No, that is the view I have been arguing against. I just think that even taken like that it is not obvious that people will be put off going to university.

“It’s hardly likely to be that simple. I know plenty of students who stayed at home rather than study away for financial reasons”

Which is fair enough and they should have the choice. At least under the system proposed it will be a real choice, they will be able to finance study away if they choose.

while I’m at it I’ll have my 2 cents on the Browne report.

As I understand it, the BR is not bad in terms of modes of payment, even if the costs borne by graduates are exorbitant. No up-front fees (so as not to put off poor students), plus raising the repayment threshold to £21K, plus giving the same rights to part time students. If the maintenance grants for poorer students are effective, they can well say that it’s ‘fair’, at least on its own terms.

I think there are three basic problems. Firstly, Britain also spends comparatively a small proportion on tertiary education (24th out of 33 OECD countries, just behind Estonia) – 0.7% of GDP, as opposed to America’s 1%, despite the fact that the US has a vast private university system. Then Sweden spends 1.6% of GDP on higher ed. So the idea that we can’t afford it is nonsense. We just want students (or rather, graduates) to pay for it, rather than general taxation. In this we find the important point about the BR: there will be no block funding for undergraduate teaching of non-’priority courses’ – i.e. everything bar sciences, engineering and medicine (and perhaps languages). In other words, undergraduate courses in humanities and social sciences are from now on private.

Secondly – and I know I’m repeating other people here – the calculations about how much more graduates earn than non-graduates are based on generations with a much lower proportion of graduates. If 45% are now going to university, we might develop the much-fêted ‘knowledge economy’, but it’ll also push wages for most graduates down. With the exception of the high-end stuff (finance, engineering, etc.), of course.

Thirdly – and I think this is the massive problem – the notion that universities might ‘benefit’ a society has been reconceived in an entirely economistic manner. When Browne says that individuals ‘benefit’ from university more than a society does (which is his justification for effectively privatising undergrad courses), he means economically. Yet there are other benefits – especially in those courses that produce nurses, paramedics, social workers – of universities. In general, an education system that creates informed, engaged citizens is a public good, and crucial to a successful democracy. But that hasn’t been factored in to the BR or Cable and Willetts’s responses to it. You can see that from the way they protected, or froze, science funding (useful for the economy) whilst cutting teaching funding. The primary purpose of universities is no longer education, but scientific, and eventually economic, innovation. Labour can’t complain because it was Mandelson (right?) who moved higher ed from the Education to the Business dept. But this is a very worrying sign, not only because it is so horribly ideological, but also because it depreciates to such an extent critical thought.

so yeah.

I think you might be under estimating the effectiveness of violence.

I have to confess that I thought I was reading Liberal Vision whilst I was reading this post and I thought… “hmmm.. this doesn’t seem like the usual high level of critical reasoning I would expect from this site” and then I realised I was on Liberal Conspiracy.

Violence isn’t ineffective. It’s very effective. Just ask the Labour party. The argument isn’t that it doesn’t work. Like torture, it works very well, it’s just morally reprehensible.

The “teach-in” would have been fascinating for the handful of people who witnessed it but it would have been completely ignored by the public at large. Throw a fire extinguisher at a policeman and people will put down their copy of Heat magazine and pay attention; many of whom will probably agree with your “ill thought out” cause.

As the spokesman for the UK Anarchy Party said on television “If we hadn’t turned up and did this, it wouldn’t have made page 33 of the national newspapers”

TRUE.
To clarify this point further….
How many of you knew of the Europe wide demonstrations against the increase in surveillance cameras? I can tell you, not many people I ask here know anything about this simply because THEY WERE NON-VIOLENT. It was hushed up in the UK media because they didn’t want you all to know that some people were actually getting off their backsides to complain about something which they disagreed with.

Thats how it works.

Kevin – I’m not sure I get your ‘Liberal Vision’ quip, but I guess I’m supposed to take it as an insult. In any case, the only evidence I’ve seen about torture is that it’s incredibly ineffective, and results in lots of misinformation: the detainee gives his/her torturers the information they ask for, to make the torture stop, rather than the truth.

As for the point for being ignored by the public at large, the question (and I take this to be Ronald’s one as well) is whether all publicity is good publicity. The protests were always going to have massive press coverage, they’d been trailed in the press all week, and then twice as many people turned up as expected (so the page 33 claim is fatuous). Yes, the smashing of windows and throwing of fire extinguishers increased the number of column inches devoted to it, but did any of these column inches actually discuss what they were protesting about, or was it just sensationalism and hypocritical hand-wringing about angry kids? I can’t see any evidence that it helped change people’s minds and create sympathy for the students/lecturers, and this is what’s going to need to happen if they are to have any impact on the way the BR is implemented – which, after all, was the ultimate purpose of the protest. Look how it overshadowed the G20 protests, which became sensationalist crap about anarchists tearing down the city – a good reason not to talk about the ‘socialise losses, privatise gains’ approach to the banking crisis. It undermined the entire debate (even if it eventually led to the police having to rethink their tactics), and look where we are now as a result. The only positive effect from a publicity point of view this violence will have had was in bringing the Daily Mail to support the ‘middle-class’ students against the naughty anarchists – let the DM support protests against dismantling the welfare state for as long as possible. But it did very little to help the students’ cause, or the anti-cuts cause as a whole.

66

“the only evidence I’ve seen about torture is that it’s incredibly ineffective, and results in lots of misinformation: the detainee gives his/her torturers the information they ask for, to make the torture stop, rather than the truth.”

Exactly. Apologists for the use of torture and the scaremongers out there who are convinced by the need for it should take note that those actually involved in intelligence gathering have always known this. The tactics used which George Bush and his chums are so sanguine about weren’t just morally wrong, they were illegal and ineffective.

“which is why if we need to raise more money to fund university education out of taxation, we ought to do it by increasing progressiveness of tax system”

which is what this graduate tax does!!

68

No it really doesn’t. It will impact certain graduates more than others, and ignores the “public good” aspect of spending on tertiary education as David notes @63.

The question remains: why should higher edication be singled out as an area to be monetised/privatised in this way, when as David also notes we already spend LESS on education than most other OECD states?

“and ignores the “public good” aspect of spending on tertiary education as David notes @63.2″

No it doesn’t. Tertiary education will still be massively subsidized by the state.

70

I didn’t say it wasn’t massively subsidised, I was pointing out that it isn’t subsidised as much as it is in other comparible states, or in my view as much as it ought to be.

What would the benefits be I wonder of increasing the % devoted to such spending to the same level as that in Sweden I wonder, or even some lower amount that moved us up from that 24th out of 33 position?

Well who knows, but I don’t think Sweden is very good model for the UK. My point was that it is wrong to suggest that the public good aspect of HE is ignored in the proposed reforms, the large public subsidy is an acknowledgement of that.

72

OK, maybe ignore is too strong a word, but certainly “fails to take adequate account of”.

I wasn’t saying Sweden or any other individual country was a good model, I was making a general point that increasing the % we spend to something more like that level would be a “ggod thing”. Obviously others think it wouldn’t, or would spend even less.

Galen & Torquil – I’m not sure how subsidised higher ed will actually be. Yes, the state will pay the fees up front, but will then recuperate the money once grads earn more than £21K. If a grad earns more than £35K (I think) on average in their life – not a bad income – they’ll have paid back the entirety of their university fees. I think the aim isn’t simply to re-direct funding but to let the individual bear the majority of the burden: what subsidies remain will be focused towards ‘priority subjects’ plus, increasingly, scientific research (and research with an economic impact, because obviously that’s what matters, not ‘education’ as some wishy-washy way of empowering individuals to understand the world around them).

Two points here: both worrying. Firstly, the fees Labour introduced were ‘top-up’ fees: what government couldn’t, or wasn’t willing, to pay, was covered by the individual. But now it will be the government that tops up what individuals don’t pay (either because they’re still funding some science teaching, or because the individual never earned enough to pay back the whole £27K over a lifetime). So the focus has been switched. And secondly, government only invests in higher education in those fields where it believes it will get concrete returns on its investment (this is equivalent to arts investment being restricted to subsidising West End Musicals – not that I want to equate scientific research with Mamma Mia!).

I think this is troubling. If you’re from a middle-income family, and choose to study, say, History, and then become a history teacher in a comprehensive school for 35 years, you will pay back every penny of your uni education. That doesn’t seem right to me.

So the question, in a sense, is how do we do we stop this history teacher from having to pay back the whole amount (I’m not, by the way, a history teacher)? One possibility might be to say the government will invest x amount of GDP (say 1.1%, the OECD average, which is what Britain paid 15 years ago) in Universities – like they invest 0.7% in development and aid. To reach this figure you could perhaps start a graduate tax, like cjcjc suggests (and a progressive one? 0.5% on top of income tax for earnings up to 40K, then 1% to 100K, then 1.5%?), all funds from which would go to reaching the 1.1% figure (the state would make up the shortfall from elsewhere). Or you could pledge to fund the 1.1% out of general taxation, and anything necessary above this would be met by the individual. But at least you’ll have a sense – and will communicate a sense – of why higher ed is important, and worth supporting, and the ways in which it benefits even the people – still a majority – who don’t receive it. Which is what I think is really lacking at the moment.

74

Agreed. I think that’s a good summary.

It always seems that it’s the middle that gets squeezed, and that’s my general objection to the whole pitch of Coalition cuts, not just in this area. I’m not against the poorest getting generous support, and can accept that it is a good thing. As you note however it will be those on middling salaries (or those from families with “middling” incomes) that will be feeling the pinch most.

I find it deeply depressing that a Labour government opened the door for this situation, and that the narrative now seems to be that since the rape is inevitable, we might as well lie back and enjoy it.

74

In fact, thinking more about it that’s a pretty good “starter for 10″ for Newer Labour: commit to increasing the UK % spend to at least the OECD average, and maintaining it there, then as a quid pro quo introduce a graduated tax for expenditure over and above.

How much more in £ would increasing the % to the OECD average figure amount to?

David Nowell-Smith/74: For £9k fees, plus a £3,750 maintenance loan, you’d need an average annual salary of around £41k to repay the costs of a 3-year course. That’s well into the top quartile of earnings, and because hardly anyone starts on £41k, implies having top-decile earnings later in life.

(For a 4-year course you’d need at least £47k average, which is already top decile income)

Looking at the teaching pay scales, and bearing in mind that the PGCE and ITT will take some years off the front of the repayment period, so it’ll be fewer than 30 years of actual repayments, most teachers will be earning well below this amount, and probably won’t repay even half of the costs.

what subsidies remain will be focused towards ‘priority subjects’

As I understand it, the subsidy provided through the remaining block teaching grant is intended to avoid having differential caps or fees for lab-based subjects compared with non-lab subjects. The former have higher costs and have had higher block-grant funding for a very long time. It’s an odd and slightly inconsistent way of preserving it, but it does make sense to preserve in some form to stop the (headline price of science degrees being higher than that of arts degrees to UK students / underfunding of the higher costs of lab-based subjects).

One possibility might be to say the government will invest x amount of GDP

One interesting thing about the current proposals is that you can trivially increase the government’s investment by raising the tuition fee cap. All but the richest graduates will repay the same as before – because they’re already at the 30-year write-off on the current fee cap – which means that the government has to pay more of the difference. The richest graduates pay more, of course, which is equivalent to them paying higher income tax.

cim – thanks for the maths, and also for pointing out exactly what’s happening with the maintenance loans (I wasn’t entirely sure myself). As for the teaching salary, it’s also weighted depending on where the school is. Teaching in an inner London comp and ending up with large responsibilities will, I think, see you pay it back – although as you note this does put you in the top decile. My point was rather that society benefits enormously from this person using her/his education to educate in her/his turn (this would also apply for social workers – although they’re unlikely to pay it all back, of course – or civil servants, etc.) and yet such non-economic benefits are not taken into consideration.

As for the block teaching grant, remember it was cut by 40% a week after the BR came out. Browne himself foresees further cuts (80%, I think), all of which will go to fund sciences. Another thing is that although social sciences and humanities courses cost less, they’ll pay the same. If all unis charge £9K per year for, say, history courses, this doesn’t mean history courses cost 9K to put on — this (so far as I can tell) is an average for lab and non-lab degrees. So will non-lab degrees effectively subsidise lab degrees through a surplus between fees and costs, independent of the government teaching block? We’ll see how it works in practice.

The other thing about all these repayment schemes is that it implies you stay in the uk. Go work for Goldman Sachs in New York/Hong Kong/Frankfurt and make a killing and you won’t reimburse a penny.

Galen – it’s wishful thinking to hope Labour might backtrack on higher ed, isn’t it? I hold out some hope that the cuts debate will at least get people to articulate why the various services – from disability mobility allowance to higher ed to NICE – were put there in the first place. Not, in a rather melancholy way, so as to appreciate what we’re about to lose, but so we’re able to mount a compelling defence of them. Probably more wishful thinking.

78

You may well be right: it is hard not to be disillusoned looking ahead, as I don’t see much prospect of Labour “doing the needful”

Galen 10/75: those from families with “middling” incomes

Those from families with household incomes up to 25k (about 60th percentile) will get a full grant of £3250 in addition to the maintenance loan, under the government proposals.

A partial grant is available up to a household income of 42k (about 90th percentile).

Above the 90th percentile for household income is not “middling”, much as the Tory press would like people to think it is.

that since the rape is inevitable

Things that are not anything like rape, part 172: “£50 a month in loan repayments off a salary significantly above the median”.

—

David Nowell Smith/78: The other thing about all these repayment schemes is that it implies you stay in the uk. Go work for Goldman Sachs in New York/Hong Kong/Frankfurt and make a killing and you won’t reimburse a penny.

That’s true but all the “pay for it by putting X tax up” schemes have exactly the same problem.

My point was rather that society benefits enormously from this person using her/his education to educate in her/his turn

On the other hand, you could say the same about income tax for teachers. The government pays the teachers X, but then a different branch of the government takes back Y. Why not just exempt them from income tax and pay them X-Y in the first place? Obviously it makes other things easier to calculate that way, but looked at strictly, it’s odd. Why are we charging teachers tax on their income, when we pay that income from tax in the first place. We’re apparently just moving a heap of money around in a circle to generate employment for accountants.

It seems easier, if the problem is that certain jobs are considered socially valuable and therefore worth society paying for the degrees needed to do them, to do the degrees on the same terms, but give the jobs extra pay to “cancel out” the loan repayments. Administratively much easier – and therefore cheaper – than trying to give tax/loan repayment exemptions for particular public sector employees, is just to increase their pay by around 5%. I’m entirely in favour of doing that.