Know something you shouldn't? Tell us, using our quick, 100% anonymous tip-off form!
STRAIGHT TALKING: In the wake of last week?s reports over the return of student grants, Mustafa Arif looks at the future of higher education funding.
I think the solution is perfectly simple.
Keep the Russell Group and other genuinely world-class institutions state-funded but with larger handouts. This way you don't lose out on the poor students, but at the same time you don't compromise standards. This is vital.
This could easily be subsidised by the other universities being set free to charge fees for those who can afford them. Some form of means-tested grants and fee waiver could be brought in to minimise grief for students who would otherwise be deterred from applying.
This way the Government funds the most important research and teaching without having to subsidise time-wasters, layabouts and mediocre students on "soft" degrees with two lectures a week and coursework involving analysis of porn movies.
Industry will only fund big projects in universities once they see a genuine commitment to excellence from the government with sustained investment at US governmental levels.
Wha a bloody stupid idea: charge for the crap places and not for the good ones. Wakey wakey!
Explain: why is it such a bad idea?
I laid out why it should be done above. You need more money going in to the best places, and at the same time you want to make absolutely certain that people from all backgrounds can study the very best courses. This is the best way of ensuring that in the immediate future.
If the crap places shut down because less people apply to study there, so much the better. I don't see why the government has to subsidise crap places at the expense of the Russell Group. Do you?
[Then we could have perhaps more plumbers so they could all stop charging ?60 for piddly little jobs.]
Sunil, sounding a little like an elitist snob there mate. The UK still has relatively low university attendance as a proportion of the population but you?re encouraging a return to before the widening of access in the mid-20th Century when attendance was tiny.
Higher education fulfils a greater purpose than simply to create the next generations leaders, people at all levels of society can benefit from the skills and disciplines a degree (even media studies) can provide them with. Having had a fair amount of contact with corporate Britain, I wish more people were educated to good degree (not necessarily Russell Group) standards ? it?s the only way the UK will maintain any kind of advantage as a service economy.
Giving a free education to those who will benefit most from it is rather counter-intuitive (unless you think Russell Group grads should be somehow indentured to the state after graduation?). Also cutting student numbers to secondary and tertiary universities is bad for the top tier ones in the long run, thinking multi-generationally. The children of today?s ex-poly graduates are more likely to attend a Russell Group Uni than the child of one of your 60 quid plumbers (a sad fact but one which will remain even if you make top-tier uni?s free).
I?d like to think we all want to see improved quality education with maximum availability and minimal student hardship. Given my earlier point that the Government is right to continue to widen access to higher education across the board, the only way for this and improved quality to reconcile is increased funding for the sector as a whole. My personal preference is for general taxation or possibly a graduate tax to fund this but I?ll leave it to wiser men (/women).
Doesn?t stop me taking the piss out of my parents for working at Portsmouth and Southampton Institute though..!
' Also cutting student numbers to secondary and tertiary universities is bad for the top tier ones in the long run'
Not just in the long term, but also relatively short term aswell. A large number of MSc students are from 'non-Russell' universities. Blocking access at a lower level would destroy most of the Russels in a very short period. Probably a good idea;)
I know I said you'd never hear from me again, but I was getting bored, so ...
I agree that trying to restrict access is a bad idea, purely from a utalitarian point of view. As Stef has pointed out, this will hurt the Russell Group just as much as the lower-level universities. Idealogically, the idea of stating that one group of people deserves to be educated to the highest level they can achieve, but another may not, purely on the fact that they can't afford to pay their own way is frankly appalling.
The government's target of getting so many people into higher education may turn out to be impossible, but they should be lauded for attempting it. If they could come even close to achieving their goal, not only the individuals, but the whole country would be strengthened. But the question is how to pay for it.
As far as I can see, there is very little difference between a Graduate Tax and the repayment of a student loan - it comes out of your pay-packet at a pre-determined rate and it only affects people who've taken a degree. So let's combine the two.
Let's set the fees, possibly twice or three times rate they are now, but probably not a lot more, and combine them with a realistic student loan for living expenses, which can be repaid in the current manner.
This has the advantage that people will make a contribution to their fees, but at a time when they can afford to. It also removes the possibility of parents refusing to pay for fees, leaving hapless students having to pay them out of their loans. When repayments start, there would also be an eventual end in site, rather than a tax until death, or a huge debt to the university.
There are, of course, disadvantages. People would leave with much larger debts, which could be a turn-off to poorer applicants. But with no 'up-front' expenses, this should not be too much of a hinderance.
There is also the problem that even tripling the fees would not be enough for some universities. But it would certainly go a lot further than the current system.
The other stumbling block is that universities would have to wait at least three years from the start of such a scheme before they got any money. This would need government spending in order to fill the gap, but for such a short term, this should be feasible.
Does anybody know why the mail service on Arif's website doesn't work? I need to check my emails!!!
Stuart, there is a subtle difference between a graduate tax and the current system (which was debated in excruciating detail at ULU Council...). A graduate tax would be universal. Every graduate would pay, say, an extra 2 or 3 pence in tax. This means that everyone "pays back" the same amount - regardless of the support they required at university. The advantage of this is that students from disadvantaged backgrounds don't have to pay back more than their more affluent colleagues. So, it really is not a form of debt - just self condemnation to a higher rate of income tax. The disadvantage is that by breaking the link between level of support and amount of pay back is that you take away from people part of the personal responsibility that they currently exercise (i.e ., at present if you are careful with your money and need to borrow less, you pay back less. With a graduate tax that wouldn't be the case.) Whether this is good or bad overall is a matter for debate.
Of course a graduat tax is not just a substitute for paying back of "loans". It can also be a substitute for up-front tuitition fees as well / instead. Removing this up-front financial obstacle was why ULU lobbied the government to consider it.
Dear "moi", look at http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~ma499/links - if one of the email systems is broken try one of the others...
Well, I'm sure that everyone agrees that any kind of up-front payment is a BAD IDEA, so lobbying to remove this part is a definite must.
But I'm not convinced that a graduate tax would be the best way forward. Quite often, taxes are imposed as a discouragement - taxes on alcohol, tobacco, cars with higher fuel consumption and so forth. Is it really a good idea to introduce what could be seen as a penalisation against going to university? This, surely, would not help to meet the government's target.
And would this tax include the student loan repayments, or would this have to be paid back seperately? Let's hope that the former situation would prevail, as lumbering graduates with both a tax and a huge debt would be ludicrous.
Stuart, I think the idea was that there would be no loan repayments under a graduate tax scheme.
You also need to remember that ULU did *not* lobby for a graduate tax. They merely lobbied for such a concept to be *considered* by the government as part of their wide-ranging review of HE funding (due to report in the Autumn). While you, I an d many others would prefer to see taxation (if that's how we're going to pay for it) come from income tax and not a graduate supplement, political realities make it difficult for the government to introduce such a measure.
I think you're probably right, Mustafa. Although ideally we'd prefer not to have to pay, realistically, we'll all have to in the end. From a socialist pint-of-view, we should probably be glad to help to pay for a service that benefits the whole community, as well as providing for those students who come after us.
This is not an ideal world and others have pointed out why graduate taxes are unworkable and why the socialist ideal of degrees for all is unreachable in the next x number of years.
In the meanwhile, it is critical that the best institutions be protected from decline while we go on wrangling about how to widen access to education to everyone. There's little point in widening access if every country from the US to India ends up having better institutions than Britain, institutions that over time are attracting the best talent away from here.
My interest is simply in preserving the present degree of educational and research eminence in the country, while at the same time trying not to narrow access down. Certainly not to the very best institutions. Top-up fees or other schemes diverting funding away from the Russell Group may widen access for all in general but will almost certainly restrict access to the Russell Group for poorer students. Which is ultimately counter-productive.
[Also, you don't really need a degree from anywhere to be a cultured, educated or well-read person in a general sense. That's more down to your upbringing and schooling. When you do absolutely need a degree is if you require specialised high-level training to enter a particular academic field.]
Live! is a City & Guilds Media Group Publication and editorially independent of City & Guilds College Union.
© 1999-2008 C&G Media Group