The cost of learning

21 March 2009

The Spectator on university tuition fees

If one principle of funding must be that the universities are allowed to charge for the true cost of the education they provide, another must be that the education is free at the point of use to the student. Students must be able to borrow the full amount necessary for fees and living costs upfront, and then repay the money as graduates. In time we can expect banks to lend to students, perhaps linking repayment schemes to mortgages: those doing the best courses are, after all, a fairly good credit risk. But this will not happen until a reasonable flow of personal credit is restored and the student financing system has been shown to operate successfully. Until then, the government will have to play banker — something at which it is getting quite practised.

If the price of a year’s tuition at a top university rises to £20,000, there is a risk that some students from deprived backgrounds will be deterred from applying. But there are straightforward steps that can be taken to deal with this: the introduction of a large number of full scholarships, the promise that those who enter low-paying public service jobs will have their debts cancelled or reduced, and loan subsidies. What would really help poor pupils get into top universities is not subsidy of their prospective higher education costs, but a better state school system. Statistically, pupils with good A-level grades — three Bs or better — are all equally likely to apply to university, whatever their background. But the 7 per cent of children educated in the independent sector currently produce more pupils with three or more A grades than the entire comprehensive sector.

If the economy of the post-crunch future is to be based on knowledge, then Britain is in a strong starting position because of its brilliant universities. It now needs a more developed venture capital sector to harness their ideas. But if Britain’s universities continue to be underfunded, we will be squandering one of the nation’s comparative advantages in the emerging economic order — a miscalculation for which future generations will pay dearly.

Previous page 1 | 2

Ray

March 19th, 2009 9:42am Report this comment

The problem is not charging for university tuition per se. The problem is the Government's unrealistic target for sending 50% of all youngsters to university. This is saddling far too many graduates with debts that they are going to have difficulty paying off on account of possessing degrees that employers often have little use for (which, after all, is why so many of graduates end up working in call centres doing exactly the same low-skilled job as the non-graduates sitting next to them; or even worse, abandoning their studies and dropping out of university altogether).

A better policy would be to tighten up the standards for university admission and concentrate the money saved on (as suggested) targetting scholarships at less well-off students in order to remove the disincentives to them pursuing the option of higher education.

Sir Graphus

March 19th, 2009 11:17am Report this comment

No no no. Never has the Speccy written anything so wrong.

How do you expect an 18 year old to shoulder £60k in tuition debts alone?

Incidentally, market forces work both ways; Oxbridge only has a great reputation because the cleverest people want to go there. It must attract the cleverest students in the country, and it isn't going to do that at £20k a year. They say there will be help for the poorest, but we all know how this works; the threshold for bursaries will be shockingly low. The result will be that the rich will be able to perpetuate their privileges by sending their children to the most expensive universities; it's the death knell for social mobility, as if this Labour govt hadn't done enough to kill it.

Every year my taxes have gone up, and every year what I get for them goes down. In 1997, University was either free, or about £1000. Now it's £3000. By the time my children get there it'll be £20,000.

£20k for what, though? £20k gets you full board at a top boarding school. That's v poor value for tuition only at a university which is also getting a govt subsidy.

Sir Graphus

March 20th, 2009 8:56am Report this comment

Furthermore;

Difference between English and Scottish students' tuition fees over 3 years;
in 1997: £3000; annoying
Now: £10,000; unfair
This plan: £60,000; totally outrageous in a country where we all pay the same tax.

So, I'll end as I started: no no no no no no no no no

Derek Rowntree

March 22nd, 2009 1:11pm Report this comment

Is it really "deeply immoral" for university education to be paid for out of taxes if, as you say, the beneficiaries then go on to pay back in the form of so much more tax (on three or four hundred thousand extra pounds of income) than non-graduates?

Post comment