The cost of learning

Wednesday, 18th March 2009

The Spectator on university tuition fees

A momentous shift occurred in British politics this week: the National Union of Students accepted the principle that graduates should contribute to the cost of their degrees. This U-turn is proof that the argument that graduates should pay for their tuition has at last been won, 11 years after the introduction of fees in 1998.

The system that existed before then, though routinely described as a badge on civilisation, was, in practice, deeply immoral. University education was paid for out of general taxation: the poorest in society were subsidising the education of those who would go on to be the richest. With the median male graduate earning £325,000 more in a lifetime than a non-graduate male (and a female £430,000), there is no justification for those who benefit from this experience not paying for it.

Despite the apocalyptic predictions that accompanied the introduction of fees and top-up fees (which allow universities to charge students total fees of £3,000 a year), the social spread of participation has not narrowed. After the 2006 introduction of top-up fees there were a record number of UCAS applications with an increase among the children of parents from every single occupational group.

Two thirds of vice-chancellors want to raise fees. Even including the government funding that universities receive on top of student fees, they are still losing money on teaching undergraduates.

With financial services and property extremely unlikely to drive growth as they did in the last decade — at least for the foreseeable future — bright, inventive, well-educated graduates and top-flight research are crucial to the country’s economic recovery. There is no way Britain’s universities can maintain their world class status — in the Times Higher Educational Supplement rankings, four of the world’s top ten universities are British, the other six American and there is no university from another EU country in the top 20 — if they have to bear such a burden for each undergraduate student they accept.

1 | 2 Next page

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