Student fees to hit £7000

[Francesca R]

Sure, then let's have a higher income tax rate.

If it is a graduate-only tax surcharge, then it at least would retain the property that only the beneficiaries of tertiary ed pay it. And that was a policy recommendation on the table of course, from the Lib Dems (initially) and from some of Labour.

A general rise income tax, or a rise in the upper rate, has the same drawback of not matching costs to benefits. Plus I suspect there is insufficient appetite in the UK for higher taxes.

If you are OK with a graduate tax, then what is actually wrong with the alternative Browne recommendations?

 

[andyandy]

If it is a graduate-only tax surcharge, then it at least would retain the property that only the beneficiaries of tertiary ed pay it. And that was a policy recommendation on the table of course, from the Lib Dems (initially) and from some of Labour.

A general rise income tax, or a rise in the upper rate, has the same drawback of not matching costs to benefits. Plus I suspect there is insufficient appetite in the UK for higher taxes.

If you are OK with a graduate tax, then what is actually wrong with the alternative Browne recommendations?

well, firstly it's deeply "unfair" for all the well off middle aged types (eg our MPs) who went through university without paying a penny to shirk their own responsibility towards paying for state education and instead shift the burden onto children. Secondly if there is also an investment in other training routes such as apprenticeships etc, and as long as access is available to all then that is all that can be done re state provision. Everyone contributes to universal services through taxation even though not everyone uses every service. To go down a pay-as-you-go style of government may appeal to the uber-right but not i suspect to many others....

But you nail the reason why this won't happen - there isn't the appetite for higher taxes at the higher level. And that's because the media and the political system is very much a product of well-off self interest - look at the howls of protest from the press at the notion of child benefit for top rate tax payers being withdrawn. Compare that instant reaction to the year it took for the press to notice the 10p tax changes would adversely affect the poor.

I'm against the idea of graduate tax because the older generation shirk their own responsibilities towards state provision of education - but i'm all for education being provided out of general taxation because i think that education is one of the cornerstones of what the state should provide. And for all this government guff about not being able to afford it. Well, if there were cuts comparable to other departments that might just about wash. But this is nothing about the cuts agenda, but simply a fundamental redrawing of state responsibility.

 

[Architect]

Well, the head of evey architecture school in the UK have written an open letter to the Westminster government.

Architecture degrees will become the preserve of the wealthy if the government adopts the Browne review’s recommendations on university finance, heads of schools have warned.

Now FrancescaR will doubtless be along in a moment to argue that, like the previous cricicisms I posted links to, the schools of architecture are some sor tof biased self-interest group. After all, what would they know about education, eh?

 

[Francesca R]

well, firstly it's deeply "unfair" for all the well off middle aged types (eg our MPs) who went through university without paying a penny to shirk their own responsibility towards paying for state education and instead shift the burden onto children.

That may be unfair (though it was not pre-meditated), but it is too late to do anything except to stop it continuing. If universal services which are regressive to fund and which are not public goods are maintained, then the rip off continues. Newsflash: if the state keeps coughing up for university tuition it will not be the late-in-life who pay, it will still be the working generation, and it will still be those who derive the least benefit from higher education doing it. Your rant is woefully mis-directed.

Everyone contributes to universal services through taxation even though not everyone uses every service.

Exactly. Everyone contributes but graduates derive by far the most benefit. Why you think this is equitable is not something you have yet coherently explained.

To go down a pay-as-you-go style of government may appeal to the uber-right but not i suspect to many others....

It makes rather a lot of sense if the ones who use the service are the ones most able to benefit from it, and the ones who pay are the ones most able to pay which is exactly how the proposed policy would work.

That really ought to appeal to left-leaning folks. And it does, which is why the last Labour government introduced top-up fees and kicked off Browne's process, why Ed Miliband favours graduate tax, and why Vince Cable did as well. You are rather way-off in your characterisation.

By the way, "pay as you go" welfare systems are exactly what allows the retiring generation to severly and unfairly leech off the unborn ones, and that label is more apt for the prior (pre-Blair) system. In no sense does Browne represent "pay as you go" the way is it normally understood.

[ . . . ] look at the howls of protest from the press at the notion of child benefit for top rate tax payers being withdrawn.

Protests against the withdrawal of child benefit for high-rate taxpayers are totally wrong-headed. But I can point you to many left-leaning people who are irrationally opposed to this as well--including many members here (see the "Tory Cuts" thread).

I'm against the idea of graduate tax because the older generation shirk their own responsibilities towards state provision of education

I really don't think you can claw back from some evil "older generation" what they have inequitably benefited from, other than to reform the system so that it does not continue.

i'm all for education being provided out of general taxation because i think that education is one of the cornerstones of what the state should provide.

Sorry, this is a hand-wave. Why? Those who benefit the most can, and do, pay willingly for it, and when they do, the system gets to become more competitive and can expand access to more people, and increase the productive potential of the labour force more than if the state funds (not "provides) it.

But this is nothing about the cuts agenda, but simply a fundamental redrawing of state responsibility.

I pretty much agree with that.

 

[Francesca R]

[ . . . ]

Nice job avoiding the previous response.

the head of evey architecture school in the UK have written an open letter to the Westminster government. Now FrancescaR will doubtless be along in a moment to argue that, like the previous cricicisms I posted links to, the schools of architecture are some sor tof biased self-interest group. After all, what would they know about education, eh?

Oh it isn't that they don't know anything about education. Of course they do. But they don't have an encompassing interest. If you think they do, then you would probably buy Bob Crow's claims that London underground staff go on strike several times a year in the interest of the travelling public.

Teaching institutions lose most of their blanket state funding under this model, and they have to compete for it in the student market. You admitted yourself that: "six architecture schools thus equals 600 graduates each year against a total number of architects of only 3,000 in my country. We simply don't need that many - the industry can't support it, even in boom times." (post 27). Therefore you already believe that the qualification is oversupplied.

Kindly tell the forum why the state should fork out to keep that distortion going please? (And see if you can work out why those who teach the subject are concerned as they are).

 

[Architect]

Let's just recap, Francesca.

- You claimed I hadn't investigated/read the paper.

- When I posted a very brief summary, you claimed I'd made an error (£21k - hint: I hadn't).

- When I posted one source showing the figures would hit people, ypou rubbished the source but seemed unable to tackle the figures.

- When I posted a second expert voice - heck, voices - of concern, you rubbished that source again, this time as being an interested party.

- You're claiming that I've not answered your questions.

I'm sorry, but it's standard Truther MO and it's not any more impressive here than it is on the 911 boards.

You see, if you're arguing that these sources are not to be trusted because they're too close to the coal face to be neutral, then you wipe out most - if not all - of the education sector. Hmmm.

You likewise refuse to bring forward any hard financial figures of your own to refute the issue regarding burden. I think we can draw our own conclusions there, eh?

 

[Francesca R]

Evasion noted (yet again), with disappointment.

 

[Architect]

Evasion noted (yet again), with disappointment.

Oh, the irony.

 

[andyandy]

That may be unfair (though it was not pre-meditated), but it is too late to do anything except to stop it continuing. If universal services which are regressive to fund and which are not public goods are maintained, then the rip off continues. Newsflash: if the state keeps coughing up for university tuition it will not be the late-in-life who pay, it will still be the working generation, and it will still be those who derive the least benefit from higher education doing it. Your rant is woefully mis-directed.

I'm not sure what i wrote would constitute a rant - i think it was quite restrained....

I'm puzzled why you don't think raising university funds through taxation will impact those in their 40s and 50s who have already graduated. They will contribute, and then (if) when graduates are earning good salaries they will contribute too.

Exactly. Everyone contributes but graduates derive by far the most benefit. Why you think this is equitable is not something you have yet coherently explained.

I don't have kids but i think it's equitable that taxation goes to fund schools - it's for the good of society that it does. Even though other people gain more benefit than me, it's still something i support. Funding lung cancer support will disproportionately benefit those people who choose to smoke, but i don't oppose it because i don't. That's the whole point of universal provision - everyone has access to it and everyone pays for it whether they use it or not. I think that creates a more equitable society than one in which people only fund what services they use - because necessarily that will end up pandering to the rich and leaving the most vulnerable out of the system.

It makes rather a lot of sense if the ones who use the service are the ones most able to benefit from it, and the ones who pay are the ones most able to pay which is exactly how the proposed policy would work.

What about all the people who have already benefited from the service? Do they have no obligation to pay for it?

That really ought to appeal to left-leaning folks. And it does, which is why the last Labour government introduced top-up fees and kicked off Browne's process, why Ed Miliband favours graduate tax, and why Vince Cable did as well. You are rather way-off in your characterisation.

Well, firstly i wouldn't regard any of our politicians as beyond centre right, but the pay-for-what-you-use (Easy Jet-esq) small state is pretty much the epitome of the right wing wet dream....

I really don't think you can claw back from some evil "older generation" what they have inequitably benefited from, other than to reform the system so that it does not continue.

Why?

Sorry, this is a hand-wave. Why? Those who benefit the most can, and do, pay willingly for it, and when they do, the system gets to become more competitive and can expand access to more people, and increase the productive potential of the labour force more than if the state funds (not "provides) it.

Well I guess we fundamentally disagree about the role of the state - the education of its citizens for me is a basic role that should be provided by the state for the good of the state. Perhaps you see it as something that should be provided by the free markets for the good of the individual - in which case it is unlikely we are going to agree....

I pretty much agree with that.

Except about that

 

[Architect]

Well I guess we fundamentally disagree about the role of the state - the education of its citizens for me is a basic role that should be provided by the state for the good of the state.

Agreed. You dodgy socialist type, you.

I wonder if Franscesca believes we should apply her principles to healthcare?

 

[The Don]

Your numbers there do not contradict statement you quoted; rather--they help confirm it. What you say is that as of now, your teaching bill was 3% of your total tax paid to date. But the total cost of higher education to the state, even under the generous pre-Thatcher governments, has never been 3% of total tax revenue.

Therefore if you gained the value of the teaching "free" (funded out of tax), you'd be a net financial winner even though you've paid more than the average in income tax.

ETA--Relevant data sources for 2010-11:

Public funding for England higher ed teaching: £4.7 bn (HEFCE)

Net tax/NI revenue for UK: £516 bn (HMT public finances databank: tab C1 of xls). Take 15% off for Scotland, Wales and N Ireland, so £438 bn

....but that's the thing.

Because society invested in my education, I was able to pay back that investment manyfold. I have absolutely no problem in paying pack the investment through taxation.

If I had been forced to take on the cost of my university education in the form of loans then I simply would not have gone to university.

The reason for this is a fear of indebtedness. I would not have felt confident in taking on that level of debt for fear of not paying it back.

I know that I wouldn't have had to start paying back until I achieved a certain level of income but the interest would have been accumulating all the while. I realise also that if I hadn't achieved that level of income sufficiently early that the debt would have in due course been written off. None of that matters, I would have found a written off debt is as shameful as a defaulted debt.

Carrying a debt of more (several times more ?) than my starting salary is a financial burden I would have felt unable to take on.

On the other hand, if my family had extensive assets and resources, I may not have felt that way because:

- I may have had a different attitude to debt - families who have borrowed to invest (in housing, businesses, whatever) probably appreciate that you may have to speculate to accumulate. Families who have had to borrow to survive have the spectre of the debt collector banging on the door
- I may have understood that over the course of a lifetime, £10,000 - £15,000 is comparatively little money. At the time I went to university, £10,000 would have been more money than all of the assets my family had ever owner at any time. The thought of borrowing that much (say, the equivalent of a middle class child borrowing £1,000,000 today) would have seemed insant
- I may have had the "backstop" of my parents stepping in to pay off my loans.

 

[Architect]

Well said.

I'm lucky enough to be from a background where my parents probably could have still (just) afforded to support myself and my sister as we went through university, especially if there had been sufficient advance warning in order to allow for savings to be set aside and the like. There would still have been debt, but it would have been manageable.

Several of my friends from poorer backgrounds, however, would most certaintly have been discouraged - even with "easy" debt, the total amount would have been too much of a risk/potential burden.

One chap, Wullie, was a classic example - one working parent but on a modest salary, no background of further education in the family, yet a clever enough chap. Mech Eng degree possible because of limited grants and subsidised loan arrangements. Could he get a mech eng job on graduation though? Could he heck as like. Still has a debt burden, IIRC.

Now let's multiply that several times over if we allow universities to charge whatever they dashed well want. For a start, the top universities such as Oxbridge are going to become even more of an upper middle class ghetto. Who the heck is going to want to pay up to £12k a year in tuition fees alon.

 

[Francesca R]

I'm puzzled why you don't think raising university funds through taxation will impact those in their 40s and 50s who have already graduated. They will contribute.

Funding university tuition through all taxpayers is regressive relative to funding it from contributions from graduates, whether via a graduate tax or future income-tested loans. Moreover (as all parties agree) the burden on taxpayers steadily increases over time relative to growth in total incomes as access expands (which all parties support). The latter issue is where older generations successively derive ("unfairly") more benefit relative to their contributions than younger ones do. Put simply, someone who is 64 will never end up paying the higher future taxes that would inevitably hit someone who is 22. Better to reform the system that risks that outcome for the 22 year old (particularly if they don't have a degree education)

I don't have kids but i think it's equitable that taxation goes to fund schools - it's for the good of society that it does.

But pragmatically there are limits to what society can fund, and rationally there are things that it does not need to fund because (i) it may not be socially desirable that everyone consumes the service and (ii) those that do (and who benefit society) will voluntarily and rationally pay some of the cost individually because they still come out ahead.

Funding lung cancer support will disproportionately benefit those people who choose to smoke, but i don't oppose it because i don't.

Unless you want to remove tobacco excise duty, your example doesn't work. That is levied specifically because of the cost that smoking imposes on the state and it is justified because it is smokers' voluntary choice due to their individual benefit from smoking. Smokers willingly pay excise duty because it is worth it to them.

University graduates benefit society, but they incur significant costs in the process. The net gain--on average--exceeds the cost, but most of it accrues to the graduate. Even if the costs are loaded onto the graduate (but income-tested) university students still willingly participate, and rationally so.

You may be of the opinion that a critical mass of would-be students will in future decide not to study because of fear of future debt, and that such students will disproportionately come from low income backgrounds. On the basis of objective evidence about UK graduate earnings (relative to secondary-level-educated earnings), and also logically following from the progressive mechanisms built into the proposed funding plans, that fear is not a rational one. Some people might still harbour it, but the state's role should not be to accommodate it financially IMO.

What about all the people who have already benefited from the service? Do they have no obligation to pay for it?

Plainly they don't have a legal obligation. There is a decent case that they have a moral one, yes. But it is hard to extract such a contribution other than via some kind of retrospective tax, which (IMO) violates greater principles of fairness. You have not actually suggested anything that would get an increased contribution from past beneficiaries specifically.

Well, firstly i wouldn't regard any of our politicians as beyond centre right

Then your calibration is sufficiently different from convention that your assignment of "ueber right" is misleading.

Why?

See above in respect of retro-active taxes. But how would you actually do it, other than rule that any policy change that "lets off those who have already benefited" must be wrong regardless of its other merits?

Well I guess we fundamentally disagree about the role of the state

It doesn't seem so, but you draw the line in a different place.

I think that (i) the state does not need to fund higher education for it to flourish, but (ii) it does need to be income-redistributive in the way it obtains graduate payment in order to maintain access on the basis of academic ability, and (iii) funding services with highly concentrated benefits from a diffuse source is socio-economically regressive in comparison to the foregoing.

IMO there has been no reasoned argument here--from anyone--about why (i) and (iii) are wrong.

 

[Francesca R]

Because society invested in my education, I was able to pay back that investment manyfold. I have absolutely no problem in paying pack the investment through taxation.

But why not via a graduate tax if that is your view?

The reason for this is a fear of indebtedness. I would not have felt confident in taking on that level of debt for fear of not paying it back.

This might be understandable but it is not rational. If everyone without rich parents thought it, then society would have a problem.

But to date (and as discussed above there have been several cumualtive shifts of cost burden from taxpayer to graduate) future debt (which is both income-tested and underwritten by the state) has not been a deterrent to students in aggregate. There is enough insurance against crippling future debt written into the proposals (arguably more than there is today for low-earning graduates) that it is not very likely IMO that significant numbers of new students take that view in the future either.

(Also, if you graduated from the era of zero fees and maintenance grants, bear in mind that your attitude will be very differently conditioned than that of today's 18 year olds)

A degree is much less a preserve of the wealthy-of-background white male than it was. Hopefully you do not need evidence of this to accept it.

 

[dafydd]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11507537



This can't be anything other than a compromise too far for many Liberal Democrats, given that student fees were one of the defining issues of the party pre-Clegg.

Clegg would have signed up with the Klingons and reversed any manifesto promise to get into government.You can't trust a politician further than you can throw them.

 

[The Don]

But why not via a graduate tax if that is your view?

Why not via general taxation ?

We don't ask people who have benefited "disproportionately" from other public services to provide additional contributions. Why should a different model apply to taxation ?

This might be understandable but it is not rational. If everyone without rich parents thought it, then society would have a problem.

Why is it irrational to be wary of taking on a huge debt ?

If people were a bit more "irrational" perhaps we wouldn't have the levels of individual and corporate debt which may have contributed to the asset and debt bubble which may be at the core of our current financial difficulties

But to date (and as discussed above there have been several cumualtive shifts of cost burden from taxpayer to graduate) future debt (which is both income-tested and underwritten by the state) has not been a deterrent to students in aggregate. There is enough insurance against crippling future debt written into the proposals (arguably more than there is today for low-earning graduates) that it is not very likely IMO that significant numbers of new students take that view in the future either.

And I think your opinion is wrong. At least some students will make their decision as to where to study based on how much they think they can afford to pay as opposed to their ability to meet the entry criteria for the course.

At that stage the students who are better able to pay for the course (due to their attitude to taking on financial risk, their parents' ability to subsidise them or a combination of the two) but less qualified to be in it will benefit.

Tertiary education opportunity is then assigned on the ability and willingness to pay rather than ability or suitability

(Also, if you graduated from the era of zero fees and maintenance grants, bear in mind that your attitude will be very differently conditioned than that of today's 18 year olds).

The assumption is that this is a good thing.

[edited to complete the thought]

A degree is much less a preserve of the wealthy-of-background white male than it was. Hopefully you do not need evidence of this to accept it.

Absolutely not, but I would argue that the market for the male, white and wealthy was already saturated. In the event that participation drops, I'd suggest that the male, white and wealthy would prove to be the most resistant to any drop in numbers, at the expense of the female, ethnically diverse and poor

 

[Francesca R]

Why not via general taxation ?

Because that spreads the cost away from those who benefited most towards those who benefit least, and is regressive in comparison (taxes poor people more).

We don't ask people who have benefited "disproportionately" from other public services to provide additional contributions.

The point is that a university qualification is not a public service as these are economically defined, so there is no case along those lines for government to finance it.

Why is it irrational to be wary of taking on a huge debt ?

If the expected benefit significantly exceeds the cost, and the downside risk is underwritten, then it is irrational in the sense of leaving money on the table. And this is without consdidering the social benefit of learning that extends beyond its conversion in to monetary earnings.

I noted before somewhere that the primary risk being taken is regulatory risk--the risk that future governments will change the policy and significantly increase the cost restrospectively. But neither you nor others are bothered about that (and it is not something that has been done before)

And I think your opinion is wrong. At least some students will make their decision as to where to study based on how much they think they can afford to pay as opposed to their ability to meet the entry criteria for the course.

Agreed, at least some will. But (i) not enough to reverse increasing take-up of HE from diverse backgrounds IMO, and (ii) the reasons why they may do this are IMO beyond the scope or reponsibility of the taxpayer.

In the event that participation drops, I'd suggest that the male, white and wealthy would prove to be the most resistant to any drop in numbers, at the expense of the female, ethnically diverse and poor

IMO the (i) rise in the threshold graduate salary to £21,000 for any repayment and (ii) the ability to take real-interest-free repayment holidays when exiting the labour force, significantly reduce that likelihood. Note I am comparing to the system in place now.

Compared to free tuition and maintenance, I would agree that fewer students should want to go to university, under today's existing system or anything based on Browne, and that is patently obvious. But in that case, places would be rationed, and probably diverted back to the elite.

 

[The Don]

Because that spreads the cost away from those who benefited most towards those who benefit least, and is regressive in comparison (taxes poor people more).

We're happy for the rest of education to be paid from general taxation. Why should tertiary education be treated differently ?

The point is that a university qualification is not a public service as these are economically defined, so there is no case along those lines for government to finance it.

Says who ?

One of the reasons why the UK economy lags behind our competitors is that our workforce is less well educated

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2944717/Poorly-educated-workforce-is-drag-on-UK-productivity.html

A better educated workforce benefits everyone.

If the expected benefit significantly exceeds the cost, and the downside risk is underwritten, then it is irrational in the sense of leaving money on the table. And this is without consdidering the social benefit of learning that extends beyond its conversion in to monetary earnings.

The poorer the individual the larger the gamble you're asking them to take. The person whose parents can come up with the money (after all, it's just an extension of school fees) is taking no risk whatsoever and yet is reaping the benefits. Why can't we extend the same privilege to everyone ?

I noted before somewhere that the primary risk being taken is regulatory risk--the risk that future governments will change the policy and significantly increase the cost restrospectively. But neither you nor others are bothered about that (and it is not something that has been done before)

That's right, we're less concerned about a hypothetical risk, which relates to an unprecedented set of circumstances which have yet to pass in which the wealthy contribute more than we are about something which is almost certain to occur and which is likely to have a disproportionate impact on the bright but poor

Agreed, at least some will. But (i) not enough to reverse increasing take-up of HE from diverse backgrounds IMO, and (ii) the reasons why they may do this are IMO beyond the scope or reponsibility of the taxpayer.

IMO the (i) rise in the threshold graduate salary to £21,000 for any repayment and (ii) the ability to take real-interest-free repayment holidays when exiting the labour force, significantly reduce that likelihood. Note I am comparing to the system in place now.

The rise in graduate salary threshold does not stop the interest accruing.

As mentioned in earlier in this thread, this may have the unintended consequence of people choosing to be educated here and then moving abroad to avoid repayment.

It could even have the effect that it's better for me to not work (and so prevent interest accruing) than it is to take up a poorly paying, but socially valuable position (when it would)

Compared to free tuition and maintenance, I would agree that fewer students should want to go to university, under today's existing system or anything based on Browne, and that is patently obvious. But in that case, places would be rationed, and probably diverted back to the elite.

If the rationed places were diverted back to the elite then that would be a failure in the execution of the policy (if we assume that we're going to fail to invest in education as a country) as opposed to the Browne proposals where I contend that (and you agree that) exclusion based on cost is an inevitable conclusion (i.e. fewer students will attend compared to free tuition).

 

[Francesca R]

We're happy for the rest of education to be paid from general taxation. Why should tertiary education be treated differently ?

Education becomes less state-funded the higher it gets. Even less doctoral study is publicly funded via Research Councils, than the amount of undergraduate study publicly funded. The rationale is as already explained.

Says who ?

What I mean is, it is not a public good in the economic sense because it is not the case that an individual's capture of the benefits is lower than the cost she would bear.

If it was the case that the student could not individually capture benefit net of cost, she'd have insufficient economic incentive to pay it, and she would not study for a degree and there would be no universities--even though society would be better off with them--unless they were centrally funded (by compulsory tax). Then it would be a public good. But it isn't.

One of the reasons why the UK economy lags behind our competitors is that our workforce is less well educated

Others in this thread have claimed that there are too many graduates for the number of roles that demand them. Whatever, a more objective measurement puts the UK bang on the OECD average with 38.7% tertiary graduation rate. (2007 is the latest data) (Notes to that chart)

The poorer the individual the larger the gamble you're asking them to take. The person whose parents can come up with the money (after all, it's just an extension of school fees) is taking no risk whatsoever and yet is reaping the benefits.

Low, average and above average income-background folks will always take more of a risk in very many things relative to someone who is showered with inherited money; that is not the issue. The issue is whether the risk is reasonable (and according to whom) and whether it can be covered by the taxpayer even if that was regarded as socially just. I have argued several points along these lines. To be honest all I hear from you amounts to it being great for the recipients if the state paid for everything.

The rise in graduate salary threshold does not stop the interest accruing.

But it raises the threshold over which anyone will be called upon to pay it.

As mentioned in earlier in this thread, this may have the unintended consequence of people choosing to be educated here and then moving abroad to avoid repayment

It might. Do you honestly think that the government and the nation would be a net loser of talent and finance (relative to today's system) that way? There would need to be absolutely massive leakage of graduates abroad.

It could even have the effect that it's better for me to not work (and so prevent interest accruing) than it is to take up a poorly paying, but socially valuable position (when it would)

Disagreed--you would certainly be better off earning above £21,000 than having no income.

If the rationed places were diverted back to the elite then that would be a failure in the execution of the policy (if we assume that we're going to fail to invest in education as a country) as opposed to the Browne proposals where I contend that (and you agree that) exclusion based on cost is an inevitable conclusion (i.e. fewer students will attend compared to free tuition).

I accept that if tuition fees were abolished tomorrow, undergraduate applications for 2011 would soar. But I contend that available places would have to be slashed so that far fewer students are accepted (given that the higher education budget is not about to be raised by a multiple of what it is today). The country's graduation rate would slump, and I would not trust admissions departments to select on academic merit alone either.

 

[The Don]

Education becomes less state-funded the higher it gets. Even less doctoral study is publicly funded via Research Councils, than the amount of undergraduate study publicly funded. The rationale is as already explained.

And I'm arguing that just because something is this way doesn't make it right.

What I mean is, it is not a public good in the economic sense because it is not the case that an individual's capture of the benefits is lower than the cost she would bear.

If it was the case that the student could not individually capture benefit net of cost, she'd have insufficient economic incentive to pay it, and she would not study for a degree and there would be no universities--even though society would be better off with them--unless they were centrally funded (by compulsory tax). Then it would be a public good. But it isn't.

Why is tertiary education to be treated differently from other services. After all, I pay for (and am happy to pay for) the NHS, policing, urban regeneration even though I personally receive proportionally less benefit than others.

Others in this thread have claimed that there are too many graduates for the number of roles that demand them. Whatever, a more objective measurement puts the UK bang on the OECD average with 38.7% tertiary graduation rate. (2007 is the latest data) (Notes to that chart)

Personally I think that there are too many graduates coming through the system with "Mickey Mouse" degrees who are not in a position to integrate smoothly into the job market. Of course this ignores the fact that tertiary education is supposed to be a means unto itself rather than grooming people for employment.

It also displays MY prejudice about other people's course choice. I'm a Physics graduate and regard it as a "proper" subject which is "hard". I'm sure that if I'd graduated in Basket Weaving then I'd consider that a proper subject.

Moving my prejudice to one side, if we view the purpose of tertiary education as being a life expanding experience then we should continue to provide it. If we view it solely as a training regime for the job market then once again we'll end up with a two-tier system where the less well off attend technical colleges at a lower cost to prepare them for the world of work whereas their better off peer can pursue their goal of knowledge

Low, average and above average income-background folks will always take more of a risk in very many things relative to someone who is showered with inherited money; that is not the issue. The issue is whether the risk is reasonable (and according to whom) and whether it can be covered by the taxpayer even if that was regarded as socially just. I have argued several points along these lines. To be honest all I hear from you amounts to it being great for the recipients if the state paid for everything.

But the poorest take the largest risk.

I'm not rich and I don't have children but I could certainly afford to underwrite the university education for a couple of kids (perversely possibly only because I haven't had the cost of raising then in the first place ) if I needed to. The poorest and most disadvantaged are being asked to take the largest risk because:

• There's less parental subsidy - even if middle class parents cannot afford the full cost of the university education they can pay for some of it, or slip the kid the odd tenner, or pay for their upkeep when they're at home in the holidays. A poor student has to find themselves 12 months a year, a middle class student for 8 months a year
• There's less access to work during and after university. Almost all of the interns I've worked with got their opportunity through family connections
• Their salary opportunities are on average worse
  

But it raises the threshold over which anyone will be called upon to pay it.

It might. Do you honestly think that the government and the nation would be a net loser of talent and finance (relative to today's system) that way? There would need to be absolutely massive leakage of graduates abroad.

Why massive ? Even a small leak of graduates abroad would be a problem, not least because of the sums involved

Another problem - Institutions will be asked to underwrite the cost of loans above the government guaranteed level. If I'm a "premium priced institution" looking at candidates would I choose the middle class candidate whose parents can underwrite the risk in full or in part or the poor candidate who could leave the country (and me in the lurch)

Disagreed--you would certainly be better off earning above £21,000 than having no income.

But if I was earning minimum wage I wouldn't be required to make payments but interest would be accruing on my debt. I've be better off not earning and not having my debt growing than I would be earning minimum wage

I accept that if tuition fees were abolished tomorrow, undergraduate applications for 2011 would soar. But I contend that available places would have to be slashed so that far fewer students are accepted (given that the higher education budget is not about to be raised by a multiple of what it is today). The country's graduation rate would slump, and I would not trust admissions departments to select on academic merit alone either.

You're right, if we take the decision that we're no longer prepared to invest in our own future as a nation by keeping the barriers to tertiary education as low as possible then the number of candidates will drop.

At least we are agreed that fees do act as a barrier to opportunity. It's my contention that the barrier is largest for the poor