Friday 29 January 2010

I want to pay

I'm getting pretty sick of the steady stream of 'Abolish Tuition Fee' groups that seem to be proliferating on facebook...examples here, here, and here.

I think that as a student, especially as one who was in the first intake to be hit by 'top up fees', it is tempting to bemoan the system, and complain about being up to my eyeballs in a debt which is going to take me half my life to pay off. But I feel that would be a little short-sighted. And anyway, I've got the NUS to do all that moaning for me. The National Union of Students and all that. That is their job after all - to moan on student's behalf, put students first, and fight for the best possible outcome for those students - which is all very well, but it renders them virtually useless if you want to quote them as an independent and justified source for backing up an anti-fees argument. It's hardly surprising that the NUS was against the introduction of top up fees, and is now against the lifting of the cap; it has students interests at heart, and solely student's interests. You might as well ask David Cameron why you should vote for David Cameron at the next election, and then use that to form a cohesive argument about why you should vote for David Cameron at the next election. Just because the NUS says it, doesn't make it right or logical.

In 1998, when it became apparent that the rising number of people studying at university was becoming economically unsustainable, the government introduced the first round of tuition fees; a contribution of between £0 and £1,250 per year, dependent on a student's parent's income. It is important to note that these fees were to be paid upfront by students or their families. The government continued to subsidize the remainder of the fees, and students were also entitled to a means-tested loan of up to £4,000 to help them cope with the cost of living at university. This loan was paid back at 9% of a graduate's gross income over a £15,000 threshold, and the rate of interest was tied to the rate of inflation.

When, in 2004, it became clear that the government budget could still not cope with the burgeoning student population, it was decided that the £1,250 yearly cap on tuition fees should be raised to £3,225, with the government continuing to subsidize the remainder. However, rather than pay the fees up front (as was the case previously), they would now be paid by the government-owned 'Student Loans Company', and once graduated, individuals would repay this loan in an identical way to that in which the original maintenance loan was paid back (at 9% of a graduate's gross income over a £15,000 threshold, and with the rate of interest tied to inflation). In real terms this means a graduate earning a starting salary of £18,000 would pay back £5.19 per week. It's also worth noting that the maintenance loan arrangement continued unchanged, with students still eligible for up to £4,000.

In the past year, due to a continued funding crisis, there has been much talk about ending government subsidy (or 'removing the cap') altogether. This would mean that students would foot the whole bill for their education, using a system almost identical to the current one.

Now, there are some really important points to make. Firstly, when the government introduced top up fees, they also introduced a system of means-tested, non-repayable grants of up to £2,700 per student. In addition to this, universities were instructed to recycle more than a quarter of the money they received from fees back into bursaries; in 2006/07, the typical bursary for a student receiving the full maintenance grant, on a course charging the full £3,070 tuition fee, was expected to be around £1,000 ("Are top-up fees good or bad?" - Independent). Do the math, and you'll find that there's a fair chance the poorest students could actually be GIVEN money as a result of the 'top up fees' system. The second important point is that any outstanding loans after 25 years will be cancelled, and that if at any time a graduate dips below the £15,000 income threshold, their loan repayments will temporarily cease. It is also vital to note, that student loans are NOT taken into consideration when graduates apply for a mortgage. The third and final point is that, as has already been stated, the student loans are linked to the 'Retail Price Index of Inflation', meaning that in real terms, they are interest free - the interest charged on them simply keeps the loan at an equivalent value in line with inflation. They are not commercial, nor are they profitable for the government.

With that in mind, I find it hard to understand how anybody can object to either top up fees, or the removal of the cap altogether. The alternative to students eventually paying for their own higher education, is that 'the taxpayer' forks out. This would require a rise of roughly 3% in income tax - (http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2005/oct/04/highereducation.uk). I don't think it right that someone who has made a conscious decision not to go to university, or someone who has been, for whatever reason, unable to go to university, should pay for me to do a degree.

One of the central objections to increased tuition fees is that it will discourage students from poorer families from continuing with their studies. Indeed, UCAS reported a fall of 12,000 applicants for the year 2006-2007 - the year in which top up fees were enforced. While this number may have been affected by a variety of factors, there is no doubt the increase in top up fees was largely to blame. However, the problem lies not in the system, but in the way it has been represented. It is a failing of the media, schools, universities, and the government, that certain young people should perceive this system in a negative light, and be put off attending university because of it.

In the latest NUS report on Higher Education funding, the following are cited as two central complaints regarding fees; "Students have to take a huge financial risk, with no guarantee of success", and "Students have to work far more to support themselves than ever before". Both of these statements are fantasy. Students are taking no financial risk; as has been pointed out, if they fail to earn over £15,000 they will not be under any obligation to repay their loan. And this notion about students having to work harder to support themselves, which keeps cropping up in the debate, is complete garbage. Why would the introduction of a fee which you pay back AFTER you've graduated have any effect on the need for students to support themselves throughout their degree? I'm yet to hear a response which makes any coherent sense. The NUS are clutching at straws in a desperate attempt to get the best deal for students; and good for them, that's what they're supposed to do.

It's been suggested that rather than asking students to pay back a fixed amount, a scheme could be introduced whereby graduates pay, for example, 5% of any income over £25,000 to their universities - a form of 'graduate tax'. This would mean that those who have done 'best', would pay back more into the system than those who were struggling. This has two flaws. The first is that it could discourage people from going to university, as they will then be aware that an unlimited amount of their future earnings could be stripped from them. Second, there is no way of measuring how much somebody's success is down to their degree or university experiences; thus it would seem unfair to take 5% of a highly successful entrepreneur's earnings, when he had a rotten time at university and has never used his or her degree. This scheme may work better with a cap in place, although I feel that this would fail to resolve the second problem.

For those who are anti-fee and failing miserably in a debate, a final, desperate cry is often, 'well the government should pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan and spend the money they're wasting there on funding higher education'. This is a different argument for a different day, but suffice to say, even if pulling out was a viable or morally just action, we could just as easily say that that money should be assigned to policing, the NHS, care for the elderly, primary or secondary schooling, developing renewable energy, transport, or whatever our particular area of interest is. It still seems incredibly strange to me that some of those who go to university expect those who did not, to pay for them.

I chose to go university, and I'm happy to pay for the privilege...eventually.

No comments:

Post a Comment