It is long overdue that tuition fees were allowed to function as part of the free market.
That students are given a loan at all to pay them is a concession to those who could not otherwise attend university. That they need to be earning more than £21K before repayments commence is a further concession, as is not having to repay them if they do not obtain gainful employment, or are in poorly paid employment.
The economists tell us that a graduate can expect to earn approximately £100,000 more over his working life than a non-graduate. If taking on a mortgage-sized loan to pay for tertiary education wipes out £80,000 of this theoretical gain, many more may question the wisdom of chasing the university-degree-for-all dream, and we may return to a situation where degrees may mean something once more, and the percentage of the population with degrees in particular subjects is more closely matched to the jobs available which require those degrees.
Academically poor universities should certainly be allowed to fail; the many whose degrees aren’t worth the paper they are printed on, will either need to buck up or bail out. HR departments already know which these are – it is their graduates who don’t seem to realize why their job applications don’t even receive the courtesy of a reply.
Our best universities will be able to charge premium rates as do their American cousins, and their degrees will continue to be valued accordingly, with none of this envy-driven Stalinist meddling with positive discrimination forcing the Oxfords and Cambridges to take on so many students whose pre-entry results already highlight their likely incapacity in coping with the intellectual workload. That they are failures of the state education system is no reason to foist them onto the few worldclass universities we have.
Boadicea's Chariot 
I see the latest news is that even Dr Cable has accepted Browne’s recommendations…
Agree totally.
Turn the polytechnics back into just that offering craft diploma courses on a job day release basis.
I swear some of the cleaners at uni in the sixties would have more ability than the total numbnuts they allow in the doors these days.
Far better to be a successful plumber than a failed media studies undergraduate!
There is the danger though of really clever gifted kids not being able to afford the uni fees and so being a loss to themselves and the country.
On the whole I agree with your comments.
At present I know of 2 kids who have left uni with enormous debt, declared themselves bankrupt and start again with a clean slate. Also kids from the EU can claim our loans as they are entitled to then sod off back to wherever and not repay a penny.
The other problem with uni for all is no one ever mentions the drop out rate of kids and adults who do not finish their course yet cost the country millions.
As for a graduate tax what a daft idea, once the graduate with a good degree they will go to the states and never pay a penny back.
Christina – Stroll on!! 🙂
OZ
I agree with everything said above, but don’t forget the original downgrading of the higher education system started before the Blair/Brown Terror. They merely accelerated it. When I went to university in the sixties, only about 6% of school leavers went there. While this is too low, the target of at least 50% is ludicrous. We need more technicians and craftsmen and fewer, if any, meeja graduates.
FEEG,and less than 2% took a postgraduate degree, as late as 1979 – and yes, I was a (very) mature postgrad when I did my MBA!
RR It was in another blog in which I mentioned that the dropout rate recently was 28% in a science course at a Scottish university – total waste of taxpayer money letting them even start the course…
As far as “there is the danger though of really clever gifted kids not being able to afford the uni fees and so being a loss to themselves and the country”, it is entirely the purpose of the Loans scheme to meet the cost of the fees. If they are from a poor family, they can also obtain similarly low-cost loans to meet living expenses, so that argument does not hold water, or am I missing something?
Christina took the words from my mouth.
The real scandal is that if you’re Scots in Scotland you don’t pay any fees, although if English in Scotland you do…..as gleefully pointed out a couple of days ago by Andrew Neil on The Daily Politics (?) .
Is it always absolutely necessary to attend at a university for a degree? Why not beef up the OU concept so that folk can do remote study with Tutor back up.
Also I get fed up with listening to the Students Union. Who gives a XXXX for their opinion. When they’ve been out in the world and paid some tax, then we’ll listen, until then, button it.
Jazz606: You are mistaken in your belief that a Scot in Scotland does not pay any fees. This applies only to a first degree. One daughter who chose to do her first degree in England was charged fees, because she studied in England. She chose to do her second degree in Scotland, where she was also charged fees, despite being a Scot, resident in Scotland. The explanation provided by the refuseniks was that it was only the first degree which was not paid for by the student, if studying in Scotland, so she wound up with partial student loans to pay for both.Two four years’ honours degrees with Student Loans outstandings to match…nothing free about that!
I am inclined to agree with you on the rantings of the Student Union representatives, and equally the university lecturers, who can clearly hear the squeak of the tumbrils coming, as non-subjects are axed in a desperate attempt to stay afloat, and their jobs, with them.
Talk about “Pull up the ladder Jack, I’m alright” – how many people here got their tertiary education courtesy of the State? I did and I’m eternally grateful.
People are far too busy looking at the benefits that individuals receive from Tertiary Education to appreciate that nations need a well-educated population. Does anyone really believe that our Victorian ancestors, who would have been appalled that present governments dish out money to the feckless, provided free, compulsory education for the ‘good’ of the individual. No they did not. It was quite simply that they were falling behind other European countries and needed to educate their work-force. And they did – to the standard required by the economy of the times.
The expansion of the system has not been the result only of wanting to provide Tertiary Education for all, but because Governments, since the 70s, have tried to mask youth unemployment by encouraging / forcing youngsters to continue studying. If they had really been interested in providing a better education they would have lowered the age at which children entered school, back to 3/4, rather than raise it to 16. They would also have ensured that those leaving school at that age had sufficient education to work.
The ‘commercialisation’ of the Tertiary sector has lead to lower standards. Universities have to attract students to survive – and it is clear that the expectation is that these students will, after parting up with so much cash, get a qualification. Simply look at the recent case where a lecturer was ‘forced’ to resign because he refused to pass low-achievers. How many simply do as they are told? Most, I suspect.
The grant system wasn’t perfect, but at least it provided those who were deemed ‘able’ and from poorer backgrounds to achieve their potential – and allowed them to start life without a crippling burden of debt.
The present system is not working. The value of tertiary qualifications has been debased and youngsters are encouraged to undertake studies for which they are not suited, and end up with huge debts that they will take for ever to pay-off – unless, of course, they leave the country. And the best, who are needed in their home countries, will depart as fast as they can. Governments are paying huge sums to expand a system that is not providing the work-force it needs. But, I suppose their efforts are masking the true extent of youth unemployment…
And how are governments proposing to deal with the problems? More of the same. Bah!
I agree with you Boadicea.
The whole idea is bizarre really but it may well be a good thing temporarily to make a university degree worth having. In the end it is absurd. Free education of sorts is available and indeed compulsory, so we need graduates. Further education should not be treated differently, and should be available at little cost to those who are capable of partaking. This measure seems to be an over-reaction to the Socialist policy of every school leaver should go on to university. Totally ridiculous idea which has devalued a degree, and made further education out of reach to those who cannot afford it, and are ill-equipped to benefit. Back to the days please when able students were accepted on merit and those who were not able afford it were quite rightly subsidised by grants.
I doubt the percentage of those who will benefit from a university education has changed. Neither has the demand for such.
To be burdened with such a debt at the beginning of one’s career, makes buying a house and contemplating having children a distant and unaffordable dream.
There seems to be an imperfect understanding of when and if student loans become repayable, both presently, and with the proposals for the future. It is my understanding that if the graduate does not obtain employment, or does not obtain employment at a salary above the threshhold, no repayment is due, until such time as they do, if they do.
As a matter of interest, is there any western European nation which provides non-means-tested totally free university education?
I’m largely with Boa on this. The wider picture of good education being important for the whole country is an excellent viewpoint.
I don’t however agree with the lowering of the school entry age. Most children are still needing a non-formal input at that stage, play and enough sleep, not work sheets and formality which is what tends to happen if formal education id bought in too soon.
It is obvious that the taxpayer cannot be expected to fund 50% of school-leavers to get a ‘degree’. And it seems obvious, well to me, that half the ‘degrees’ that people get are valueless. Therefore, the simple answer is to cut the number of places on offer… Christina is right – return the ‘polys’ back to what they were, and undertake a programme of boosting the image of being a craftsman (or woman!)
As you say, Araminta, to be burdened with such a debt at the beginning of one’s career makes the buying of a home and having children a distant and unaffordable dream. And let’s be brutally honest, countries needs the educated to procreate far more than they need the illiterate to reproduce.
I cannot think of a better way, CWJ, of encouraging people not to work and do the best they can if they know that if they do they will be lumbered with re-paying a huge debt.
Pseu – my mother and all her siblings started school at three, as did Bearsy. I started at four. Indeed if you look at the census material you will find that most children were at school by the time they were four. It was the sort of ‘formal’ education that is now so despised.
Unfortunately, the term ‘formal’ has become a dirty word as far as education is concerned. There is nothing wrong with structure – indeed most children thrive on it. We were caught at a time when our curiosity and learning was at a peak. We were taught… and not from work sheets, which, as far as I’m concerned, is a ‘lazy’ way of teaching… it was fun and certainly not ‘painful!
Well possibly, CWJ, but I have been involved with one daughter’s voyage through the system as is, and her loan, which was minimal and is being repaid at a low interest rate, due to parental contributions and an NHS bursary.
The changes seem to me to be an horrendous financial burden for the average graduate in their early twenties and I certainly did not start out in life with this burden, and neither, I suspect did any of my contemporaries who went to university.
CWJ
I doubt that any country anywhere provides universal free Tertiary Education. What is perhaps not recognised is that even under the old ‘grant’ system it wasn’t a universal benefit. The better-off parents of those under the age of 25 were expected to contribute to their off-spring’s education. Only those from low-income (and it was quite low-income) families and mature students benefitted from ‘full’ grants.
Araminta
And there you have the reason for my anger. Most of those who gaily ripped the education system apart by removing scholarships to Public Schools, dismantling the grammar school system and imposing ever heavier burdens of debt on our young were, themselves, beneficiaries of the system.
Indeed, Boadicea. I agree absolutely with your comment above.
A good education is essential but so are practical skills. All we have now are kids doing Mickey Mouse degrees that are pointless in the work place.
To my mind if a person does a 3/5 year apprenticeship as a carpenter/plumber etc this is the equivalent of a degree as they have studied a trade and got a qualification, but thanks to political intervention all kids must have a useless (in some cases) piece of paper.
We have to be sensible and understand not everyone is good with paper.
My daughter finished uni 2 years ago with a BSC hons as an Occupational Therapist and is working as one in a hospital, the course suited her as it is very practical and not too many paper exams. If it had all been theory and paper testing she would not have done so well.
But the idea of a degree in wind surfing funded by the tax payer is insulting to tax payers to say the least.
Me my parents could not afford uni so I had to start work at 16 and have worked ever since. should I have done an OU? maybe but I am too lazy to study.
Absolutely right! As I said earlier, the time has come to boost the image of those with practical skills. I’m loathe to admit that the world could get on without yet another medieval historian, however much use my work has been to that discipline, but it could. However, the world certainly will not survive without plumbers, carpenters and other skilled workers.
As for your getting a degree… do you need one? If not, why bother?
boadicea
I don’t think I got anything courtesy of the state, and that particularly includes professional qualifications (all of which I paid for), hence I’m not in the slightest bit grateful.
It seems that no student is going to have to put any cash up front, and that they only have to start paying back when they earn a decent salary. As a taxpayer I think that’s fair enough. Since I’ve been a taxpayer since age 17 (1963) I think that probably some of you folk should show me some gratitude, since I clearly sponsored you whilst receiving very little myself.
Jazz
It’s swings and roundabouts.
I would suggest (having read your offerings here) that you got a pretty good basic education from the State – which is more than I can say for many recent school leavers. You have freely benefited from the education of teachers, doctors, nurses, and other similar public sector workers who were educated at State expense. You have benefited from a society that has (until recently!) been able to provide a good life for all its members – consider those countries which do not provide universal education.
As I tried to point out in the beginning – the provision of free or cheap education according to an individual’s ability benefits everyone in society. If education is made too expensive then only those with money will be able to receive an education – and the whole of society will suffer.
While I understand your natural annoyance that you, along with others, had to pay for your qualifications I would point out, again, that only the very poor or mature students ever received a full grant.
Seeing that humanity does not change, I suspect that still no more than 5% would benefit from a serious intellectual degree courses.
The vast majority now, as in the past, would more likely benefit from the old National Diploma courses.
A much better mix of practical and theory without the ‘theorising’.
Very few are any good at ‘conceptualising’ below IQ 140. Abstraction within any discipline is a peculiar ‘art’ form unsuited to most. The vast majority of people are happy with the ‘facts’.
the old national Diplomas who ‘rose to the occasion’ were allowed to convert to a degree in roughly 18 months if they had it in them. A much better way to go with open doors left for the later achievers.
What a bloody cock up, really, one could do better on the back of an envelope!
Nay! A postage stamp!!!
Boadicea
“…..
I would suggest (having read your offerings here) that you got a pretty good basic education from the State….
I am pleased to say that I am not a product of the state education system. So still not grateful….to the state anyway.