Paying for higher education

According to Shadow Universities Secretary David Willets, the government's new £165 million package of student support will disproportionately benefit middle-class students and do little to help the poor.

As The Times says, the reforms are meant to encourage more working class students into higher education by providing a "means-tested student maintenance grant, which covers living costs but not fees" and which "will be available to students whose parents earn up to £60,000. Previously the cap was £39,305." Willets says that the most affluent families will gain £150m from the scheme, while those from poorer families will only gain £15m.

I can't say whether Willets' sums are right, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if they were. State-financed universities have always represented a particularly perverse kind of redistribution of wealth – from the working poor to the unproductive offspring of the middle and upper classes. Essentially, people on low incomes who didn't go to university (and whose children probably won't either) pay taxes so that better-off kids can lounge around for three years at someone else's expense. The costs of university do not fall only the beneficiaries of higher education, then, but on taxpayers at large.

I'd like to see British higher education given a substantial overhaul. First of all, universities should be freed from state control and allowed to charge fees as they see fit, but helped (through the tax system) to establish endowment funds to support poorer students.

To meet any gaps in funding, the government-backed student loans system could be expanded, with loans gradually paid back as students become taxpayers. Such a system would ensure that anyone able to go to university could afford to go to university – but knowing they would eventually be footing the bill, young people would be encouraged to work hard and pursue useful degrees that would boost their future earning power. Turning students into paying customers would also make them demand a higher standard of education than they currently settle for.

Introducing these reforms would certainly not be easy, but the benefits would justify the effort.

...
written by Graham, May 12, 2008

In order to justify public funding, there must be a clear and direct relationship to the public good. Most students are barely benefiting themselves, let alone the public. Many businesses that genuinely need graduates, such as the NHS and PWC, already offer to pay for their employees to go to university -- this rational and very efficient economic act would be expanded if 'higher' education was not so fat with 'students' already. The relationship between the degrees most students are currently receiving and the work they will be doing as graduates bear a very tenuous relationship.

...
written by Marius, May 12, 2008

By paying higher taxes for education you can certainly get the most benefits from that university

...
written by Alex Marsh, May 12, 2008

The odd thing I found when I was a student was that those who most wanted university to be 100% tax-funded was the various left wing groups, particuarly the Socialist Workers. I never understood this, as you rightly point out, to do so is to take money from non-university educated working men and women, and give that money to students. In recent years the system has been improved: now student loans and fees are paid back over the course of a graduate's working life, which seems very fair to me. It also seems to me that there are two things putting off poor youngsters: 1) the perception that they "cannot afford it" - which is largely just a perception based either on prejudice or a lack of understanding of the way the fee/loan/payment system works and 2) a general feeling that university isn't the right move for them. I am not sure if these two factors can ever been fully solved by state intervention, though various kind-hearted schemes that see university students going into inner city schools to help spread the word I suppose are a way forward. But I question Tony Blair's assertion that 50% of the population attending university *nolens volens* is somehow of instrinsic benefit to the whole of society.

Written by Tom Clougherty
Monday, 12 May 2008
According to Shadow Universities Secretary David Willets, the government's new £165 million package of student support will disproportionately benefit middle-class students and do little to help the poor. As The Times says, the reforms are meant to encourage more working class students into higher education by providing a "means-tested student maintenance grant, which covers living costs but not fees" and which "will be available to students whose parents earn up to £60,000. Previously the cap was £39,305." Willets says that the most affluent families will gain £150m from the scheme, while those from poorer families will only gain £15m. I can't say whether Willets' sums are right, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if they were. State-financed universities have always represented a particularly perverse kind of redistribution of wealth – from the working poor to the unproductive offspring of the middle and upper classes. Essentially, people on low incomes who didn't go to university (and whose children probably won't either) pay taxes so that better-off kids can lounge around for three years at someone else's expense. The costs of university do not fall only the beneficiaries of higher education, then, but on taxpayers at large. I'd like to see British higher education given a substantial overhaul. First of all, universities should be freed from state control and allowed to charge fees as they see fit, but helped (through the tax system) to establish endowment funds to support poorer students. To meet any gaps in funding, the government-backed student loans system could be expanded, with loans gradually paid back as students become taxpayers. Such a system would ensure that anyone able to go to university could afford to go to university – but knowing they would eventually be footing the bill, young people would be encouraged to work hard and pursue useful degrees that would boost their future earning power. Turning students into paying customers would also make them demand a higher standard of education than they currently settle for. Introducing these reforms would certainly not be easy, but the benefits would justify the effort. Bookmark Comments (3) Subscribe to this comment's feed ... written by Graham, May 12, 2008 In order to justify public funding, there must be a clear and direct relationship to the public good. Most students are barely benefiting themselves, let alone the public. Many businesses that genuinely need graduates, such as the NHS and PWC, already offer to pay for their employees to go to university -- this rational and very efficient economic act would be expanded if 'higher' education was not so fat with 'students' already. The relationship between the degrees most students are currently receiving and the work they will be doing as graduates bear a very tenuous relationship. ... written by Marius, May 12, 2008 By paying higher taxes for education you can certainly get the most benefits from that university ... written by Alex Marsh, May 12, 2008 The odd thing I found when I was a student was that those who most wanted university to be 100% tax-funded was the various left wing groups, particuarly the Socialist Workers. I never understood this, as you rightly point out, to do so is to take money from non-university educated working men and women, and give that money to students. In recent years the system has been improved: now student loans and fees are paid back over the course of a graduate's working life, which seems very fair to me. It also seems to me that there are two things putting off poor youngsters: 1) the perception that they "cannot afford it" - which is largely just a perception based either on prejudice or a lack of understanding of the way the fee/loan/payment system works and 2) a general feeling that university isn't the right move for them. I am not sure if these two factors can ever been fully solved by state intervention, though various kind-hearted schemes that see university students going into inner city schools to help spread the word I suppose are a way forward. But I question Tony Blair's assertion that 50% of the population attending university nolens volens is somehow of instrinsic benefit to the whole of society. Write comment This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comment. Powered by Azrul's Jom Comment for Joomla!