by Stephen Tall on November 4, 2010
Tuition fees: two words that have caused Lib Dem members enough angst in the past month to last the party a parliament.
Let me declare my interests straight off: I’m a university graduate who left the year after tuition fees kicked in, received a small but incredibly useful maintenance grant, and whose debts after three years totalled less than £1k. (At the time it seemed a scary amount, now it looks puny.) I was, therefore, one of the fortunate generation… not as lucky as the baby-booming ’60s’ generation, but lucky all the same.
My recognition that higher education transformed my life is what has partly motivated my decision to work in educational fundraising. It is also why I set up two monthly direct debits to support projects at my university, and have included it in my will.
It is also why I support higher tuition fees for undergraduates. I’ve rehearsed the reasons many times before* so I’ll choose here just three reasons:
- 1. There is a clear choice facing society and facing students: we can continue to starve universities in the UK of the cash they need to compete globally; or we can recognise the need for them to start charging a realistic fee in order to offer the best education they can. Even if we taxed the bankers more, or increased higher-rate taxation, or put a penny on income tax the fact remains UK universities would continue to have fewer resources than our counterparts overseas in the US, or the emerging universities in China and India.
2. Even if the Lib Dems won the argument to increase taxation to fund improved higher education, and even if that were to be enough to guarantee top-quality education to all students — both highly dubious assumptions — I would still be opposed. First, we need to sort out the quality of nursery, primary and secondary education: what resources the government will be able to muster in the next few years should be directed there, at an age where it will make the most difference to kids from poorer backgrounds, the kids who at the moment rarely get within touching distance of university.
3. In any case, I believe it is right in principle that students should contribute to their education, so long as no-one has to pay upfront, and only pays back once they can afford to do so (as the government is recommending). Some students are entering university not because they want to do so, nor because their working lives will be greatly improved by a degree, but simply because it is expected… by their parents, their school or society. And some universities are offering degrees not because they’re academically rigorous, nor because it contributes to cutting-edge research or the economy, but simply because it is expected. That makes no sense, and it’s the kind of thing which will disappear as fees begin to reflect the actual costs of funding them.
Tomorrow: What I think about tuition fees (2 of 4): that pledge.
* Here are eight articles I’ve written over the past five years dealing with the issue of tuition fees:
- Why I disagree with the Lib Dems and fully support university tuition fees (and the Coalition) (July 2010)
- Congrats to Cambridge – but fundraising is only part of the university funding story (June 2010)
- Do university tuition fees deter the poorest? (Oct. 2009)
- YouTube hustings: Time to drop our tuition fees policy? (Dec. 2007)
- Return to ‘Facing up to reality’ (Apr. 2007)
- Why the UK’s universities are dwarfed by Stanford (Feb. 2007)
- Facing up to facts (Feb. 2007)
- Higher education funding: pulling the rabbit out of the hat (Jan. 2005)