This education finance system was considered to be a tempered approach to raising university funding at a time when the state is trying to otherwise cut back on its spending. In particular the IFS (2010) issued a report that stressed that the system provided no real terms winners and losers. All except, of course, the treasury, which was able to convert a large government debt that provided the funding for universities into lots of smaller, yet still quite large, private debts.
Now there were mechanisms to prevent universities from simply charging the highest price bracket immediately. In return for charging as much as £9000 per year for tuition, each establishment is supposed to provide proof that they are providing scholarships and working to assist students from poorer backgrounds to get the higher education they deserve.
But there is also a fundamental element of market economics that English Universities must apply before taking the decision to charge such a high price.
As the costs of education rise, so must then the demonstrable quality of the education and qualification provided. This is fundamental to a market as described by Adam Smith. However there are worries that the degree is already becoming a devalued commodity (Daily Mail, 2011).
Since the introduction of fees, there has also been some discussion of much cheaper fees to be found in Europe, for instance £435 per year for a course at a Swiss University (Bawden, 2011). Such a price disparity, £1,305 for three years on the continent and £27,000 in Britain, could lead first to a large number of students abandoning Britain for a spell in Europe, and potentially a future 'brain drain' if those students adapt to the lifestyle and decide to stay.
This is something that aught very much to trouble the sleep of British economists.
In 2000, Britain took part in the European Council special meeting in Lisbon that concluded that European nations need to cooperate:
'to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world capable of sustainable economic growth'Due to the international economic situation, where super-states such as China and India are able to provide masses of cheap labour, the average EU worker now has to have a much greater degree of training & skills in order to compete. If senior British political figures still adhere to such a position, they should not be so quick to create conditions that drive people away from the higher end of collegiate and university training in Britain.
And this is the purpose behind the ideological and reasoned support of free at-the-point-of-use, paid for by taxation, higher education. Education is so utterly essential to society as a whole that we cannot afford to price ourselves out of its pursuit. We all benefit from the skills of any individual, whether those skills are used in the field of science or art or household gadgetry. Everything we can do to encourage the pursuit of higher training & skills is a step in the right direction. If it is paid for out of general taxation, then the issue of who should contribute what is already dealt with; in our system of progressive taxation the rich contribute a larger share than the poor - we already have a system in which we give in relation to our means.
The government has set its position towards higher education funding. One half, the Tories, seek to offload the burden of debts for the costs of our nation's university education to the students, and individuals more generally; while Liberal Democrats chose this path as the best of a bad bunch. But at the moment this is still only a stop-gap measure.
And there is still room to shift in other directions.
If the Tories can gather the voter base to consolidate their position and govern alone, they will almost certainly complete the move to a full market competitive system of funding.
So where to turn to save education? The first place most will turn is the long-time enemy of, opponent to and bastion against the Tories: the Labour party. They did after all come to power in 1997 on the slogan 'Education, Education, Education'.
However, despite manifesto promises not to, Mr Blair's Labour government, in the words of Ms Naomi Long MP (2011):
'established the principle of tuition fees, the principle of market forces in education and are now upset because those same market forces are negotiating the terms'Inspite the lack of clarity in the positions of Britain's parties of the left, they have all shown some willingness to cooperate; a particular example, albeit of a failed attempt, was Mr E Miliband sharing a stage with Lib Dems and Greens to campaign for a Yes vote in the AV referendum (Wintour, 2011).
Mr Clegg has developed a catch-phrase of late, that we should not 'let the best be the enemy of the good', and it is a catchphrase that all those opposed to tuition fees should keep close to heart when trying to find alternative solutions that can get cross-party backing.
==========
References:
==========
+ Jeevan Vasagar's 'Tuition fees rise will mean fewer university entrants, warns LSE study'; in The Guardian; 7 September 2011;
+ IFS Press Release 'Graduates and universities share burden of Browne recommendations'; 12 October 2010;
+ Daily Mail's 'Is it worth it? Value of degree questioned as research shows two-in-three graduates fail to find suitable work'; 17 May 2011;
+ Anna Bawden's 'A few years in Lausanne?'; in The Guardian; 6 September 2011;
+ Lisbon European Council's 'Presidency Conclusions'; 23-24 March 2000;
+ Naomi Long MP, 'Higher Education Fees' debate; 9 December 2010;
+ Patrick Wintour's 'Ed Miliband shares cross-party platform to promote AV'; in The Guardian; 29 March 2011;
+ Smith, Adam, 'Wealth of Nations'; 2008.
No comments:
Post a Comment