Campus Radicals

7 comments from readers

commerciallyconservative
22 January 2007 at 16:21

There are a lot of good things in what Ben has said, and he's started off an essential debate with a very intellectual observation of a pressing issue. I find myself agreeing with a lot of his sentiments, but equally I can't help but feel that one of his fundamental premises are flawed.

The main issue in my mind is the use of the word all. Do we really feel that education should be open to 100% of the population? Can we afford that? And more importantly is that going to economically restrict us to the point where the overall offering is seriously compromised? Take for example the American system, which whilst endemically flawed produces the best possible institutions at the top level. The Ivy League will always be better than Oxbridge, even with Ben’s new system adopted. The entire culture of contribution both at a federal and at a consumer level are geared up towards producing institutions, which can offer the best salaries for academics, the finest facilities and the most interactive student experience. Since when has any British university ever been able to offer this, even under our existing compromised system? Furthermore, will Ben’s “third-way” ever lead to this kind of success? Probably not. It will of course offer more equality and allow more to study in higher education, which is a noble aspiration, but is it, affordable?

The future of this country we are told to believe is in the tertiary and quaternary industries of tomorrow, and as our manufacturing industry declines, we are increasingly being directed down this path. If Britain truly wants to be world class in this area, it needs world class universities capable of training our students to be the best, as nothing else will do. This island nation is living on its reputation, just as its universities are, be they Oxbridge or Durham, Bristol et al. These institutions still have a vestige of respect because they have some quality academics, but they cannot compete with their competitors across the water, who with bigger budgets, and crucially endowments will entice our staff, and eventually our students. So this begs question, what is in our best interests? Is it Ben’s fair system, or is it the best system?

Where Ben is totally on the ball is when he says that “we must recognise that for some in our society, any kind of contribution is not possible” but he still over-estimates the amount that we should cater for. Presumably, anyone who wants to go, should go? Well call me a boring old Tory, or a free-market supporter gone mad, but is that necessary in its extremity? So let me take a third way, like Ben and say that with a vastly more commercialised system we will offer scholarships and bursaries, in the same way that we do now. It might take time to kick off, and it could lead to us losing some of the equality that our system now has, but maybe, just maybe that will be in the long term benefit of universities in Britain.

It would be cowardly of me to write all this without proposing anything, so I will attempt to add my thoughts in order to propose a solution. I certainly don’t have many of the answers, in fact, almost certainly less than Ben, whose system is more rational and achievable. Nevertheless I have a passion for a better system and I would suggest that if university education is going to be put at the centre of our future development strategy then government must acknowledges this with a massive investment in education, and not just at university level, but at other levels. It has long been acknowledged that we simply do not have the schooling system to produce the best students across the board, and this needs to be dealt with. Furthermore, we need to invest heavily in universities to get them up to par, and with this comes an understanding from the universities that they need to be inherently more commercial. Whether that is through fees is debatable, because as Ben rightly acknowledges that has access issues, but there should be money out there. It is fair to say that if a detailed economic study of the value of a degree was done, it would put the student firmly in the positive under the current system, so why not even that up slightly?

In addition to this, we need to change the culture of giving to universities, in the way that the Americans have done. Their financial machine for endowments, for alumni and generally their commercial operation are far beyond anything we can comprehend; only really Oxbridge has managed to match that. Outside of the hallowed quads there has been a distinct lack of real commercial understanding. Students love to be patriotic, they want to embrace their community, through sports, through being top academics and through volunteering and societies, lets take advantage of this, and make this identity worth something commercially. Sickeningly right-wing? Overtly free-market? I suspect so, but I’m not ashamed of that, I want the best possible universities in this country and that means a number of things clicking into place.

One thing is for certain though, I’m pretty sure that this isn’t the whole answer, in the same way that I don’t think Ben has got it quite right, I’m sure I haven’t either. I hope that by Ben initiating this dialogue we will get close to a solution, and one that is student led. We cannot just turn up in Trafalgar Square and march and moan, we need to start presenting solutions, and for his effort to do that I salute Ben.

poa03drw
22 January 2007 at 19:05

Bravo, Ben, you raise several pertinent points.

The term ‘Free Education’ is indeed a misnomer: it has to be paid for somehow and by someone. There are three main beneficiaries from higher education: the individual, society and business and industry. This being the case, surely there is an argument that each of them should make a contribution to its costs. How those contributions are made, and in what proportion is the real debate we should be having.

More importantly however you state that this is a, ‘point of view that is held by many in the student movement although isn’t always heard‘. Compare a quick chat in any students’ union bar to the education zone of the motions document for NUS Annual Conference this year to confirm that. This underlines a key malaise that exists in student politics: we are too often out of touch with our membership. If we are unrepresentative of our membership and unrealistic in our demands, then we cannot be taken seriously by the media, the public or the government. If this is the case we will never achieve the best outcome for students, and policy will be set behind our backs.

A more honest and open debate, which accepted the realities of the funding debate would see the student movement achieve more for its members than one which confines itself to marching round London screaming ‘Grants not Fees’, however desirable such a funding solution would be.

Dave White

Union President

University of Sheffield Union of Students

22 January 2007 at 20:19

Ben should be congratulated for raising such a divisive issue so sensitively and reasonably. He has hit the nail on the head when he says that there are some people who simply cannot afford to make a contribution to the cost of their education but this is not the crux of the problem. The problem lies with equality. In striving to make education universally accessible to all, we have actually produce inequality within the system; by contributing to some people’s education more than to others’ we are actually treating people differently and this has lead to resentment. Hence, the very thought that one person could receive help from the state to pay their tuition, even though payment is deferred to after graduation, and another person not, is de facto discrimination.

I agree that students should pay something towards their education. So how do we address the fact that some people cannot afford these costs while others resent being treated unfairly? Ben argues, and to a large extent I agree, that by asking those who can to contribute, we can make education both fair and funded for all who want it. But, as I have already said, this in itself is unfair. It seems another radical solution is called for: larger student loans. By providing a decent and substantial student loan to all, regardless of financial situation, we simultaneously tackle the issues of affordability and fairness. It would also allow all students to devote more time to their studies and more opportunities to participate in student life, rather than spending valuable hours earning just to make ends meet.

I am in no doubt that this would mean more student ‘debt’. But, as has been said before, this would not debt in the conventional sense. Far better that a student acquires a government loan at a cheap rate of interest than take out extended overdrafts and credit cards at more exorbitant rates. We need a debate in the UK about what it means to go to university. Is it a right of passage or is it about investing in our own, and our nation’s, future? I would argue that we currently see university more as a right of passage, but that we need to treat it more as an investment, a chance to do something that will reap rewards through jobs, growth and prosperity.

If people are anxious with the idea of investing in a university education, it is the government’s fault for not doing enough to provide the type of work within the economy that requires graduates. We have already seen the average graduate starting salary begin to drop – a classic economic indicator of the market becoming flooded. There simply aren’t the jobs out there or, when there are, they are either in poorly-paid disciplines or there aren’t graduates with suitable skills. So, is it sensible to continually flood the marketplace with under-skilled or unsuitable graduates at great expense to the country?

Leaving that point aside for you to ponder, there is another aspect of university anyone has yet to consider: the fact that it is actually a lot of fun. A student will spend three years, living away from home, making new friends, partying, and learning more about themselves; it’s practically state-sponsorship of Club 1830. But that’s all been part and parcel of going to university, probably since Oxford was established all those centuries ago, and I wouldn’t deny anyone the opportunity. As well as enjoying the social life, there is also the academic life. For most, university offers the chance to go and spend some time studying something they really enjoy. Why, then, should the state fully fund this lifestyle when some people can barely make ends meet?

I believe higher education benefits both the state and the individual and therefore it is only fair that both parties contribute to it. While I believe that the rich should be taxed more and the poor should be taxed less I don’t think that in the case of university education this is necessarily the best solution. This isn’t being defeatist; it is being pragmatic: higher education can only be both funded and accessible to all by helping everyone to afford it, not just those from the right or wrong background.

Benedict Pringle
23 January 2007 at 17:26

I’m going to pick up on Ben’s point on bursaries. Whilst the current higher education funding arrangement is fundamentally unsound, one of the main issues with current situation is the failure of the bursary system to adequately level the playing field. The current bursary system is not fit for purpose. You could say I’m too quick to sound the death knell as it is only the first year of operation but the system is so obviously flawed and is in dire need of dramatic reform. The 3 main problems are:

1. Different institutions can decide on what levels of bursary that they will give for different financial and personal circumstances. This flexibility across institutions has created a market in the bursary system. Everything from bicycles, to laptops and of course cold, hard cash have been offered this year and as long as the system continues doubtless we shall see this market develop and diversify. The problem this market creates is that students will start to decide on an institution because of the financial offering or gimmick as oppose to the suitability of the course; in order to have an enjoyable and worthwhile student experience the appropriateness of one’s course is essential.

2. Different institutions have different numbers of students coming from lower socio-economic backgrounds. The number of students from lower economic backgrounds attending a given institution will decide the levels of bursary on offer. For example, if institutions A and B both have the same income but A has more WP students than B, A will have to give smaller bursaries to more people and B will be able to give larger bursaries to fewer students. So, two students of the same background going to similar institutions could receive dramatically different levels of bursary.

As well as variations in student demographics, different institutions bring in different amounts of revenue and can therefore afford different levels of bursary. Again, students receive differential amounts of bursary not because of disparities in financial situation but because of Universities being able to afford different levels. Continuing on with Ben’s Marxist reference “From each according to their university to each according to their need”.

3. The bursary system is not only unfair, it is also unclear. Whilst the governments ‘Aim Higher’ agenda is commendable, because of the multitude of different bursary systems in operation they cannot clearly and simply say if your household income is ‘x’ then you can expect to pay ‘y’ after graduation and get a grant of ‘z’. The market arising out of the bursary system is deplorable not only because of the above points, it’s also making the whole thing very complicated indeed!

Usually it’s easy to criticise and difficult to provide a solution, but in this case the solution is glaringly obvious. We need a centralised bursary system. With a centralised system we would never have a situation where the University of Nottingham has under spent on bursaries by £1 million whilst other universities have to spread less money over more eligible students.

I do not think that by simply changing the bursary system, all the problems with access will go away. Nor does my advocacy for reforming the current system imply that in general I agree with it apart from the aspect of bursaries. I am merely suggesting a practical and achievable method to make the current system work better for the students that need it to.

Benedict Pringle

Education Officer

The University of Nottingham Students' Union

Harry Giles
24 January 2007 at 12:26

This is indeed Socialism 101: from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Funny to see it couched in such unradical language

I'm a Scottish student, and so supposedly pay no tuition fees. However, the regulation of the student body financially still goes on, through accommodation fees. My University is St Andrews, which has consistently bumped up accommodation prices, which are now so high that the effects on the student demographic are very, very noticeable. They've been forced into this position because they can't raise sufficient funds any other way. So any proposal which appears to level the playing field somewhat, as Ben's does, I'll certainly welcome some.

On the other hand, the more this looks like Socialism 101, the less likely it is to seem as reasonable as Ben hopes it will seem. Any system which asks the rich to contribute much more substantially will be shouted down by the rich; in order to get the proposal adopted, it would have to be much less equal than perhaps Ben might hope. That is to say, those lower down the financial ladder will end up, just as they do now, spending half their time at uni working to fund the other half. Ben's aim would seem to be finding a reasonable solution to the university funding problem which gives a reasonable degree of equality--but, to be honest, don't think his proposal is much better than what we currently have.

Jonathan Wilson
06 February 2007 at 08:28

The biggest problem here is people love to cheat the system. How do you decide who can and can’t afford to pay? If you have a fixed annual salary it’s easy to determine; but if you run a business or work off contacts, so don’t have a fixed annual payment structure it becomes easy to do some creative accounting for the period of time the student is in college. So you have those who could afford the fees just restructuring their books and gain access to a free college education for their children. While legitimately you could have a family living in a million pound home but barely making the repayments and then the additional college payments would become the straw that breaks the camels back.

So should it be judged on net worth or gross?

But I agree that college shouldn’t be free and loans are the right way to go about educational financing. But it should be more like a mortgage paid back over a long period of time with very low interest rates (to none) with the state being the guarantor. Obviously college dropouts would be most risk in this setup. While someone who wants to do a PhD could be in college for 7 or more years depending on the subject clocking up a health loan. Would scholarships still be required for the highest level of academic learning or would the loan be flexible enough to work around this additional study time?

My personal favorite problem with “free college” is brain drain. If the best and brightest people end up going abroad and not repaying the state through taxation then the state has made a loss on the education of that person. Is that fair on the rest of the populace?

- Pax Vitae

Jennifersmed
23 February 2007 at 11:48

Ben makes interesting points but i feel he is wrong in saying the general taxpayer does not benefit from higher education. Of course i does! Doctors, nurses, teachers, social workers, scientists, financiers, government officials, tv broadcasters, journalists. .. All professions trained in higher education and all very much appreciated by us all right?! We also need to get away from this idea of hierarchy and being the best-everyone-has value and we need our binmen as much as our rocket scientists. Education should be free, and we should reduce social and status division across the board tailoring education to fit the strengths of the individual like the old 11plus system. Government needs to take money from casinos and pensions for ministers and put into education health and housing!