The real issue with Top-Up Fees

Hearing government and Vice-Chancellor arguments on the need to raise fees for University, the debate hasn’t changed much in the past twenty years.

No one disputes that Universities need more money if they are to compete with the worlds leading academic institutions. It is also clear Top-Up fees are here to stay for the medium-term at least. So the argument must remain on the “best” way of students paying for their education.

Essentially, the argument has centred on “fairness”. The government argues that it isn’t “fair” that future doctors and lawyers, with all their future earnings potential have their University education paid for by lower income earners.

In reply, many in NUS, as well as other opponents of fees in Higher Education point out that those future Doctors and Lawyers benefit the whole of society, so it is fair that society pays for them.

The current system determines how much you pay for your education based on your CURRENT family income, not your PERSONAL future income. So a student with a rich daddy who plans on becoming a teacher pays significantly more in fees than someone from a less affluent background who gets a job at a city law firm.

I’d be shocked if anyone could call this system fair.

“Good” Debt and “Bad” Debt

But the real injustice is that under the current system, potential students from deprived backgrounds are deterred from the path that leads them to careers like highly paid lawyers in the first place.

A University education typically means sacrificing three-years to study when you would otherwise be in the “real” world earning a salary. Telling people from less privileged backgrounds that on top of this sacrifice, they would then enter the world of work with over £30k of debt, then even those who aspire to well-paid professions may be scared off.

If you are from an aspirational, middle-class background, you will be familiar with the notion of “good” debt. Your family may have a mortgage they have steadily paid off, or maybe your family took out a loan and used it to set up business that has provided for your future? All of this garners an idea of “good” debt. Debt for investment. That is a positive thing.

But if you come from a background where your predominant experience of debt are door-step lenders, or having a maxed out credit that you then spend four years trying to pay off, then you are much more likely to only know of “bad” debt. Debt that makes living week-to-week more difficult, not easier. And that experience is very likely to put you off the idea of getting into debt if you can help it.

Paying based on benefit

So as always, the more affluent your background, the less likely you are to be deterred from fees higher education. That’s no surprise to anyone.

So what is the solution?

All the major political parties are well aware of the inherent unfairness of charging a maths graduate working in a comprehensive school the same as a maths graduate who goes to work at a Hedge Fund.

The natural solution would be a graduate tax so that instead of paying an arbitary amount, each student pays based on future earnings that the degree has helped attain.

In the whole, a Graduate Tax wouldn’t cost students any more than the current system, it merely calculates repayment based on future income, not how much your parents earn like the current system does.

Graduate Tax also removes the headline “over £30k of debt” millstone that puts so many off investing in education.

It gets rid of the headline “Over £30k of debt” millstone that puts so many off investing in education.

Leadership

So why does virtually no-one advocate this idea? In truth, it is incredibly difficult for an elected politician to announce a new tax. Any new tax could be spun to make the politician and advocate of “raising taxes” and with the next election likely to be so close, no one would want that.

I’m also aware that this option is unlikely to be very popular amongst students. Which turkey would vote for Christmas?

However, if we accept that at the very least, the current top-up fee regime is likely to remain, we must concentrate on making the system fairer. And getting rid of the current system of parental-income is an excellent place to start. Politicians need to be shown that there is an alternative to the current system. Perhaps now is the time for the NUS leadership to help shape this debate…

The Blogs on this site represent the individual views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the policies or practices of the National Union of Students

The permanent URL for this specific blog entry is: http://www.officeronline.co.uk/blogs/samrozati/276237.aspx