To Fee or not To Fee?

The House of Commons has passed a policy allowing univerisites in England to raise the cost of tuition fees to a maximum of £9000 a year. Students could potentially be graduating with £27,000 worth of debt which they would pay off when they being earning over £21,000 a year. This represents a massive increase from the current level of fees, which are around £3000 a year. Needless to say, the issue is somewhat controversial.

Part of me has sympathy with the argument that the tax payer should not have to fund students through university. Why should Mrs Miggins the cleaner have to pay her taxes so that Tarquin can have a jolly nice time for three years?

But then if you follow that argument, why should the tax payers pay for anything? I've never committed a crime so why should my taxes fund prisons and probation? I don't have children so why should I be paying for schools? In reality, I have no problem with my taxes paying for these things because I accept that they are needed for the good of society at large.

Higher education is also A Good Thing for society. Better education hopefully leads to a better informed electorate (although let's not forget that Nick Griffin went to Cambridge). Universities futher our understanding of the world through their research and produce the people we need to tackle the challenges of the future.

All this would seem to suggest that the government should wholly fund HE and student places for the good of society. The only sticking point is that students benefit enormously from a degree. They are set to earn considerably more over their lifetime than non-graduates. Is it not therefore reasonable to ask them to contribute something to the cost of that education?

But the debt that students will graduate with under the recently-passed legislation will surely mean that those from poorer families will be put off from going to university. And universities are the engines of social mobility. It is in everyone's interests to have a society where those who are able enough can gain a degree no matter what their circumstances.

And this is the crucial point: those who are able enough. I don't necessarily believe that everyone who wants to go to university should. I want to be an astronaut but that doesn't mean that NASA should be calling me up. Widening access does not mean allowing every single young person to go to university; it means enabling those who are capable to attend no matter what their circumstances. University is not for everyone and the government should seek to fund alternative routes into employment for those youngsters who are not of an academic bent.

It is not unfair to ask students to contribute something towards the cost of an education from which they will benefit for the rest of their lives. But this must be balanced against the need to ensure that poor, bright kids are still able to gain a degree.

Of course if the government wasn't cutting the teaching budget of universities by 80% then we wouldn't be having this debate. And there would be a bit less of this as well.