Categories: uncategorized
Date: 12 October 2010 14:13:45
So, suprise suprise, the ConDem government is taking the cap off tutition fees according to the news today and Vince Cable has been pursuaded a graduate tax is not the way forward. Are we suprised? Um, actually no....what is happening is that the current government is putting the universities back on track for meeting the initial plan that the "inner circle" of New Labour were putting forward over a decade ago. I remember the initial "fight" against Fees (or top up fees as they are rightly called). Also because of Third Party's age I have always been conscious that within the discussions the view was put forward that by 2012 we would be more in line with the Americans. The cap we must remember was the "New Labour" sweetner to get the measure through.
At the time just prior to their original introduction I remember being the "youth" spokesperson for the local Lib Dem party in Ipswich, where I lived and addressing a public meeting on the topic. My view at the time, which I still hold today, is that the only fair way forward is a graduate tax, linked to National Insurance contributions or income tax.
Reading A Journey, the Tony Blair autobiography, and Mandleson and Liddle's The Blair Revolution is probably the easiest way to get ones head around the main arguments for unlimited fees, which have not changed. The "New Right" / "New Labour" ideology put forward states that many people who don't go to university and don't benefit from the advantages a university education gives are resentful of paying tax towards those who do benefit. (Basic argument in the Mandleson / Liddle book). Additionally British universities are facing a funding crisis and need to be able to charge additional fees in order to compete with the American (and increasingly the South Asian) universities. At the moment the Americans dominate the list of top 50 universities in the world. (Central argument of the Blair book). Now, I actually agree with the arguments thus far and so in theory with the idea that some extra form of funding, paid by those who benefit should be introduced.
However, where I disagree is how this should be implemented. The Blair book explains the treasury did put forward the idea of a graduate tax but this was rejected. The reason that "New Labour" rejected it was because on this basis all HE institutions are treated equally and Blair reckons this is clearly not the case. His argument is that the "world class" institutions should be able to charge higher fees and a competitive market should be introduced to increase standards.
I struggle with this, coming from the man who talks so much of meritocracy. Whilst he argues grants and bursaries should be available to entice those with most ability into these top institutions (if they come from poorer backgrounds) it is still a formular that promotes eliteism and further perpetuates a two (even three) tier HE system. A degree should be a degree where ever it comes from.
I argue this as somebody who has worked their way up the "league table" of universities and occassionally when applying for jobs faced the prejudice that the league table mentality gives. I got my initial degree from Nene College, (now the University of Northampton). It was validated by the University of Leicester, but because of where I studied does not have the currency of some of my later qualifications...not on the basis of level or achievement but on the basis of the insitution studied in. My PG Dip from the University of East London also lacks "currency" in the Blair way of looking at things. My PGCE (post-compulsory) is slightly different in that it comes from a highly respected former teacher training college, Canterbury Christ Church University College. However, it was not until my MA which came from the University of Kent that I reached the status of "decent university" if one follows this thinking. My current study in Durham means I have reached the higher eschlons of educational establishment.
Now I am not going to pretend there aren't differences between the universities but I am going to vigerously defend that my BA (Hons) has as much worth as anybody elses. Nene was great for me and I received excellent teaching there...just as I have in every institution. Where the differences actually lie is in much of the extra curricular opportunities and the earning potential if you end up going into an employer who does go in for "status" or "old boy network" style employing of graduates from certain institutions. Therefore, a system which takes a contribution according to your earnings and so takes more than the set "fee" from some and less from others later in their lives seems fair to me. The government already has the information on people there and so this should not be an unreasonable way of doing it. It also takes away mean testing for tutition because the calculations are based on what you earn after graduation, rather than your parents income. The current means testing should still apply for student support during their course, which is a totally different thing.
In terms of how the money is shared out it seems right and proper to me that the universities are all subject to the same funding formulars which look at student numbers, the level of value added, the research coming out of the insitution and so forth. It should be outcomes of the university and courses that should attract funding. This funding should be looked at in terms of outcomes related to "inclusion" on one hand and "world class research" on the other. This would seem a fair system.
I am pleased to see that Lord Browne's report...which I am yet to read in detail does apparently, according to the BBC, suggest that student support should be extended to people on part-time courses.
As for the Lib Dem thing.....well there is only one word I think can be used when a government they are part of takes the action of taking the cap off fees...BETRAYAL. I heard Clegg and others during the election campaign explain that the scrapping of tuition fees was still part of the long term plan but we would need to be realistic and understand this would take time. I am very glad I left the party long ago.
Yet again, Bob Russell is showing the face of decent Lib Dems when he is quoted in the Daily Mail as saying, "'I signed the pledge and I'm not one of those people who says one thing and does another." It will be sad if this does bring the fragile coalition government down, as I actually think what we need right now is stability, but equally I am glad there are those who are willing to act with integrity.
Let us never forget: "EDUCATION IS A RIGHT, NOT A PRIVILEDGE".