Comment for Leeds Student

Something’s got to give. Student funding has been dropping in real and nominal terms
like a stone since the 70s. 45% of young people now go on to HE and the cost for
universities alone now stands at 25 Billion1. For perspective, the bank bailout will now
turn the government a profit2. Let’s get things straight, free things are good. Free,
well-funded school education is good. Free healthcare is good. Free cake is good.
However, it’s a zero sum game, if you take money from some people to provide free
stuff for other people, some people aren’t going to be able to afford stuff for things
that they want. With a free university system, the government will have restrict
funding to public services, or people will have to cut back on things that they value.

The key problem with this, as I see it, is that university is not for everyone, and by
making it free for us, we are restricting other people from doing things that they want
to do. Maybe these people want to do things that we might consider a ‘social good’
like going to art galleries, or exploring world cinema, and maybe we should fund these
too. Even then, other people will be further restricted from doing the things that they
want to do. They might want to watch the footie, get a wide-screen television, or
indulge in sexual fetishes. Do we fund these too? Should we decide as a democracy,
or even as a special interest group, what the ‘right’ choices in life are and pay for
them? We have to draw a dividing line somewhere. Universities cost on average 833
pounds per worker3. Obviously in nominal terms this is unevenly distributed but as the
state now accounts for 50% of spending, even the poorest are contributing record
amounts (as a percentage of their income) to the government – with some statistics
showing that this is nearing 45% of their income. Should we force them to pay this,
reduce their autonomy, and subsidise what is one of the wealthiest groups regardless
of whether they went to university?

Some things are needed by people, really needed by people, and they will suffer if
they cannot get it. Things like primary and secondary education, council houses and
the NHS. People cannot survive in a society if they do not get the former, and people
cannot survive at all without the latter. These things we have a moral obligation to
provide to our fellow man, and as it is not clear that this will be happen without
general taxation. Higher education is not like this. It is broadening, socially and
intellectually. It develops our humanity, but our humanity does not depend on it.

1
http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/Publications/Documents/HigherEducationInFactsAndFig
uresSummer2010.pdf
2
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/26/profit-taxpayers-bailed-out-bank-shares
3
I will begin with a few reasons why the arguments that people often give against
charging for education are unfounded, and then suggest some benefits for charging for
education.

Education is a right

Is it? I don’t understand how HE is a right. When you say right do you mean that
everyone should be entitled to it? Surely the tuition fee loan covers this, everyone has
the opportunity to receive education, and it’s just that if they get it, they aren’t allowed
to shunt the cost of it onto anyone else. They have to pay for it themselves.

Everyone Benefits

So, there are often two arguments here, divided into two sets. The first set argues that
the receipt of education is good for society, the second set argues that having the
option to receive free education is a social good.

The receipt of education is a social good

A better educated society is better for everybody- it reduces crime4, encourages voter
participation, etc. These facts are commonly used as arguments for providing free
university education for everybody. Regardless of these facts, there is no evidence to
suggest that post-18 education does anything to reduce societal negatives.

Another approach suggests that studying philosophy (or biology, or engineering) for 3
years is a good in its own right. I agree that it is a good, but the good primarily falls on
me. I gain great joy in studying and discussing philosophy. I primarily benefit from it,
and generally those I discuss these topics with, have had or are pursuing a university
level education. Those that have not had a university level education should not pay
for the good that I obtain, seeing as that directly reduces the goods that they can
obtain.

The third stand of this set of arguments is that social mobility is a social good. This is
not the case. Social mobility is an individual good (or bad); it is good for those who
move up, and bad for those who move down. It is also necessarily a zero-sum game.
Additionally, in a longitudinal study published by the Centre for economic
performance from 1985-2005, social mobility was rather high. Those who were in the
bottom second income quartile were distributed randomly amongst other income
quartiles. Those at the top and bottom of the income scales were only slightly more
‘sticky’ – though 60% of those in the bottom quartile moved upwards, 13% to the top.
Income is not the be-all and end-all of well-being, but statistics like these demonstrate
4
“The Crime-Reducing effect of Education.” Center for Economic Performance
working paper (forthcoming)
5
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6ce0dad0-8e13-11dc-8591-0000779fd2ac.html
that social mobility is still high even when, in practice, only the richest attended
university6. This would suggest if it were the case that tuition fees presented such a
deterrent against the poorest now that few went, social mobility would remain high.

The other set claims that the very existence of free universities is a good. This seems
absurd. I know I can get free cancer care on the NHS, or free money if my income
falls below a certain bracket. Though surely, it is not the abstract existence of these
services that is a good, it is the ability to use these services. With the absence of an
upfront fee system, there is always this opportunity, although those that don’t choose
to take it don’t have to pay. Because they don’t have to pay for other people’s
education, people are given more opportunities to discover and enrich their own lives.

Charging for education will deter the poorest from HE

7
even as the increase in students from higher income families has slowed
comparatively. Furthermore, there is a far stronger correlation with poor GCSE results
and university attendance than familial income and university attendance8. Shouldn’t a
proportion of the £25 billion we’d save by charging fund better schooling rather than
free universities? We could do both but; a) money doesn’t grow on trees, and b) we’d
restrict self-determination far more than we have to, to get equal opportunity.
Additionally, it’d be far cheaper to inform pupils that the debt they’d get themselves
into won’t heavily impact on their lives, rather than provide for completely free
education. For example, one earning £22,000 a year will repay £1.73 a week – with an
extra £1.73 a week for each £1000 of income.

If we believe that even with the empirical evidence and these measures that the
poorest will still be unduly deterred from university, how about a tapered grant system
for fees and maintenance loans? Starting from, say a household income of £42,000,
every pound your family earns less equals an increase in the amount of your
maintenance and fee grant, until it is fully paid for at £25k. Oh, wait, the Browne
proposals already account for this – kinda. If we need to reduce deterrence on poorer
6
http://docs.google.com/viewer?
a=v&q=cache:8jjQciTedN8J:www.patersoneducationtrust.org/funding_universities.pdf+u
niversity+funding+
%2B1992+fees+grants&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESigPmvVKxUjLua1UoCbqDIg
bVq5XZHdpv-EyqNUWmPUFCRXLQJ-KqUUP8aic-
XYzTm1CRDnfD1H_YwnsNsZ8dDtbCjZQGzR4nVHNuRAFf4OERZn-
LuhzspMWlhwKPJDfiRE0cHr&sig=AHIEtbTbLkhhYC_xN7vQjBfRnWnqEGoVyw
7
http://www.russellgroup.ac.uk/russell-group-latest-news/121-2010/4072-more-students-
from-poorest-areas-entering-university/
8
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2186943/Number-of-working-class-students-
barely-increases.html
students who unduly do not believe HE to be ‘worth’ the cost, then they should be
given a full fee grant as well as a maintenance grant.

Alternatively, the implementation of a graduate tax, which is equally fine, although it

does provide additional problems. It would deter those with expected higher incomes
from going to university and encourage a stratification of university wealth and/or a
loss of the link between the student and the university.

Others say that with these proposals, it is higher wage earners will be deterred. They
would like HE but they do not want to pay for it. They would rather have other people
pay for it, even if a graduate tax (and not a tuition fee system) were implemented. To
this, I despair. Many people would like many things and by you getting your ‘thing’
for free you are restricting others from getting their things. To this, some people claim
that education is a ‘right’ – why is it a right? Surely it is just something that you
consider especially important? Avid travellers think they have a right to travel, wine
connoisseurs think they have a right to drink, BDSM aficionados think that they have
a right to practice BDSM. Why is your ‘right more important than their right?

Soak the rich

There aren’t that many rich left to soak. The state is bigger than it ever was, and
taxation is higher too. Currently the tax burden falls almost equally across all income
brackets, and if we’re going to start taxing it’s going to hit the poor too. Also, what is
problematic is that as you start to increase the tax rate, the economy starts to slow
down, and less revenue is generated. In the 70s the tax rate was 83% (98%) in some
cases for income above £20,000. It was only when taxes begin to be reduced that more
revenue made its way into the treasury.

Ouch, that was long. Now for the positive proposals. Why is charging for tuition fees
a good thing? I am not going to suggest that if money grew on trees it would remain a
good idea but in a zero-sum system of limited resources, they seem necessary – and
there are some bonuses with them too.

Less central control by Government

Currently universities report to, and are regulated by the QAA. They set benchmark
and threshold standards for degrees. One cannot call a degree by its title unless it fits
the criteria of what the government determines is necessary. For example, if one does
cultural studies one must make sure you can examine “the role that aesthetic and
other pleasures and judgements may play in the production and maintenance of
social relations.” I believe guidelines and thresholds are necessarily restricting to
the evolution of disciplines and thought in students and lecturers. If the
government were to turn off the funding tap, universities would be less beholden to
it and more responsive to student and academic interests. The QAA is a regressive
force in education. What is a scarier prospect is that the QAA may block the
creation of new disciplines. English literature was once a derided subject and
tertiary to classics or theology. If the QAA had existed at the birth of the discipline
they may have refused it degree status, and thereby prevented undergraduates from
studying it.

Less potential for underfunding

A large budget and fiscal deficit may occur again, and the government may cut again.
Maybe next time the government will slash funding but not allow universities to
charge tuition fees, higher education could be crippled. By introducing tuition fees
universities are largely immune to the whims of the government of the day. In France
for example, free but underfunded universities has decimated higher education in all
but a few elite schools. In some universities, students have to sit outside lecture
theatres and try and listen to the lectures inside, and half fail to complete their first
year.

It’ll drive up standards

Currently universities are given a block grant that has little bearing on the quality of
the course on offer and the amount of students that apply. Even when quality is
determined, it is judged in an imprecise and bureaucratic way.9 If money starts to
follow student choice, better departments will be able to grow and expand and take on
more students than may be doing a poorer course elsewhere. This is surely a good
thing.

In conclusion, tuition fees aren’t such a bad idea. People opposed to the idea will have
to demonstrate:

• Why it’ll unduly deter low-income families, with reference to the American
example.

• How they will raise the funds necessary to ensure access, taking into account
the laffer curve.

• And most importantly, in my opinion why HE is a ‘special’ good, that take

priority over other people’s desires.

9
http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/corporate/docs/s/10-1208-securing-sustainable-
higher-education-browne-report.pdf
Notes

Give them grants

Secondly they are non-excludable

I sincerely doubt that the majority of 17 million people in the UK earning under
£20,00010 benefit from my University education, and even if they do, I do not believe
that they should be forced to pay for it.
10
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_in_the_United_Kingdom
They should be able to fund it out of th

It is not just the richest that pay tax, it is everyone, the marginal tax rates for the
poorest fifth run at 70%11. While the total tax rates run at 30%

It’s a right

Everyone benefits

1,440,000

£6000 to £7000 1,160,000

£7000 to £8000 1,590,000

£8000 to 10,000 2,950,000

£10,000 to
2,760,000
£12,000

£12,000 to
3,650,000
£15,000

£15,000 to
4,950,000
£20,000

£20,000 to
6,000,000
£30,000

£30,000 to
4,090,000
£50,000

11
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2009/05/tax-rates-are-highest-for-the-
poor-not-the-rich.html
The Playgrounds argument

We pay for playgrounds and that’s good. Why shouldn’t we pay for universities?
Well, firstly – they don’t cost £25 billion. Secondly, for children in cramped living
conditions, playgrounds are a vital need to allow them to experience living. Thirdly, if
you don’t buy that they are a fundamental need, they’re non-excludable, and non-
rivalrous. Anyone can use a playground without incurring extra cost to the
playground.

Notes

http://www.bis.gov.uk/news/topstories/2010/Nov/student-finance

Students from families with incomes of up to £25,000 will be entitled to a more

generous student maintenance grant of up to £3,250 and those from families with
incomes up to £42,000 will be entitled to a partial grant.

Regulation

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/benchmark/statements/economics.asp#p
9

fifth of earners paid 38.7% of their gross income in total tax, compared to the richest
fifth who paid 34.9%. This situation will only get worse when the highly regressive
VAT increases to 20% next year.