You don’t, but it’s not a bad place to start.

Interesting the Sutton Trust report at the heart of the article focuses more on apprenticeships than on funding options per se

Funny how politicians of all parties are so keen on a policy first proposed by the libertarian Milton Friedmann!!

You don’t, but it’s not a bad place to start.

And I thought you were an economist!

It’s a very expensive assumption to assume that sending (nearly) everyone to Uni is a good place to start. Surely you’d want to see a proper cost benefit analysis first? If something like 60% of people don’t get a financial benefit from their degree and the other 40% have to pay for it, that would (to me) suggest the basic assumption (that Uni is good for everyone) is wrong.

That’s not what I am saying. I have not proposed sending everyone to Uni, far from it.

He is an elitist , as I am , and wishes only to send a minority/the best of the best to Uni and pro grammar schools as well IIRC. I dont know why he did not just say that when he refuted your point but he seems to like to stay vague/mysterious.

Personally I think it’s more about efficient use of resources (given they are finite). If most people don’t need their degree for their future career (as seems to be the case in 60% of graduates), might there not be a better form of further education which they and society might benefit more from such as vocational / apprenticeships?

Agreed but the problem is we think apprenticeships lead to jobs. We can train everyone to be engineers and mechanics and the like but if we dont have a skills shortage/vacancies in this area then it wont really help. We can still be training people for jobs that dont exist as you can do an apprenticeship FT at college for FREE / at all our expenses.

I don’t believe people have the intrinsic right to spend three years at University getting stoned whilst pretending to study some random media subject and then coming away with a worthless certificate, with the bill picked up by the tax payer. If the tax payer foots the bill, society ought to be getting something back for the money.

I would also look at the utility of the course but THM is correct that those of us lucky enough to have done a degree did all learn and grow and it is a shame to restrict this and limit opportunity to just what society wants/needs. No one studying theology or philosophy but plenty do accountancy and ophthalmics. Some balance is required.

What is this magic free money of their own that universities have that they should spend on poor students’ living expenses?

Oxford uni raised 2 billion in under 10 years from alumni and donations alone. A lot of uni’s are now very aggressive in fund raising and also profiting from intellectual property etc. They also actively seek foreign students as they make a profit on them. If universities want to give poor students bursaries they certainly can (and should).

If you directly link funded courses to earnings post degree then you are bound to fail. The government cannot know in advance what degrees will be useful and lead to high earnings in the future. That is unless they rig the employment market a la doctors, but that is far more tricky for thosegraduating with history or fine arts degrees etc.

I’m told the value of an Oxbridge degree isn’t the degree itself, but the network you create – so if you’re a shy introvert you might waste your time and money. My Sis is at Oxford now, ‘networking’ her ambition is terrifying.

It makes sense, after all, education, unless you have a job that requires a specific degree (nurse, doctor, teacher etc) your education might get you your first job, maybe your second, your ‘first real job’ but after that who cares? If you’re in your 30’s and trying to get a new job, no one cares about the 2.2 you got in history 15 years ago, they want to know what you did last year.

I’ve got almost no qualifications, I really couldn’t be arsed in school, which I regret now, but 5 years ago I was mentoring Graduate Trainees for a major bank and whilst I’ve decided to get out of the rat race and have a completely non-corporate job now, I earn a lot more than £16k a year, a lot more than my Wife with her 2 degrees and still have lots of potential to earn more without whoring myself to some corporate wage slave outfit. Did all my grafting in my 20s though and it took 10 years to catch up, not 3.

Agreed but the problem is we think apprenticeships lead to jobs. We can train everyone to be engineers and mechanics and the like but if we dont have a skills shortage/vacancies in this area then it wont really help.

There is currently zero feedback between courses offered at Uni and available jobs / careers, so the status quo is completely broken (in terms of matching resource to requirements in the economy).

I would also look at the utility of the course but THM is correct that those of us lucky enough to have done a degree did all learn and grow and it is a shame to restrict this and limit opportunity to just what society wants/needs.

You could call it a shame, but it does cost a lot of money for 50% or more of the population to spend 3 or more years not earning and then fund their courses etc.

As for learning, I’ve learnt far more out of Uni than in and my current expertise has very little to do with my degree other than they’re both Engineering disciplines.

As for being elitist, not really, I just don’t think sending everyone on a three year jolly is a great use of tax revenue e.g. you could slash Uni numbers and pump the money into the NHS and have a 7 day service. The main downside would be that your baristas, at Costa, would only have three A levels rather than a degree in Philosophy.

Can I point out engineering is a degree subject and while you could eventually reach a decent grade with an apprenticeship it will take you far longer to get chartered than if you have a degree or further.

Better keep that quiet from the comrades 😈

Agreed but the problem is we think apprenticeships lead to jobs. We can train everyone to be engineers and mechanics and the like

The irony is that engineering is one of the professions where you make use of stuff you learned in your degree years later 🙄

There is currently zero feedback between courses offered at Uni and available jobs / careers, so the status quo is completely broken (in terms of matching resource to requirements in the economy).

There is not zero feedback but the there is no attempt to match the two so there is no mechanism to be broken. I dont disagree that, broadly, there should be a system.

As for being elitist, not really, I just don’t think sending everyone on a three year jolly is a great use of tax revenue e.g. you could slash Uni numbers and pump the money into the NHS and have a 7 day service. The main downside would be that your baristas, at Costa, would only have three A levels rather than a degree in Philosophy.

I was not suggesting you were an elitist I was saying THM and I were re education and my point is the same as yours.

Better keep that quiet from the comrades

Its ok the rules mean some of us are more equal than others 😉
Seriously it is about providing the best education related to your needs. the brightest need more than the less bright to achieve their full potential

To each according to their ability to each according to their need. I see no contradiction but it is, clearly, not a typically lefty position.

It isn’t, which I always think strange – ISTM those people who don’t think like you are a bit caught up in some false equality ideology – which is what leads to the idea that more people must go to university (not that I’d accuse anybody involved in facilitating that of being lefty).

Though I’m a little wary of “the brightest need more than the less bright to achieve their full potential” – there’s a good argument that the less bright need just as much, because they take just as long to reach their potential even if it’s a bit lower. It’s just a question of whether university is the right place for them in that case.

TBH I’m not sure this is a left/right issue at all – though you must be aware by now that I find that whole one dimensional political thing rather silly. It is reassuring to find elitists – in the purest sense of the word (one of the big problems is that the word has been perverted to mean something different) – across the full political spectrum.

Though I’m a little wary of “the brightest need more than the less bright to achieve their full potential” – there’s a good argument that the less bright need just as much,

Well they need a higher standard of education they dont need more.

I did not express that well and dont disagree with you and did actually say what you said but deleted it as Iam trying to briefer in my posts.

We dont need a return to grammar schools and the pits via the 11 plus type system and every person should be educated to achieve their full potential

The routes will vary but not the quality.

I do understand that you and THM struggle to have principles 😉

RESPECTFULLY its probably because you are both middle of the road types [ no offence meant] and have some left wing views – say immigration /asylum/equality/race relations and some right wing ones – capitalism /economy/enterprise/small state so you can flip flop

Those of us entrenched in our politics [ most of STW political folk if not the actual population] cannot imagine such a scenario for us.

IMHO Left = general/comprehension
Right = grammar and elitist

Junkyard – lazarus
So you may not earn a premium from the education but you will pay more tax anyway
I am not convinced that is fair.

It’s not supposed to be a bloody insurance policy on the degree you do! “We GUARANTEE you’ll make money from this degree that you chose – and if you don’t, everyone else in the country can pay for it”. No – you chose to do it, you got most of the benefit, you can pay for most of it over time.

The trouble with that idea is that some people benefit society by doing a degree without benefiting their own finances. Is it reasonable that those people should have to pay as much as those who benefit vastly financially?

TBH I reckon I actually almost totally agree with JY from a purely idealistic perspective – we simply differ on how bad the current system is. Oh and I can’t speak for THM, but congratulations on summing up my politics so succinctly. 🙂

Is it reasonable that those people should have to pay as much as those who benefit vastly financially?

If you have followed the exchange that you are now contributing to, you’ll notice that’s not true. The vastly richer will pay another 1.5% of millions, which is a lot, while the [possibly abstract] selfless classmate will pay another 1.5% of sod all.

OK, is it fair that those people pay more than people on the same salary who haven’t benefited society by improving their skills at uni?

Yes – because they personally benefitted from the course (and far more than society did).

Interesting KB and this is the crux of the argument despite zokes misplaced attempt to pretend otherwise.

The debate comes down to a simple question – is higher education a public good, a private good or a hybrid of the two? The first is the basis of the “fund out of taxation” lobby, the second of the “pay for it yourself” lobby and the third is realistically where we are in reality.

A complex issue with only one certainty – the current system fails to satisfy the needs of all parties involved. A real bu&&ers muddle.

The debate comes down to a simple question – is higher education a public good, a private good or a hybrid of the two? The first is the basis of the “fund out of taxation” lobby, the second of the “pay for it yourself” lobby and the third is realistically where we are in reality.

I’d prefer a hybrid, courses where the profession directly benefits society eg Doctors, Nurses, Teachers etc would be paid for by the state. Possibly also STEM subjects as they are needed by industry and highly likely to be a good investment in terms of future tax take.

Everything else is funded by individuals.

NB My degree was paid for by the state, but the government’s investment in me has been cashflow positive for the last 15 years or more, so I’ve made them a healthy profit.

Higher education is a public good. You get all the brightest young people in the country together and they learn from each other, develop lasting relationships and make the country a better place.

It’s a bit hit-and-miss but it’s been working well for hundreds of years.

We’re in the process of tearing it apart, because we’ve all been hoodwinked into thinking that there’s no such thing as society, and in a few generations we’ll all be back to working as impoverished peasants and serfs while the Chinese laugh at us for our short-sightedness.

You get all the brightest young people in the country together and they learn from each other, develop lasting relationships and make the country a better place.

That was probably the case when 5% went to Uni, but now it’s 50%, they can hardly be described as the ‘brightest’, at best ‘above average’.

Oh and I can’t speak for THM, but congratulations on summing up my politics so succinctly

I feel fairly confident in predicting he wont be congratulating me

The debate comes down to a simple question – is higher education a public good, a private good or a hybrid of the two?

Indeed and its clearly bit of both

Individuals benefit by say being trained to be a doctor but we all benefit from having doctors to treat us

However the same is true for all education form nursery onwards and iam not sure why we ONLY make people * pay at University

* Lets not get sidetracked but I know you have to pay for others as well once over a certain age.

The debate comes down to a simple question – is higher education a public good, a private good or a hybrid of the two?

The UK has always had a hybrid of the two and no one is saying it won’t in future. For instance Universities have access to the HEFCE pot of nearly £4 billion and also the Research Councils who have something like in the region of the same to give out in 15/16. So lets stop pretending the taxpayer is giving no money to support universities. Tuition fees are only one part of the total package.

the Chinese laugh at us for our short-sightedness.

The reason Labour brought in the 50% target was to ensure the UK didn’t get surpassed globally by the likes of China and India. The days of only 20% of kids in the UK going to uni are long gone.

The UK has always had a hybrid of the two and no one is saying it won’t in future.

Not true as seen in this thread ^ and in the wider debate. The narrative remains dominated by the notion that higher education is a public good, even though this is not (strictly) the case.

Perhaps that is why the Chinese are laughing? 😉

Not true as seen in this thread ^ and in the wider debate.

No you are confusing what is the reality i.e. the system is a hybrid (and always has been) and no political party is proposing changing that, with a few peoples views posting on social media who have no control over education policy.

TBH I think the government have it about right, heavily fund the research side of universities and let students pay for themselves.

The reason Labour brought in the 50% target was to ensure the UK didn’t get surpassed globally by the likes of China and India. The days of only 20% of kids in the UK going to uni are long gone.

But where is the huge kick in GDP that we should have got from the extra 30% going to Uni?

The whole 50% thing is based on the flawed (IMO) assumption that having Baristas and street cleaners with a BA in Philosophy will somehow enable the UK to compete internationally as a global exporter…

Wasn’t the purpose to keep dullards like me off the unemployed figures?

dragon – tbc, I was referring to the “no one is saying” bit!

TBH I think the government have it about right, heavily fund the research side of universities and let students pay for themselves.

If there is one thing that unites all sides, its that the current system enjoys the rare status of failing all parties! 😉

I enjoy the positioning of different sides on the grad tax debate – some v unlikely bedfellows there – like a Saturday morning at most Unis??

like a Saturday morning at most Unis??

Don’t know about you, but most of my WEs were wasted in a drunken / stoned stupor. As was most of the week thinking back…

If there is one thing that unites all sides, its that the current system enjoys the rare status of failing all parties!

True we have the position that the pointless degrees that added little to society ,but enrichened the life of the person doing the degree [philosophy barista for example], will be free to the person who did it with society picking up the tab. They dont get a premium for the education so never pay it back. High earners like say a Doctor or a head teacher, that society needs and wants, will pay back so not free for them . Assuming of course we measure worth in terms of money earned.

Its not a great solution tbh

High earners like say a Doctor or a head teacher, that society needs and wants, will pay back so not free for them .

That’s okay – they’re well-paid and they did really well out of their uni educations.

some v unlikely bedfellows there – like a Saturday morning at most Unis??

priceless ! (but surely earlier in the week after the student union and pub student nights on a Monday ?

I definitely benefited financially from going to Oxford and it was absolutely part of my decision making process when choosing an MSc place at Oxford vs PhD offers from Manchester and Edinburgh. It’s a truth that even today people notice that 1yr course on my CV 30 years later. I went to state school, college and uni. I have more than paid back too. I would say its a perfect example of state education working and providing social mobility as I spent the early part of my life living in a council house, that is mainly why my parents decided to emigrate to Australia as “ten pound poms” for a better life, Left wing Labour governments at the time BTW.

If people want enrichment then why not do National Service?

No, not that National Service, something more productive to our society that allows people to take a few years out, do some good in the world whilst we pick up the tab and then commence their lives in an appropriate direction. People do the whole “sponsor me to spend 2 months in Africa getting in an NGO’s way” thing anyway so why not do it properly? (or something at home but you get the drift)

You then get vocational training that you might not otherwise get in an academic institution, learn life skills, network with people you might not otherwise meet and all that jazz whilst getting some “down time” to figure out what you really want to do in life.