Wednesday, August 10, 2005
The fear of debt
For those who argued that the Welsh Assembly's decision to not charge top-up fees was a subsidy for the middle classes this article in the Western Mail offers food for thought. A survey by NatWest Bank has found that the introduction of increased tuition fees in England could put off A-level students next year. They also estimate that Welsh students about to start their first term of university this autumn will expect to spend £30,241 during a three-year degree course, including tuition fees. On average they expect to graduate with debts totalling £13,950.
The key finding for us is that the introduction of increased tuition fees charged by universities in England could put off A-level students next year. The NatWest found 64% of sixth formers would be less inclined to go to university in 2006 when the new fee structure is introduced.
Things are still bad in Wales but at least we have done what we can, within the powers and the finance available to us, to mitigate the worst effects of Tony Blair's market economy in education.
The key finding for us is that the introduction of increased tuition fees charged by universities in England could put off A-level students next year. The NatWest found 64% of sixth formers would be less inclined to go to university in 2006 when the new fee structure is introduced.
Things are still bad in Wales but at least we have done what we can, within the powers and the finance available to us, to mitigate the worst effects of Tony Blair's market economy in education.
Labels: Fees
Comments:
<< Home
Martyn, this survey and others demonstrate that it is not politicians who are scaring students it is the system itself and the reality of debt that comes from it. This is not just about fee debt of course but even if it were the fact is that the system as set up by Labour means that graduates in employment will pay a marginal income tax rate of 42% regardless of their income. That is more than the richest people in our society. That is unjustifiable.
Baywatcher, I was never convinced by that part of the Rees report as my contribution to the debate in the Assembly shows. Surveys such as this just underline how they may have missed the point on this issue. As for the budget, well I do not need to identify the source of funding for the fee grant. That is already in hand due to WAG's acceptance of our position. The chances are that it will be paid for from uncommitted revenue, currently held in reserve, and will not impact on other parts of the education budget.
Baywatcher, I was never convinced by that part of the Rees report as my contribution to the debate in the Assembly shows. Surveys such as this just underline how they may have missed the point on this issue. As for the budget, well I do not need to identify the source of funding for the fee grant. That is already in hand due to WAG's acceptance of our position. The chances are that it will be paid for from uncommitted revenue, currently held in reserve, and will not impact on other parts of the education budget.
Anthropax, I cannot get on the Badly Dubbed Boy site either and do not know what has happened to him.
Martyn, students are not stupid, they can see propaganda for what it is. They can also talk to other students and establish the real position. They no more trust politicians than anybody else but they know the reality and your attempts to blame every political party but Labour for the current situation does not wash at all. Student debt is rising and as a result many are being put off from going to university. One study I quoted in the chamber indicated that this disproportionately affected one-parent families who tend to be poorer and more debt-averse than others.
The fact is that the Labour Government has created a market economy in education and it is students who are suffering as a result. No amount of accusations of opportunism will alter that.
Baywatcher, if you look at the figures you will see that Scotland, who have a much more generous system of fees (i.e. virtually none at all) consistently outrank other areas of the UK in the number of students applying for places there. It is the case that student behaviour is affected by fees and by cost, that after all is the purpose of Labour's variable fees - a market economy in education that works on the basis of demand and supply.
Money can always be spent elsewhere (witness the many times the Tories have spent the 70 million pound cost of the Assembly building). The opposition parties will however take responsibility for the cost of our policy because we can command a majority in the chamber and therefore the government need our support to get the budget through.
Labour have always stated that the cost of whatever comes from the Rees Commission will be met from reserves and that is how the position will undoubtedly work out.
The Liberal Democrats position on HE has always been workable because it is based on principle and properly costed. If we had won the GE then we would have abolished fees and paid for that by raising tax on those earning more than 100,000 a year.
As for Labour changing things if they win a majority in 2007 then yes they could. The deal we have struck is in force until 2009 but if they had a majority there would be little we could do about stopping them reneging on that.
Post a Comment
Martyn, students are not stupid, they can see propaganda for what it is. They can also talk to other students and establish the real position. They no more trust politicians than anybody else but they know the reality and your attempts to blame every political party but Labour for the current situation does not wash at all. Student debt is rising and as a result many are being put off from going to university. One study I quoted in the chamber indicated that this disproportionately affected one-parent families who tend to be poorer and more debt-averse than others.
The fact is that the Labour Government has created a market economy in education and it is students who are suffering as a result. No amount of accusations of opportunism will alter that.
Baywatcher, if you look at the figures you will see that Scotland, who have a much more generous system of fees (i.e. virtually none at all) consistently outrank other areas of the UK in the number of students applying for places there. It is the case that student behaviour is affected by fees and by cost, that after all is the purpose of Labour's variable fees - a market economy in education that works on the basis of demand and supply.
Money can always be spent elsewhere (witness the many times the Tories have spent the 70 million pound cost of the Assembly building). The opposition parties will however take responsibility for the cost of our policy because we can command a majority in the chamber and therefore the government need our support to get the budget through.
Labour have always stated that the cost of whatever comes from the Rees Commission will be met from reserves and that is how the position will undoubtedly work out.
The Liberal Democrats position on HE has always been workable because it is based on principle and properly costed. If we had won the GE then we would have abolished fees and paid for that by raising tax on those earning more than 100,000 a year.
As for Labour changing things if they win a majority in 2007 then yes they could. The deal we have struck is in force until 2009 but if they had a majority there would be little we could do about stopping them reneging on that.
<< Home
