Thursday, March 26, 2009
Plaid Cymru get tough
If anybody still harbours the misconception that Plaid Cymru is a liberal party or even a democratic one for that matter then this should quickly disabuse them of such a notion.
According to the Western Mail, the student who e-mailed Ieuan Wyn Jones to complain about his party's unprincipled abandonment of a key election pledge has been booted out of Plaid Cymru. So much for their claims that the abolition of tuition fees is still party policy.
Ms. Caiach-Taylor sums up what every student and young person in Plaid Cymru must be thinking: "If disagreeing with the leader is grounds for expulsion, then the party should be a lot smaller...... I have no intention of apologising for having an opinion that doesn't mesh with Ieuan's, or participating in a witchhunt for anyone within the party who cares about students more than they care about Ieuan."
Does Plaid Cymru have anything to offer young people anymore? It seems not.
According to the Western Mail, the student who e-mailed Ieuan Wyn Jones to complain about his party's unprincipled abandonment of a key election pledge has been booted out of Plaid Cymru. So much for their claims that the abolition of tuition fees is still party policy.
Ms. Caiach-Taylor sums up what every student and young person in Plaid Cymru must be thinking: "If disagreeing with the leader is grounds for expulsion, then the party should be a lot smaller...... I have no intention of apologising for having an opinion that doesn't mesh with Ieuan's, or participating in a witchhunt for anyone within the party who cares about students more than they care about Ieuan."
Does Plaid Cymru have anything to offer young people anymore? It seems not.
Labels: Fees
Monday, March 09, 2009
Plaid Cymru capitulate
The decision of Plaid Cymru's National Executive to back their leader and their Assembly Group in introducing top-up fees in Wales signals an ignominous capitulation for that party. The Liberal Democrats are now the only party who continue to resist this additional taxation on educational achievement.
Rather bizarrely this u-turn appears to be based on a belief that being in Government requires compromises. Plaid even argue that it is normal in coalition for a party to hold one position whilst its ministers implement another. What utter nonsense.
Having been in government I am prepared to accept that compromises have to be made, that policies have to be implemented that some Ministers and their party are not comfortable with and that collective responsibility has to apply. That is certainly the case where it proves that a promise is impractical or when circumstances dictate that a change is necessary, but neither of those scenarios apply in this case.
The present arrangements in which the Welsh Government pays the top-up fees for indigenous students is already in the budget. There are no financial pressures that require the government to find the money to pay for it. The imperative for change was always going to be the lifting of the cap on fees by the UK Government and yet it now looks unlikely that this will happen and in any case the present Welsh proposals pre-empt any UK decision. In other words there is no good reason why what we have at present should change ahead of the 2011 elections.
Being in government is about getting things done, but it is also about sticking to your values and your principles, even in coalition. If the One Wales Agreement does not give Plaid Cymru the assurance it needs to resist top-up fees then they failed to negotiate it properly.
Their Ministers say that they fought for their position in the Cabinet and lost but the fact is that the real choice they faced was not one of collective responsibility, it was whether the principles and values they held were strong enough to break the coalition over. This was not about the realities of power it was about retaining the privileges of power.
Plaid Cymru have sold out Welsh students so that their leadership can continue to enjoy the comfort of ministerial limousines.
Rather bizarrely this u-turn appears to be based on a belief that being in Government requires compromises. Plaid even argue that it is normal in coalition for a party to hold one position whilst its ministers implement another. What utter nonsense.
Having been in government I am prepared to accept that compromises have to be made, that policies have to be implemented that some Ministers and their party are not comfortable with and that collective responsibility has to apply. That is certainly the case where it proves that a promise is impractical or when circumstances dictate that a change is necessary, but neither of those scenarios apply in this case.
The present arrangements in which the Welsh Government pays the top-up fees for indigenous students is already in the budget. There are no financial pressures that require the government to find the money to pay for it. The imperative for change was always going to be the lifting of the cap on fees by the UK Government and yet it now looks unlikely that this will happen and in any case the present Welsh proposals pre-empt any UK decision. In other words there is no good reason why what we have at present should change ahead of the 2011 elections.
Being in government is about getting things done, but it is also about sticking to your values and your principles, even in coalition. If the One Wales Agreement does not give Plaid Cymru the assurance it needs to resist top-up fees then they failed to negotiate it properly.
Their Ministers say that they fought for their position in the Cabinet and lost but the fact is that the real choice they faced was not one of collective responsibility, it was whether the principles and values they held were strong enough to break the coalition over. This was not about the realities of power it was about retaining the privileges of power.
Plaid Cymru have sold out Welsh students so that their leadership can continue to enjoy the comfort of ministerial limousines.
Labels: Fees
Thursday, February 26, 2009
The realities of power
John Dixon has an interesting post on the realities of working within a coalition government. In many ways he is right. Forming alliances with other parties involves making compromises and on occasions swallowing policies you are not comfortable with. The nub of his argument lies in this passage:
So, the right question is not 'How can you stay in government when they do something contrary to your party's policies?', but more 'How do you decide which issues are important enough to threaten the agreement which you have reached?'
Having been in a coaliton government I can testify that his analysis is spot on. However, he has missed out one crucial ingredient, the taking of responsibility for decisions made by the government irrespective of whether they are made by your ministers or not.
At present Plaid Cymru are in the curious position of trying to take credit for the good decisions whilst seeking to distance themselves from the unpopular ones or those that are contrary to their policies. It is as if they are a semi-detached branch of the government, not an integral part of it.
The latest development is the apparent separation of Plaid Cymru into two parties, the activists and the Assembly Members. In this way they hope to be able to campaign against decisions that their elected members are a party to.
It is dishonest and it is unprincipled. If, as John Dixon invites his colleagues to consider, the introduction of top-up fees in Wales is not important enough to cause them to walk out of the coalition then the least they can do as a party is to stop pretending that they had nothing to do with the decision.
So, the right question is not 'How can you stay in government when they do something contrary to your party's policies?', but more 'How do you decide which issues are important enough to threaten the agreement which you have reached?'
Having been in a coaliton government I can testify that his analysis is spot on. However, he has missed out one crucial ingredient, the taking of responsibility for decisions made by the government irrespective of whether they are made by your ministers or not.
At present Plaid Cymru are in the curious position of trying to take credit for the good decisions whilst seeking to distance themselves from the unpopular ones or those that are contrary to their policies. It is as if they are a semi-detached branch of the government, not an integral part of it.
The latest development is the apparent separation of Plaid Cymru into two parties, the activists and the Assembly Members. In this way they hope to be able to campaign against decisions that their elected members are a party to.
It is dishonest and it is unprincipled. If, as John Dixon invites his colleagues to consider, the introduction of top-up fees in Wales is not important enough to cause them to walk out of the coalition then the least they can do as a party is to stop pretending that they had nothing to do with the decision.
Labels: Fees
Sunday, November 09, 2008
Some good news
If the Sunday Times is right then beleaguered students may have some good news next year. The paper reports on a speech by David Eastwood, the chief executive of the Higher Education Funding Council for England in which he urges universities to dampen their expectations with regards to the current £3,145 cap on University Tuition Fees.
Mr. Eastwood told HEFCE’s annual general meeting in London, that it is "inconceivable that the cap will rise significantly before 2013.”
Because raising the cap would require students to take out bigger student loans, this could result in a considerable extra cost to the Government because it subsidises the loans by pegging them to inflation.
The London School of Economics has estimated that if tuition fees and student loans were raised to £5,000 a year, the projected cost to the Treasury of subsidising student loans would increase to £1.5 billion. Fees of £8,000 would push the cost to £2 billion.
Professor Eastwood’s comments suggest that the Government would be unable to afford any extra subsidies while the conditions of the financial crisis remain. “Wider constraints make it unlikely that the cap would be raised in the near future,” he said. His comments provide the strongest suggestion yet that the 2009 review of tuition fees is unlikely to report until after the next general election, possibly in 2010. That would give the Government another three years to consult on and introduce legislation to increase fees by 2013.
Although this is a devolved issue such a decision in England will make life much easier for the Welsh Assembly Government as well. Fees do exist in Wales, it is just that the Government pay them on behalf of Welsh students attending Welsh Universities. If fees went up in England then it is inconceivable that Welsh HEIs would be prevented from following suit. After all half of their students come from the other side of Offa's Dyke and any attempt to restrict their income would prevent Universities here from keeping up with their English counterparts.
The dilemma facing the Welsh Government would be whether they could afford to keep the present regime by paying the increased amount on behalf of Welsh students. I would argue that they should but that decision may well be deferred now for another five years.
The other side of this coin is that a freeze on fees may well give the Welsh Government the opportunity to address the fact that Welsh Universities get £41 million a year less than their English counterparts with which to deliver education and research.
Meanwhile, we should not forget the bad news: a survey for NatWest bank has calculated that the actual cost of completing a degree is much higher than the £20,000 estimated by the National Union of Students, at about £33,500. This includes fees, rent, food and luxuries such as alcohol and cigarettes.
Mr. Eastwood told HEFCE’s annual general meeting in London, that it is "inconceivable that the cap will rise significantly before 2013.”
Because raising the cap would require students to take out bigger student loans, this could result in a considerable extra cost to the Government because it subsidises the loans by pegging them to inflation.
The London School of Economics has estimated that if tuition fees and student loans were raised to £5,000 a year, the projected cost to the Treasury of subsidising student loans would increase to £1.5 billion. Fees of £8,000 would push the cost to £2 billion.
Professor Eastwood’s comments suggest that the Government would be unable to afford any extra subsidies while the conditions of the financial crisis remain. “Wider constraints make it unlikely that the cap would be raised in the near future,” he said. His comments provide the strongest suggestion yet that the 2009 review of tuition fees is unlikely to report until after the next general election, possibly in 2010. That would give the Government another three years to consult on and introduce legislation to increase fees by 2013.
Although this is a devolved issue such a decision in England will make life much easier for the Welsh Assembly Government as well. Fees do exist in Wales, it is just that the Government pay them on behalf of Welsh students attending Welsh Universities. If fees went up in England then it is inconceivable that Welsh HEIs would be prevented from following suit. After all half of their students come from the other side of Offa's Dyke and any attempt to restrict their income would prevent Universities here from keeping up with their English counterparts.
The dilemma facing the Welsh Government would be whether they could afford to keep the present regime by paying the increased amount on behalf of Welsh students. I would argue that they should but that decision may well be deferred now for another five years.
The other side of this coin is that a freeze on fees may well give the Welsh Government the opportunity to address the fact that Welsh Universities get £41 million a year less than their English counterparts with which to deliver education and research.
Meanwhile, we should not forget the bad news: a survey for NatWest bank has calculated that the actual cost of completing a degree is much higher than the £20,000 estimated by the National Union of Students, at about £33,500. This includes fees, rent, food and luxuries such as alcohol and cigarettes.
Labels: Fees
Monday, September 01, 2008
The disappearing graduate premium
The creation of a market in higher education by this Labour government and its dire consequences for those seeking to go to university has long been a theme of this blog.
Labour argue that every degree carries a graduate premium, whereby the recipient is able to command higher wages in the market place. As such they believe that it is only right that each graduate should pay a deferred fee to enter this elevated plane of employment.
In reality the driving force behind tuition fees has nothing to do with such market forces at all. The graduate premium is a convenient argument to hide the fact that the government target, that 50% of all 18 year olds should go onto higher education, costs more than Ministers are prepared to pay.
In pursuing this goal Labour have abandoned the key principle of free education and effectively limited opportunity for a significant minority of debt-averse students, who have now been denied the chance to fulfil their potential. Those who can no longer afford to go to university are forced to enter the labour market at a different level, denying the economy graduates who might add to its wealth.
This is the other flaw of Labour's argument. Their claims about the graduate premium deny the fact that education is an investment, not just in those individuals who immediately benefit, but also in the economy itself. Graduates are the industrialists, businessmen, doctors, scientists, and researchers of the future.
By charging this future workforce to enter that market place Labour are forcing them to choose their profession on the basis of the return they can get for their investment, rather than on the needs of the state or where their skills lie. In many cases the two interests will coincide but often they will not and our economy is be the poorer for that mis-match.
Now new research has shown that by creating more graduates Labour has also undermined its own rationale for tuition fees. One third of graduates now gain no financial benefit from having a degree, according to new figures. Among male graduates 33.2 per cent end up in non-graduate jobs five years after leaving university, compared with 21.7 per cent in 1992, while the proportions for women are similar. The worst affected were from the former polytechnics and other new universities encouraged to expand under the Labour government.
These figures not only question the justification for tuition fees but also pose a more fundamental question: is the drive to put as many young people through university as possible in their best interests and in the best interests of the economy?
There are other routes into well-remunerated employment that do not have a £20,000 plus post-graduate debt attached to them. Vocational routes are equally as valid as academic ones and in many cases can play better to the skills and abilities of those taking them.
It is vital that this government invests in those alternative routes to education and training whilst removing the barriers they have put in place to those of a more academic disposition. Such a course will not solve the credit crunch in the short term but it will help to guarantee our long term economic future.
Labour argue that every degree carries a graduate premium, whereby the recipient is able to command higher wages in the market place. As such they believe that it is only right that each graduate should pay a deferred fee to enter this elevated plane of employment.
In reality the driving force behind tuition fees has nothing to do with such market forces at all. The graduate premium is a convenient argument to hide the fact that the government target, that 50% of all 18 year olds should go onto higher education, costs more than Ministers are prepared to pay.
In pursuing this goal Labour have abandoned the key principle of free education and effectively limited opportunity for a significant minority of debt-averse students, who have now been denied the chance to fulfil their potential. Those who can no longer afford to go to university are forced to enter the labour market at a different level, denying the economy graduates who might add to its wealth.
This is the other flaw of Labour's argument. Their claims about the graduate premium deny the fact that education is an investment, not just in those individuals who immediately benefit, but also in the economy itself. Graduates are the industrialists, businessmen, doctors, scientists, and researchers of the future.
By charging this future workforce to enter that market place Labour are forcing them to choose their profession on the basis of the return they can get for their investment, rather than on the needs of the state or where their skills lie. In many cases the two interests will coincide but often they will not and our economy is be the poorer for that mis-match.
Now new research has shown that by creating more graduates Labour has also undermined its own rationale for tuition fees. One third of graduates now gain no financial benefit from having a degree, according to new figures. Among male graduates 33.2 per cent end up in non-graduate jobs five years after leaving university, compared with 21.7 per cent in 1992, while the proportions for women are similar. The worst affected were from the former polytechnics and other new universities encouraged to expand under the Labour government.
These figures not only question the justification for tuition fees but also pose a more fundamental question: is the drive to put as many young people through university as possible in their best interests and in the best interests of the economy?
There are other routes into well-remunerated employment that do not have a £20,000 plus post-graduate debt attached to them. Vocational routes are equally as valid as academic ones and in many cases can play better to the skills and abilities of those taking them.
It is vital that this government invests in those alternative routes to education and training whilst removing the barriers they have put in place to those of a more academic disposition. Such a course will not solve the credit crunch in the short term but it will help to guarantee our long term economic future.
Labels: Fees
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Getting an education
It is that time of the year again when those of us who opposed tuition fees for students on the grounds that education should be free at the point of access are able to stand up, point at the latest statistics and say I told you so to all those who want to turn higher education into a market economy.
The Guardian reports that although the number of first-time undergraduates has increased substantially every year since 2004, the proportion from the poorest areas, or of ethnic minorities which are under-represented at university, has hardly changed despite a multi-million pound drive by the government to counter the effect of higher fees.
The paper surmises that these findings realise the fears of critics of the top-up fees, which triggered one of Labour's biggest rebellions under Tony Blair, with fewer students from disadvantaged backgrounds going to university than the government had hoped for:
The research, by Universities UK, which represents higher education institutions, concludes that the overall number of students has continued to rise. The number of new full-time undergraduates has increased by 9% across the UK since 2004 and 10% in England where the fees apply. But the research also reports "no significant change in the ethnic, social class or age profile of accepted applicants across the four years 2004/5-2007/8".
From the start opponents such as myself argued that fees would put off the poorest students from attending university because, even with bursaries, the perception would be that they could not afford to continue their education. This is especially so when evidence shows that children in deprived families and in particular single parent families are more debt-averse than those who are better off.
Education is often seen as a means to improve oneself. For children from disadvantaged backgrounds or from an ethnic minority that door is rapidly being closed by this Labour Government's policies.
The Guardian reports that although the number of first-time undergraduates has increased substantially every year since 2004, the proportion from the poorest areas, or of ethnic minorities which are under-represented at university, has hardly changed despite a multi-million pound drive by the government to counter the effect of higher fees.
The paper surmises that these findings realise the fears of critics of the top-up fees, which triggered one of Labour's biggest rebellions under Tony Blair, with fewer students from disadvantaged backgrounds going to university than the government had hoped for:
The research, by Universities UK, which represents higher education institutions, concludes that the overall number of students has continued to rise. The number of new full-time undergraduates has increased by 9% across the UK since 2004 and 10% in England where the fees apply. But the research also reports "no significant change in the ethnic, social class or age profile of accepted applicants across the four years 2004/5-2007/8".
From the start opponents such as myself argued that fees would put off the poorest students from attending university because, even with bursaries, the perception would be that they could not afford to continue their education. This is especially so when evidence shows that children in deprived families and in particular single parent families are more debt-averse than those who are better off.
Education is often seen as a means to improve oneself. For children from disadvantaged backgrounds or from an ethnic minority that door is rapidly being closed by this Labour Government's policies.
Labels: Fees
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Fighting to restore a free education
Tempting as it is to say 'I told you so', it is perhaps more appropriate to reflect on the very sobering results of the latest research into the impact of Labour's punitive and unfair tuition fee regime on higher education.
The Guardian reports that a Staffordshire University study has shown that many students from poor backgrounds are being put off university because they are afraid of getting into debt. Very few of them know about bursaries or maintenance grants on offer. Nearly two-thirds of pupils who decided not to seek higher education cited anxieties about money as their reason.
The number of students planning to study at universities close by, so they can live with their families, has risen from 18% in 1998 to 56% today, the research shows. By comparison, pupils from independent schools are now significantly more likely to move to a university in a different city, opening up the option of Oxbridge and other leading institutions, says the influential charity the Sutton Trust.
Its findings set the government's fee-charging regime at odds with ministers' ambitions to "unlock the potential" of children in the poorest areas of the country and boost the number of them attending top universities, student leaders claim.
Government figures out today suggest a 7% rise in the number of students applying to university - taking applications to record levels - but opposition MPs say the statistics mask a stagnation in the number of pupils from low-income homes applying - and in particular, boys.
The Sutton Trust research, seen by the Guardian, concludes that pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds have fewer options, while students at independent schools told the researchers their decisions were based on the "reputations" of the institution, rather than the costs.
The introduction of the market into higher education has favoured the better off at the expense of the poor. It has removed the principle that education should be freely available to all and as a consequence it will have a direct impact on our economy by reducing opportunity for some of our brightest youngsters. The Government needs to rethink this policy.
The Guardian reports that a Staffordshire University study has shown that many students from poor backgrounds are being put off university because they are afraid of getting into debt. Very few of them know about bursaries or maintenance grants on offer. Nearly two-thirds of pupils who decided not to seek higher education cited anxieties about money as their reason.
The number of students planning to study at universities close by, so they can live with their families, has risen from 18% in 1998 to 56% today, the research shows. By comparison, pupils from independent schools are now significantly more likely to move to a university in a different city, opening up the option of Oxbridge and other leading institutions, says the influential charity the Sutton Trust.
Its findings set the government's fee-charging regime at odds with ministers' ambitions to "unlock the potential" of children in the poorest areas of the country and boost the number of them attending top universities, student leaders claim.
Government figures out today suggest a 7% rise in the number of students applying to university - taking applications to record levels - but opposition MPs say the statistics mask a stagnation in the number of pupils from low-income homes applying - and in particular, boys.
The Sutton Trust research, seen by the Guardian, concludes that pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds have fewer options, while students at independent schools told the researchers their decisions were based on the "reputations" of the institution, rather than the costs.
The introduction of the market into higher education has favoured the better off at the expense of the poor. It has removed the principle that education should be freely available to all and as a consequence it will have a direct impact on our economy by reducing opportunity for some of our brightest youngsters. The Government needs to rethink this policy.
Labels: Fees
Friday, January 11, 2008
Funding gap
This morning's Western Mail reports that the number of students gaining postgraduate qualifications leapt by 13% last year – the highest rise in the UK. But the Wales lags behind the rest of the UK for the number of first and upper second class degrees awarded:
Last summer 11% of students obtained first class honours for their first degree at Welsh universities compared to 16% in Scotland, 13% in Northern Ireland and 12% in England.
A total of 45% in Wales received upper second honours compared to 52% in both Scotland and Northern Ireland and 47% in England.
A leading academic is blaming a lack of funding for the discrepancy. Professor Martin A Kayman, head of the school of English, communications and philosophy at Cardiff University, told the paper that external marking means that degree standards should be the same across the UK:
“Higher education in Wales is under-funded compared to elsewhere in the UK. Staff and students are of excellent quality.
“The only variable I can see, given the external examining system, is that we are relatively under-resourced,” he said.
Professor Kayman said this funding gap meant richer universities elsewhere in the UK might have lower student-staff ratios, better equipment, books, laboratories and learning environments.
The latest estimate I have seen is that there is a £41m funding gap in higher education between Wales and England, whilst we are lagging behind Scotland to the tune of £93m a year. The Labour-Plaid Cymru Government refuse to acknowledge this in the One Wales document nor do they propose to do anything about it in their budget. Are we now starting to reap the consequences of this short-sightedness?
It is also worth noting that while Wales and Scotland reported a rise in first-year enrolments at universities, numbers fell in England and Northern Ireland where tuition fees of up to £3,000 are paid:
UCU general secretary, Sally Hunt, said, “It is hardly surprising that the number of enrolments at universities where top-up fees are being charged has fallen, or that enrolments have increased at institutions in countries not charging them.
“Anyone who really believes that charging more for degrees is the way to encourage students to apply to university is living in a dream world."
Last summer 11% of students obtained first class honours for their first degree at Welsh universities compared to 16% in Scotland, 13% in Northern Ireland and 12% in England.
A total of 45% in Wales received upper second honours compared to 52% in both Scotland and Northern Ireland and 47% in England.
A leading academic is blaming a lack of funding for the discrepancy. Professor Martin A Kayman, head of the school of English, communications and philosophy at Cardiff University, told the paper that external marking means that degree standards should be the same across the UK:
“Higher education in Wales is under-funded compared to elsewhere in the UK. Staff and students are of excellent quality.
“The only variable I can see, given the external examining system, is that we are relatively under-resourced,” he said.
Professor Kayman said this funding gap meant richer universities elsewhere in the UK might have lower student-staff ratios, better equipment, books, laboratories and learning environments.
The latest estimate I have seen is that there is a £41m funding gap in higher education between Wales and England, whilst we are lagging behind Scotland to the tune of £93m a year. The Labour-Plaid Cymru Government refuse to acknowledge this in the One Wales document nor do they propose to do anything about it in their budget. Are we now starting to reap the consequences of this short-sightedness?
It is also worth noting that while Wales and Scotland reported a rise in first-year enrolments at universities, numbers fell in England and Northern Ireland where tuition fees of up to £3,000 are paid:
UCU general secretary, Sally Hunt, said, “It is hardly surprising that the number of enrolments at universities where top-up fees are being charged has fallen, or that enrolments have increased at institutions in countries not charging them.
“Anyone who really believes that charging more for degrees is the way to encourage students to apply to university is living in a dream world."
Labels: Fees
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Inevitable debt burden
The Independent reports that first-year university students are totting up record debt levels of nearly £6,000 a year and face leaving university owing more than £17,500. This is a 25.5% increase on the debt levels incurred by first year students in previous years.
For some reason the University of Glamorgan has the second highest level of first-year student debt in the country with an average of £7,942. Two of the three universities where students have the least debt are in Scotland - Robert Gordon with £1,103 and Abertay Dundee with £1,123 - where they do not have top-up fees.
The paper tells us that the publication of these figures coincide with a study by financial experts that shows student debt has risen by 167 per cent in the past decade - from £1.2 bn to £3.2bn. The study, by uSwitch.com, says it will take the average student 11 years to clear their debts.
A third study shows that youngsters who opt to go on vocational courses will be as much as £70,000 ahead of their graduate counterparts by the time they have completed their degree at the age of 21.
The Association of Accounting Technicians says that figure is the amount that vocationally trained students will have earned on average by the time university graduates are looking for work with average debts of £13,000 a year (at present).
The Government continue to contend that debt levels are not putting youngsters off going into higher education and that application levels are up again. Surely though we are getting to the point where the advantages of a degree are outweighed by the financial consequences. Furthermore, those who are most debt-adverse, often people from the poorest backgrounds and single-parent familes, will be deterred from fulfilling their potential by going on to higher education. If we are to continue to produce the managers, scientists, and entrepreneurs of the future then this is a problem that needs addressing.
For some reason the University of Glamorgan has the second highest level of first-year student debt in the country with an average of £7,942. Two of the three universities where students have the least debt are in Scotland - Robert Gordon with £1,103 and Abertay Dundee with £1,123 - where they do not have top-up fees.
The paper tells us that the publication of these figures coincide with a study by financial experts that shows student debt has risen by 167 per cent in the past decade - from £1.2 bn to £3.2bn. The study, by uSwitch.com, says it will take the average student 11 years to clear their debts.
A third study shows that youngsters who opt to go on vocational courses will be as much as £70,000 ahead of their graduate counterparts by the time they have completed their degree at the age of 21.
The Association of Accounting Technicians says that figure is the amount that vocationally trained students will have earned on average by the time university graduates are looking for work with average debts of £13,000 a year (at present).
The Government continue to contend that debt levels are not putting youngsters off going into higher education and that application levels are up again. Surely though we are getting to the point where the advantages of a degree are outweighed by the financial consequences. Furthermore, those who are most debt-adverse, often people from the poorest backgrounds and single-parent familes, will be deterred from fulfilling their potential by going on to higher education. If we are to continue to produce the managers, scientists, and entrepreneurs of the future then this is a problem that needs addressing.
Labels: Fees
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
In debt
Despite having reached a settlement in the Assembly on Top-up fees that provides some relief for Welsh students attending Welsh Higher Education Institutions there are still external pressures to undo that work.
Today's article in The Times is a case in point. They report that Lord Dearing, who first advocated charging tuition fees ten years ago, is to tell vice-chancellors that universities can only remain globally competitive if they charge “differential fees”. He is also going to suggest that in future students could pay some sort of graduate tax.
It is likely that in 2009 the UK Government will lift the cap on tuition fees in England. This will immediately put pressure on the Welsh Assembly Government to either follow suit or find additional money so that Welsh Colleges can compete.
There is no easy solution to this and the only assistance will come if Gordon Brown maintains the principle of no up-front fees. In this instance there may well be additional government money to fund increased fee grants and a Barnett consequential to Wales. We can but hope.
Today's article in The Times is a case in point. They report that Lord Dearing, who first advocated charging tuition fees ten years ago, is to tell vice-chancellors that universities can only remain globally competitive if they charge “differential fees”. He is also going to suggest that in future students could pay some sort of graduate tax.
It is likely that in 2009 the UK Government will lift the cap on tuition fees in England. This will immediately put pressure on the Welsh Assembly Government to either follow suit or find additional money so that Welsh Colleges can compete.
There is no easy solution to this and the only assistance will come if Gordon Brown maintains the principle of no up-front fees. In this instance there may well be additional government money to fund increased fee grants and a Barnett consequential to Wales. We can but hope.
Labels: Fees
Monday, April 23, 2007
The devolution dividend
One of the problems with having a Welsh Assembly in which no one party has an overall majority and where there is a great deal of consensus about most things, is that it becomes more difficult to achieve clear differentiation and to take credit for the many benefits that devolution has brought.
Nevertheless, Labour has tried it today with a breathtaking claim that a "representative family" is £5,000 richer with the "devolution dividend" and that this is entirely down to them. There are a whole series of questions about what is a 'representative family' and how the figure of £5,000 has been reached, but like others I will just concentrate on who is responsible for the policies that makes up this basket of measures.
To say that the devolution dividend is down to Labour really is stretching things: Free bus passes come from the Partnership agreement; Free museum entry was a Welsh Liberal Democrat policy introduced by a Welsh Liberal Democrat minister - Jenny Randerson;. Baby bonds are a Westminster policy which would have come to Wales regardless of who runs the Assembly; Opposition to top-up fees and the final settlement for Welsh students in Welsh HEIs was something Labour had be forced in to by the other parties.
Of course alongside the obvious benefits of devolution, people should consider the Labour let-downs: the broken promise on home care for disabled people; the failure to tackle the crisis in NHS dentistry, the U-turn on smaller class sizes.
Devolution does have enormous potential for Wales but if we are to achieve that we need to have ambition and that is something Labour has been lacking so far.
Nevertheless, Labour has tried it today with a breathtaking claim that a "representative family" is £5,000 richer with the "devolution dividend" and that this is entirely down to them. There are a whole series of questions about what is a 'representative family' and how the figure of £5,000 has been reached, but like others I will just concentrate on who is responsible for the policies that makes up this basket of measures.
To say that the devolution dividend is down to Labour really is stretching things: Free bus passes come from the Partnership agreement; Free museum entry was a Welsh Liberal Democrat policy introduced by a Welsh Liberal Democrat minister - Jenny Randerson;. Baby bonds are a Westminster policy which would have come to Wales regardless of who runs the Assembly; Opposition to top-up fees and the final settlement for Welsh students in Welsh HEIs was something Labour had be forced in to by the other parties.
Of course alongside the obvious benefits of devolution, people should consider the Labour let-downs: the broken promise on home care for disabled people; the failure to tackle the crisis in NHS dentistry, the U-turn on smaller class sizes.
Devolution does have enormous potential for Wales but if we are to achieve that we need to have ambition and that is something Labour has been lacking so far.
Labels: Fees
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
Monday, May 30, 2005
The myth of the graduate premium
The Times reports on a study that finds that as many as one in four teenagers from single-parent families are deterred from thoughts of university by the prospect of getting into debt. White working-class boys are worst affected.
The study is based on interviews with 2,700 schoolchildren aged 11 to 16 from London to Wales and the West Midlands. It illustrates the challenge the Government faces in widening access and how their own policies are actively working against the most disadvantaged members of our society and reinforcing higher education as a middle class reserve.
The overall proportion of young people who said that they were unlikely to go into higher education because they were worried about getting into debt remained relatively low at 17 per cent. That figure dropped to 15 per cent in a two-parent household but rose to 25 per cent for those in a single-parent household. At the same time, while 48 per cent of young people declared that they wanted to “start earning money as soon as possible”, that figure climbed to 59 per cent among children from one-parent families.
Liberal Democrats have long argued that one of the consequences of fees is to create a market economy in education. We have already seen the impact of that with the decline and subsequent closure of traditional science courses such as chemistry and physics. Tom Halpin, however, has other examples:
Courses aimed at specific professions, such as medicine, dentistry and veterinary science, naturally have the highest proportions in work.
Elsewhere there can be large variations. Despite its popularity among students, communication and media studies proves to have one of the poorest employment records. More than half of graduates are in non-graduate jobs or unemployed six months after leaving university, demonstrating that the message about this medium is still not getting through. Just a third of graduates go straight into graduate careers.
Similarly, half of graduates in hospitality, leisure and tourism are either working in non-graduate jobs or unemployed six months after completing their courses. Psychology, another boom subject, also fares poorly: just 27 per cent of graduates are entering graduate employment from university. Applications for building rose by 30 per cent this year and the employment figures help to explain why. Nearly three quarters enter graduate jobs. Food science also has a good record.
Schools and universities have long expressed concern about declining levels of interest in sciences and modern languages. But Hesa’s employment figures bear out the pragmatic attitude of students, worried about the cost of their degrees. A third of physics and astronomy graduates were in non-graduate jobs or unemployed, as were 37 per cent of those in biological sciences and a quarter of those with chemistry degrees.
Linguists struggle similarly. A third of graduates in Russian, German and French were either in non-graduate jobs or unemployed, as were 43 per cent of those with degrees in Italian or Iberian languages.
Universities generally struggle to recruit enough students for engineering courses. Electrical engineering has the highest unemployment rate at 14 per cent, marginally more than art and design and computer science.
Mr. Halpin concludes that Graduate unemployment remains low overall and virtually non-existent if you have a good class of degree. Many take low-level positions initially as a means of getting a foot in the door of their chosen careers, and move quickly over time into posts more suited to their qualifications. However, he casts a long shadow of the Labour Government's policy by questioning whether this will continue and if so, how graduates are to pay back the huge mountain of debt that they will emerge into the 'real' world with:
Controversy still rages in academia about the long-term value of a degree in an era when half of all young people are expected to have one. The Government justified its decision to raise tuition fees by pointing to the salary premium enjoyed by graduates. It argued that the huge expansion of higher education over the past 15 years had produced no evidence of an erosion in the value of graduates to employers, and that more jobs in the future would require a degree. But some recent studies claim to have detected the first signs of a “graduate glut”, leading to concern that a degree may be about to decline in value just as it becomes more expensive to acquire one.
The study is based on interviews with 2,700 schoolchildren aged 11 to 16 from London to Wales and the West Midlands. It illustrates the challenge the Government faces in widening access and how their own policies are actively working against the most disadvantaged members of our society and reinforcing higher education as a middle class reserve.
The overall proportion of young people who said that they were unlikely to go into higher education because they were worried about getting into debt remained relatively low at 17 per cent. That figure dropped to 15 per cent in a two-parent household but rose to 25 per cent for those in a single-parent household. At the same time, while 48 per cent of young people declared that they wanted to “start earning money as soon as possible”, that figure climbed to 59 per cent among children from one-parent families.
These figures have been backed up by the Higher Education Council for England. In January they disclosed that despite a rapid expansion of university places the class divide remained “deep and persistent”. Youngsters from the wealthiest 20 per cent of homes were six times more likely to go to university than those from the poorest 20 per cent.
Another interesting and useful article by Tom Halpin on The Times website underlines the impact of Labour's top-up fees agenda on the education system and in particular the fact that the so-called graduate premium, by which the party justifies its deferred fee regime, is rapidly disappearing without trace.Liberal Democrats have long argued that one of the consequences of fees is to create a market economy in education. We have already seen the impact of that with the decline and subsequent closure of traditional science courses such as chemistry and physics. Tom Halpin, however, has other examples:
Courses aimed at specific professions, such as medicine, dentistry and veterinary science, naturally have the highest proportions in work.
Elsewhere there can be large variations. Despite its popularity among students, communication and media studies proves to have one of the poorest employment records. More than half of graduates are in non-graduate jobs or unemployed six months after leaving university, demonstrating that the message about this medium is still not getting through. Just a third of graduates go straight into graduate careers.
Similarly, half of graduates in hospitality, leisure and tourism are either working in non-graduate jobs or unemployed six months after completing their courses. Psychology, another boom subject, also fares poorly: just 27 per cent of graduates are entering graduate employment from university. Applications for building rose by 30 per cent this year and the employment figures help to explain why. Nearly three quarters enter graduate jobs. Food science also has a good record.
Schools and universities have long expressed concern about declining levels of interest in sciences and modern languages. But Hesa’s employment figures bear out the pragmatic attitude of students, worried about the cost of their degrees. A third of physics and astronomy graduates were in non-graduate jobs or unemployed, as were 37 per cent of those in biological sciences and a quarter of those with chemistry degrees.
Linguists struggle similarly. A third of graduates in Russian, German and French were either in non-graduate jobs or unemployed, as were 43 per cent of those with degrees in Italian or Iberian languages.
Universities generally struggle to recruit enough students for engineering courses. Electrical engineering has the highest unemployment rate at 14 per cent, marginally more than art and design and computer science.
Mr. Halpin concludes that Graduate unemployment remains low overall and virtually non-existent if you have a good class of degree. Many take low-level positions initially as a means of getting a foot in the door of their chosen careers, and move quickly over time into posts more suited to their qualifications. However, he casts a long shadow of the Labour Government's policy by questioning whether this will continue and if so, how graduates are to pay back the huge mountain of debt that they will emerge into the 'real' world with:
Controversy still rages in academia about the long-term value of a degree in an era when half of all young people are expected to have one. The Government justified its decision to raise tuition fees by pointing to the salary premium enjoyed by graduates. It argued that the huge expansion of higher education over the past 15 years had produced no evidence of an erosion in the value of graduates to employers, and that more jobs in the future would require a degree. But some recent studies claim to have detected the first signs of a “graduate glut”, leading to concern that a degree may be about to decline in value just as it becomes more expensive to acquire one.
Labels: Fees
Friday, May 27, 2005
Top up Fees continued
The reaction of Professor Theresa Rees to the resolution of the Assembly to oppose top-up fees for Welsh domiciled students gets curiouser and curiouser. In this article she is quoted rather patronisingly as asking "I wonder how many AMs know the fees are deferred?".
Obviously she is upset that the nine months of work that she and her commission has put into their report seems to have gone down the swanney. Yet nothing could be further from the truth. The report contains some valuable recommendations on part time students and a National Bursary Scheme that I am sure we will be anxious to take forward. It also identifies the fact that a separate fees regime can be applied for Welsh domiciled students. That shows that the motion we passed on Tuesday can work if we are prepared to fund it.
Her problem is that firstly, the report actually comes across as indecisive on the funding options, offering two proposals without really plumping for either of them, and secondly, her increasing stridency is giving a number of people the impression that she is speaking more on the side of the Education Minister than for the members of her commission, most of whom seem to be taking a very low profile.
Obviously she is upset that the nine months of work that she and her commission has put into their report seems to have gone down the swanney. Yet nothing could be further from the truth. The report contains some valuable recommendations on part time students and a National Bursary Scheme that I am sure we will be anxious to take forward. It also identifies the fact that a separate fees regime can be applied for Welsh domiciled students. That shows that the motion we passed on Tuesday can work if we are prepared to fund it.
Her problem is that firstly, the report actually comes across as indecisive on the funding options, offering two proposals without really plumping for either of them, and secondly, her increasing stridency is giving a number of people the impression that she is speaking more on the side of the Education Minister than for the members of her commission, most of whom seem to be taking a very low profile.
Labels: Fees
Friday, May 20, 2005
Top-up fees on the agenda
The Conservative Party's minority debate on tuition fees next Tuesday has caused a storm, coming as it does, two days before the publication of the Rees Commission report on the subject. Professor Rees has allegedly written to AMs to express her dismay and disappointment at the timing of the discussion, stating that it "seems our evidence-based recommendations may not even be deemed worthy of consideration." I have to say that I am still waiting to receive this letter.
I understand her point and at one stage even advised the Conservative Education Spokesperson to choose another topic. I did so on the basis that the Assembly has already taken a position against variable top-up fees and that we should keep our powder dry for the report itself. Nevertheless, it is the right of the Conservatives to bring forward this subject for debate and to take advantage of the new arithmetic in the Assembly to drive home the point of principle.
Obviously, there will be further debates on the Rees Commission report itself and the evidence and the options within it will need to be considered in detail, especially on bursaries and part-timers. But that consideration will need to be tempered by the principle that education is an investment in our future and should be paid for by the state out of public funds. The punitive taxation which variable top-up fees represent will put off talented young people from going into higher education and deprive our Country of much-needed home-grown talent. They must be resisted at every opportunity.
N.B. Much has been made on the media this morning of a Higher Education Wales e-mail that states that there is a £250 million funding gap in Universities between England and Wales. Commentators have taken this figure as the amount which will be raised from top-up fees. That is not the case.
The funding gap that exists now is about £90 million. This comes about from the present Assembly funding HE policy. Higher Education Wales' argument is in fact that if top-up fees are introduced in England but not Wales AND Welsh HEIs are not compensated, then that chasm will grow in size to £250 million.
In fact top-up fees will raise about £40 million in year one, rising to about £160 million in year three. To use them to close the funding gap as well could require a Welsh top-up fee of £5,000. Is that the hidden agenda of Higher Education Institutions in Wales? If so then they will massively increase student debt and drive talented people away from Welsh Universities. There is no better illustration as to why variable top-up fees are wrong.
I understand her point and at one stage even advised the Conservative Education Spokesperson to choose another topic. I did so on the basis that the Assembly has already taken a position against variable top-up fees and that we should keep our powder dry for the report itself. Nevertheless, it is the right of the Conservatives to bring forward this subject for debate and to take advantage of the new arithmetic in the Assembly to drive home the point of principle.
Obviously, there will be further debates on the Rees Commission report itself and the evidence and the options within it will need to be considered in detail, especially on bursaries and part-timers. But that consideration will need to be tempered by the principle that education is an investment in our future and should be paid for by the state out of public funds. The punitive taxation which variable top-up fees represent will put off talented young people from going into higher education and deprive our Country of much-needed home-grown talent. They must be resisted at every opportunity.
N.B. Much has been made on the media this morning of a Higher Education Wales e-mail that states that there is a £250 million funding gap in Universities between England and Wales. Commentators have taken this figure as the amount which will be raised from top-up fees. That is not the case.
The funding gap that exists now is about £90 million. This comes about from the present Assembly funding HE policy. Higher Education Wales' argument is in fact that if top-up fees are introduced in England but not Wales AND Welsh HEIs are not compensated, then that chasm will grow in size to £250 million.
In fact top-up fees will raise about £40 million in year one, rising to about £160 million in year three. To use them to close the funding gap as well could require a Welsh top-up fee of £5,000. Is that the hidden agenda of Higher Education Institutions in Wales? If so then they will massively increase student debt and drive talented people away from Welsh Universities. There is no better illustration as to why variable top-up fees are wrong.
Labels: Fees
Friday, January 28, 2005
Student debt set to soar
The consequences of the Labour Party's obsession with top-up tuition fees are starting to haunt it with the impending publication of an authorative report, which predicts the trebling of student debt. The research, published in the National Institute Economic Review, also suggests that disabled students, and students who do not receive help from their family, will be hit more severely.
The study, funded by the Leverhulme Trust, looked at the effect of fees on debt, term-time working and students' satisfaction with university. It found that tuition fees have been passed directly into debt: with average debt rising similarly to tuition fees. In addition, the fees did not increase term-time working, generally, except among those who did not receive financial assistance from their parents, further disadvantaging these students.
Nice as it is to have one's views vindicated this is no comfort for the future of the many young people who will be deterred from fulfilling their potential nor for the future economic prosperity of our Country, which depends on home-grown talent going into higher education and then bringing their training and expertise into the job market.
We are, of course, still awaiting the outcome of the Rees Commission review into the funding of Higher Education in Wales, but both they and the Minister must read this study carefully and find alternative ways of funding Welsh universities, other than student fees.
The study, funded by the Leverhulme Trust, looked at the effect of fees on debt, term-time working and students' satisfaction with university. It found that tuition fees have been passed directly into debt: with average debt rising similarly to tuition fees. In addition, the fees did not increase term-time working, generally, except among those who did not receive financial assistance from their parents, further disadvantaging these students.
Nice as it is to have one's views vindicated this is no comfort for the future of the many young people who will be deterred from fulfilling their potential nor for the future economic prosperity of our Country, which depends on home-grown talent going into higher education and then bringing their training and expertise into the job market.
We are, of course, still awaiting the outcome of the Rees Commission review into the funding of Higher Education in Wales, but both they and the Minister must read this study carefully and find alternative ways of funding Welsh universities, other than student fees.
Labels: Fees
Saturday, December 11, 2004
Market-led academia
Interesting meeting of the Court of the University of Wales Swansea this morning in which, for the first time for ages, there was real debate and dissent about the actions of the College Management in closing down the Philosophy Department and effectively dismantling Chemistry. The Vice-Chancellor's report illustrated better than I could how all the activities of the University, and by implication Higher Education in general, is now becoming market-led, with academic considerations becoming secondary.
The problem is that despite the economy being driven forward by high value science-led innovations, Universities are having to react to increased student demand for media studies and other subjects ahead of chemistry, physics and maths. This will become more marked once variable tuition fees are in place. I have huge concerns about this, as do many others. If colleges like Swansea and Exeter can close down chemistry and other colleges follow suit as seems likely then our economic future looks very bleak indeed.
The problem is that despite the economy being driven forward by high value science-led innovations, Universities are having to react to increased student demand for media studies and other subjects ahead of chemistry, physics and maths. This will become more marked once variable tuition fees are in place. I have huge concerns about this, as do many others. If colleges like Swansea and Exeter can close down chemistry and other colleges follow suit as seems likely then our economic future looks very bleak indeed.
Labels: Fees
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
Assembly votes to condemn principle of variable top-up fees
At last there is some signs of life amongst the serried ranks of Labour AMs in the National Assembly for Wales. An amendment tabled by the Welsh Liberal Democrats yesterday to condemn variable top-up fees in principle was passed by 31 votes to 28.
This was achieved by an act of rebellion on the part of Blaenau Gwent Labour AM, Peter Law, and by the failure of Assembly Minister, Andrew Davies, to press the right button.
The dilemma facing the Assembly Education Minister now, is how to take forward her Government's agenda. She has already said that the Rees Commission has been set up to recommend the most appropriate fee structure for Welsh Universities rather than to determine whether fees are necessary or not. She is therefore committed to top-up fees after 2007.
It may well be that the Rees Commission will not opt for a variable fee structure but if they do then the Minister may find problems getting it through the Assembly. This is one issue that is not going to go away.
This was achieved by an act of rebellion on the part of Blaenau Gwent Labour AM, Peter Law, and by the failure of Assembly Minister, Andrew Davies, to press the right button.
The dilemma facing the Assembly Education Minister now, is how to take forward her Government's agenda. She has already said that the Rees Commission has been set up to recommend the most appropriate fee structure for Welsh Universities rather than to determine whether fees are necessary or not. She is therefore committed to top-up fees after 2007.
It may well be that the Rees Commission will not opt for a variable fee structure but if they do then the Minister may find problems getting it through the Assembly. This is one issue that is not going to go away.
Labels: Fees
Monday, October 25, 2004
Spinning the budget
This is not a sentence I envisage using too often but David Davies, the Tory AM for Monmouth, is absolutely right. The way that the Labour Assembly Government has sought to spin their budget is blatant and outrageous.
By flat-lining all forward budgets last year and then using these as the base budget for each of the next three years they have made increases look bigger than they are and have effectively double-counted and triple-counted the same money. Furthermore, whilst the increases in cash for subjects such as early-years learning are to be welcomed it should not be overlooked that some major budget lines (over half of them in fact) have no increase at all over the three year period, effectively delivering a real-term cut.
The Education Minister is currently accusing the AUT of misrepresenting her budget for Higher Education on the basis that she has an unallocated and unspecified sum in the reserves for use in 2007-8 to deal with the top-up fees issue. The point she is missing is that in the two intervening years HE institutions will be competing with their English counterparts for staff without the resources they need to do this. What is worse is that because the English HEIs have certainty about the income they will get from top-up fees they are able to speculate accordingly. The Welsh HEIs have none of that certainty and no extra cash to make up for it. Thus Welsh Higher Education loses out on both counts.
By flat-lining all forward budgets last year and then using these as the base budget for each of the next three years they have made increases look bigger than they are and have effectively double-counted and triple-counted the same money. Furthermore, whilst the increases in cash for subjects such as early-years learning are to be welcomed it should not be overlooked that some major budget lines (over half of them in fact) have no increase at all over the three year period, effectively delivering a real-term cut.
The Education Minister is currently accusing the AUT of misrepresenting her budget for Higher Education on the basis that she has an unallocated and unspecified sum in the reserves for use in 2007-8 to deal with the top-up fees issue. The point she is missing is that in the two intervening years HE institutions will be competing with their English counterparts for staff without the resources they need to do this. What is worse is that because the English HEIs have certainty about the income they will get from top-up fees they are able to speculate accordingly. The Welsh HEIs have none of that certainty and no extra cash to make up for it. Thus Welsh Higher Education loses out on both counts.
Labels: Fees
Wednesday, March 31, 2004
Top up fees
Charles Kennedy makes some very valid points on the Higher Education Bill. So much for the doubters about his effectiveness. As the Guardian reports, 'At prime ministers' questions today, the Lib Dem leader, Charles Kennedy, told Mr Blair that the legislation "will deter poorer students from becoming university graduates because of the debt involved, breaches trust with the public [and] does not tackle adequately the fundamental financing difficulties of the universities". Instead, extra funding should be raised through a higher top rate of income tax, he said.' Stressing that the Prime Minister had in fact made no significant concessions he said, "How can you justify legislation which will undoubtedly deter poorer students from becoming university graduates because of the debt involved, which breaches trust with the public given your earlier manifesto commitment and which in fact does not tackle adequately the fundamental financing difficulties of the universities themselves. University fees could be eliminated entirely if the top 1% of taxpayers paid more tax, surely that is a more fair approach." To be fair to the Prime Minister he at least acknowledged that the Liberal Democrats have an alternative policy even if he has not been paying attention to the mathematics involved.
Labels: Fees
