Comments on: Top-up fees

By: Lawrence Krubner

Lawrence Krubner — Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:44:03 +0000

Can anyone point to an article that might give a clue to an American about what’s at issue? I’ve been trying to follow the story but everything I’ve read assumes a minimal understanding of how education works in Britian. It’s hard to infer the whole story from the bits and pieces people use when arguing about it.

By: ahem

ahem — Tue, 27 Jan 2004 22:22:10 +0000

I think you’ll find that there’s publicly-available data on both the A-level scores of applicants to those institutions and on the applications to places ratio. And on the order of preference those institutions were listed on the applicants’ UCAS forms? That’s the data point that matters.

By: Chris Bertram

Chris Bertram — Tue, 27 Jan 2004 09:56:43 +0000

Ahem, I think you’ll find that there’s publicly-available data on both the A-level scores of applicants to those institutions and on the applications to places ratio.

By: ahem

ahem — Tue, 27 Jan 2004 04:27:21 +0000

Oxbridge is the exception here and its special status has more to do with the peculiarities of the English class system and distorted state funding rather than anything else. Oh, not so: I’m going to tweak Chris’s nose here, and say that the real ‘special status’ applies to Bristol, Durham, St Andrews, Exeter and the like, because they reflect the true peculiarities of the English class system in providing institutions for many people who believe their class status entitled them to an Oxbridge place, but whose exam results (or, more honestly, whose interviewers) suggest otherwise.

By: jam

jam — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 18:33:45 +0000

I’m generally suspicious of TINA arguments. Most of the time they’re bluffs. If people really want to solve a problem and they can’t get their preferred solution through, they’ll find another solution. But first they’ll try to bluff you into accepting their preferred solution by claiming TINA. In this case, it’s obvious there are alternatives. If “top-up fees” goes down and HMG wants to fix (gesture towards fixing?) the universities’ financial problems, they’ll pick one of them.

By: trish

trish — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 16:30:40 +0000

The Canadian system has tuition fees controlled by each university (ranging from around $3000-$6000/year excluding Quebec students – they have a different set up) and things don’t seem to have gotten out of hand the way the American system has. The average student debt is $30,000, which is a lot, but scholarships and parttime jobs can reduce that further (I worked through undergrad so I didn’t have debt). (Remember the exchange rate is around $2.50 CDN per pound) I’m a sessional instructor and PhD student at the University of British Columbia and I’m frustrated by the level of committment many of my students show – a large percentage do very little work and are content to scrape by with minimal effort. Why should the average person contribute any more to their education than they already do? I would have no problems providing free tuition to my best students who will take what they learn and contribute to society, but for the ones who are there to avoid getting a job for a few years while still getting funds from their parents – it seems hard to justify letting them “study” for free. And to reply to one of the first comments, “Judging by the US, if junior faculty are being treated like sh*t in the UK now, they would still be treated like sh*t.” from Barry: I’m finishing my PhD and looking at the salary levels for junior faculty and teaching positions in Canada and in the UK (I have dual citizenship) and the Canadian ones pay more – at lot more – when you look at the costs of housing, food, and other basics.

By: Conrad barwa

Conrad barwa — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 13:01:51 +0000

Chris, Contemplates University of Oxbridge…. Contemplates University of Popleton (post-1992), formerly Popleton College of Agriculture and Dressmaking …. wonders what Conrad is talking about … Well, yes, point taken, Oxbridge is the exception here and its special status has more to do with the peculiarities of the English class system and distorted state funding rather than anything else. I would have thought that continued public funding of Universities would have made it increasingly untenable to keep on doling out a disproportionate sum of money to just two elite universities to coddle some undergrads while others have to make do with much less. This sort of thing might not have mattered too much when only a small percentage of the population, mostly from upper middle class backgrounds and from public schools would go to university, but it would not really be sustainable, not to mention increasingly unpopular when greater numbers of every generation would be going and when many of these would come from the state schooling sector. Apart from anything else this would really sit ill with the kind of populism the Blairite Third Way has espoused in place of a real political programme. My argument would be that as things stand, it is unlikely that this levelling will take place and Oxbridge will continue to enjoy high levels of subsidisation right until fees become significantly variable and carry over their comparative advantage in terms of both quality and (let’s face it) name recognition into the era of user-fee tertiary education. Apart from anything else, if you look at the postgraduate level, you can already see that Oxbridge are losing ground in terms of the better research work and quality of doctoral students turned out. Much of cutting edge work and progress, in many fields is not coming from the halls beneath the dreaming spires; but from other more stolid university centres. Of course, this doesn’t mean that every single university will become identical in terms of their attractiveness or quality, but it does mean that you won’t get a multi-tiered system of A-grade and C-grade institutions; so much as having various departments and programmes which vary in quality and which are scattered across different universities. A move towards the kind of variability being talked about here, will only increase prevailing disparities – of course one could argue that there is nothing wrong with a perpetuation of the Oxbridge system and that it should be expanded by adding some more ‘elite’ universities to the bracket, but I am assuming this is not your argument here. As for TINA: There is an alternative (actually on offer from the rebels), namely more of what we have at the moment. Yeah, Chris, if you go down the street and get accosted by some 7 foot monster waving a firearm and asking you to give him his wallet; I would suggest that unless you are also packing or are an expert in unarmed combat (for various reasons, unlikely possibilities, I am assuming here) you have no alternative but to give him your wallet. This is an analogy of the TINA argument, as developed by Mad Maggs, it never rested on there being no actual alternative as such but on only having either some drastic/unpleasant reform measure or by doing nothing allowing things to float down the way they were and have an even more unpleasant prospective alternative. I think it was JK Gailbraith who said that in economics, the choices presented are not ones between the ‘good’ or ‘bad’ options but quite frequently between the very distasteful + bad and the downright disastrous. This sums up the TINA argument quite succinctly, – there is always an alternative but it is presented as being so nasty, that it really is no alternative at all. No thanks! This may be a long way short of perfect, but I’m prepared to satisfice. I think, this is what Blair and the supporters of this initiative are counting on from people who would otherwise not support this measure. Interesting that all of the “concessions” extracted by Labour backbenchers have the effect of reducing the income to universities from the current proposals. Which demonstrates how much those guys care about HE and how much they want to pander to middle-class voters and their constituency associations. Of course, given the current structure HE is all about middle class subsidies but if numbers expand it won’t be anymore. There are a number of things one can talk about here – like what kind of HE is really needed, why most HE institutes are intent on replicating themselves as old style universities. Whether the kind of education being imparted is actually demanded by the labour market etc. but the point is that these debates are not really happening outside some select circles and what the govt is instead doing is gradually steering things down one direction.

By: dsquared

dsquared — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 12:59:03 +0000

Daniel — fancy a job an a junior econ lecturer in a British university? Ironically, if I applied for such a job I would not get one, because at the time when it might have been relevant, getting a PhD was simply not a financially viable option for me.

By: Suruj

Suruj — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 12:15:19 +0000

I hope Blair wins this one, as well. Not if Nick and the other Brown-ite backstabbers have anything to say about it though. Check out my post on this issue at http://www.surujdutta.com/html/archives/2004_01_01_psychobabble.htm#107460540331518491. Incidentally, after 6 years in power, this is probably the first true New Labour project that Blair has attempted. After all, even Old Labour favoured devolution and if they couldn’t hang aristocrats from lamp-posts, they were more than willing to get them out of the House of Lords. But Old Labour would never ever dream of touching the bloated and grossly inefficient public sector, be it in health or education. That makes it even more crucial that the PM manages to pull this one off.

By: Ian

Ian — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 12:04:41 +0000

I don’t pretend to have an answer, but there seem to be so many holes in the government case that I cannot help but be worried about the long term impact of the proposed changes and, even more so, the further changes likely to be introduced. a – the government target was supposed to be 50% in higher education which is not necessarily the same as 50% in universities b – assuming an educated population has an impact on the well being of the population at large, then it could be argued that we should all be willing to pay. A levels also have an impact on earnings so are they also to be charged for? If not why not? c – if graduates earn so much that they can afford to repay the loan, then presumably they are also going to pay higher taxes and it could be argued will therefore be paying twice. d – the top up fees are not going to raise anything like the amount that is needed – especially with the concessions – so where will that money come from? The concessions being offered will so limit the amount coming in to the universities that the charges could end up having a deterrent effect on student numbers but without actually raising significant amounts of money. Not for the first time, this government appears to be willing to take pragmatism – ordinarily something I would see as a virtue – to such extremes as to remove the substance of their original proposals.

By: Chris Bertram

Chris Bertram — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 09:27:30 +0000

Conrad: I think there are fears of a move towards the more graded hierarchy of universities that exists in the US; as opposed to a more even picture here. Contemplates University of Oxbridge…. Contemplates University of Popleton (post-1992), formerly Popleton College of Agriculture and Dressmaking …. wonders what Conrad is talking about … As for TINA: There is an alternative (actually on offer from the rebels), namely more of what we have at the moment. No thanks! This may be a long way short of perfect, but I’m prepared to satisfice. Interesting that all of the “concessions” extracted by Labour backbenchers have the effect of reducing the income to universities from the current proposals. Which demonstrates how much those guys care about HE and how much they want to pander to middle-class voters and their constituency associations.

By: ahem

ahem — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 01:22:13 +0000

The problem is surely one that jolyon has hinted, which is that the ‘commitment to expand higher education’ is actually set to lead the UK down the path that the US has already taken. That’s to say, undergraduate degrees will become ubiquitous and increasingly devalued (if they haven’t already) and the emphasis for employment will increasingly fall upon acquiring postgraduate qualifications—courses which, not incidentally, already have fees far higher than the standard three-year batchelors. The US system for a number of fields (particularly those with professional accreditation) is a kind of extortion racket, since the employment benefit of a university education only truly begins to kick in at the masters’ level, where scant few subsidies exist, and you usually end up with a decent-sized mortgage’s worth of debt when you graduate.

By: Conrad barwa

Conrad barwa — Sun, 25 Jan 2004 23:56:58 +0000

Chris, But that isn’t the case. British universities have been starved of resources for over two decades, academic pay is extremely poor (especially at the start) and we’ll face a real difficulty in recruiting people to teach some subjects if things don’t change I would say that given the way university numbers have risen over this same period (from about 10% to wherever they are now) this is not exactly a coincidence. Given the changing demands of the labour market, I think many developed countries are going to move towards something similar to the American system where tertiary education is paid for and only partially subsidised and where it will increasingly be necessary for new entrants to have undergraduate degrees. It has been possible to subsidise universities through taxation when only a relatively small group went to them but if its coverage is expanded along universal lines then it will be harder to maintain this and there will be an inevitable move towards fees in one form or another; continental tax rates are not going to be an attractive alternative I assume. There has been a slow progress towards this with the introduction of overseas fees, reduction in grants, the £1000 fee and the current proposals – I don’t think £3000 will be the end of the matter as there will be an inexorable shift towards full fee charging over the next couple of decades. Starving the universities of funds while packing more students into them has created the conditions necessary for demanding introduction of fees, which would otherwise have been deeply unpopular; so it is a bit disingenuous to let past govts off the hook who have all refused to give more money but demand that more students go to university and now who claim that they are going to be forced into charging fees; as if this was completely unforeseeable. Also I think there has been a crisis in some subjects already where PhDs are necessary for graduate teaching such as Mathematics and economics – where PhDs can understandably earn much higher salaries outside academia. This gap, as far as I know, has largely been met by importing qualified candidates from elsewhere and increasing workloads of those already within the system – neither of which are sustainable options for any length of time. So since the extra money we need isn’t going to come from increasing taxation and isn’t going to come from a graduate tax (both of which I’d be perfectly happy with), and since the likely outcome of a government defeat is further drift and starvation – I hope Blair wins this one Sigh, but isn’t this the TINA argument that the Blairites will pull out to make sure that the proposal is rammed through – almost like foundation hospitals and privatisation of various other public services, it rests on a basically Conservative fiscal regime that chokes off much needed capital investment and deteriorating levels of service creating a crisis which then becomes an argument for bringing in a market-based arrangement that is posited as the only way the system can be restored without breaking the taboo on taxation (Read govt spending/borrowing). The better way to think about it might be what kind of university education system you want – a more privatised one driven by fee-payments or something more akin to what you have now. I am not disputing that the former has many advantages and could be argued for, but this is really the choice that is being presented under a lot of reassuring rhetoric and one should be clear about the path you are starting down on. No use complaining about hiked fees a few years down the line when the principle of paying your own way has already jammed its foot through the door. First, the opposition to the measure is a coalition of the unprincipled Okay, we should stop right here and remember this is party-based parliamentary democracy, if you are looking for a coalition of the good and the saintly, this is not going to be the place to start. Secondly, at least some of the opposition within and outside parliament is drive either by ideology or by the relative merits of the case – they are in the minority I grant you, but that is not a reason in itself to abandon the whole thing. We would be waiting a long-time indeed, if every single progressive measure had to be passed only by those who had no other pragmatic reasons to support it. Second, I can’t understand the opposition to variability in fees. This is couched in terms of outrage at the suggestion that those paying for courses at “elite” universities ought to pay more. I wonder how consistent these opponents are. If flat-rate fees are introduced and some vice-chancellors want to offer a discount on hard-to-fill courses, will they also oppose that ? Again, I think there are fears of a move towards the more graded hierarchy of universities that exists in the US; as opposed to a more even picture here. I mean inequalities and quality does vary strongly across the board but this would be accentuated if variability was imposed. How you see this rests on other assumptions as to what universities are really there for and whether some sort of levelling is called for by cross-subsidisation. Third the claim that the proposal breaches a manifesto commitment is bogus. On this I can quote from an email I wrote to Chris Brooke, which now appears on Of course it won’t. I don’t think it is even designed to bridge the gap completely, just to give a nudge in order to allow more increases later on. The debate isn’t whether this is a once and for all measure; it is how this level of education is to be financed; unfortunately this is not quite that the debate that is actually going on.

By: Matthew

Matthew — Sun, 25 Jan 2004 22:50:21 +0000

Maybe on plumbers/lawyers, but the similar counter-argument, that plumbers should pay for doctors because they will need one if they have a heart attack, always strikes me as slightly dodgy as don’t plumbers through their (large taxes) already pay doctors their equally large salaries.

By: Chris Bertram

Chris Bertram — Sun, 25 Jan 2004 22:19:47 +0000

Whatever happens, you and your juniors will be entirely dependent on the promises of Blair, his mob, and whoever follows them. Maybe. But if the cap goes and a higher proportion of university income comes from fees rather than general taxation that will surely render that dependence less than entire? If they wanted to give more money to universities, they could do it through a graduate tax plus borrowing… True. And I’d be perfectly happy with that (or even happier). But since that’s not on the menu and we’re starving, I’ll take the least bad option rather than refusing to eat. As for the bogus nature of the egalitarian argument, there’s a longish tradition of writing on the financing of the welfare state which argues that the middle class enjoy a subsidy from working-class taxpayers. See e.g the essays in Bob Goodin and Julian Legrand’s Not Only the Poor . For all I know you think that literature is wrong (you are the expert on finance after all, not me) but Blair is surely entitled to refer to it without having to pass the test you set for him. Structuring it as a debt is entirely ideological… Maybe, but I’d like you to spell out the gory details. BTW D2, your two uses of “entirely” in the last comment don’t leave much space for the notion that a policy like this is the result of much horsetrading and compromise and for the idea that a coalition might support it for a variety of (sometimes contradictory) reasons.