I find this issue quite difficult. As a teenager my parents didn't have a dime and therefore I had my tuition fees paid for - my year was the first to experience them in 1998 despite Blair's manifesto pledge to the contrary. Herein lies the problem.
Students from the bottom of the socio-economic pile (like yooful me) will get everything paid for - quite rightly too as a good education is the only way to encourage social mobility. Wealthy families will be annoyed at having to pay more, but will in the end be able to afford the fees & little Hugo and Tamsin will still be able to attend a prestigious and now expensive University.
Those in the middle will be hit hardest. The family which struggles along on a middling income - neither comfortably wealthy nor uncomfortably poor. It is these teenagers who will be put off by the size of the student debt they are going to incur. £30k for a 3 year course plus living costs could easily see a student starting their working life with a £50k debt. Mine was £12k without tuition fees.
Yes the debt will be at a cheap interest rate vs market rate - but these are scary numbers. Many graduates earn considerably more over their lifetime than non-graduates. This means that they already contribute more to the tax take thereby paying back their fees & more.
It is probably correct that students should pay more for their education. But putting £50k of debt round the neck of a 21 year old is not right. How about abolishing the Stalin-esque target of 50% of all students in University - target government funding & focus instead on a smaller cohort being educated to a higher level.
It is unjustifiable to spread the limited funds available across multiple Universities offering courses in the equivalent of under-water basket weaving to students with a D at A-Level.
No comments:
Post a Comment