Today’s newspapers suggest that the cap on university tuition fees is likely to be completely removed, if Lord Browne has his way, paving the way for fees up to £12,000 a year. That would be a mistake: it would be more sensible to lift the cap to £7000 a year, the figure sought by Universities UK. At the same time, as predicted by this blog, the silly notion of a graduate tax has been abandoned in favour of a more income-related version of the current graduate contribution. But what seems absent at a time when we are fundamentally reviewing our welfare state is any questioning of the idea that undergraduates should be expected to live away from home while they study.
Let’s be clear about this. It is not the norm in most countries – including in Ireland, where I gained my degree cycling to college from my Dublin home – to study in another city when one’s local university offers the course one wishes to pursue. Given that we provide subsidised loans – with subsidies worth 23% of the value of the loan – for three years simply to enable largely better off young people to pursue a ‘rites of passage’ experience, surely we should start to question whether this should be the norm for a third of all young people. Adults who increasingly study as mature students don’t expect it, so why should young people? Fair enough for those from poorer backgrounds who win a place in a Russell Group university or on a rare specialist course in another university – indeed, decent non-repayable bursaries should be provided for those students – but can we really afford to continue subsidising this experience for everyone else?
That’s the sort of question that Ed Miliband should be asking as he seeks to stake out a credible alternative to the coalition ahead of the Spending Review. He could argue for lower fees instead of automatic living expense subsidies. But, having adopted the graduate tax in his leadership campaign, he chooses instead to play games with Lib Dem backbenchers. He may even win a Commons vote by doing so, but he will do so at the expense of his own credibility as a serious leader. Living expenses are certainly something the Treasury should be challenging instead of seeking to cut programmes with far more genuine impact on social mobility that benefit toddlers of school students. Instead, we are left arguing about the size of tuition fees and their repayment, whilst ignoring this extraordinary – and unusual – subsidy that has far less to commend it than universal child benefit.
Conor Ryan was senior adviser on education to David Blunkett and Tony Blair. He blogs at Conor’s Commentary
I totally disagree with the sentiment of this blog. I have two children at university. One is 100 miles from home and the other 185 miles. The fact they are not at a local university costs the country nothing, because the government does not deem them as worthy as someone from a poorer background. They receive no grants, no bursaries and just almost the same loan as they would get if they were at home. We are forced to pay a chunk of the cost of their accommodation and food. The savings that would be made if they went to the local university would be all mine and my wife’s. However, they would come out with degrees that are not as well respected in industry and struggle to get jobs, because the local universities either do not teach the desired courses or produce less well respected degrees. Piling debt on students (and controlling the level of support they get based on their parents’ income) is short-sighted. The loans will be paid out of their future disposable income, meaning the economy will suffer from less money being spent on housing and other items in future years. When will politicians look beyond the short term and realise that it is not desirable for everyone in this country to get degrees if they cannot use the skills learned in a future profession?
Joey, I totally agree. Such views make me really angry. The nearest uni my children could attend is 40 miles away. If they want to become an architect or a doctor then they would have to travel at least 100. Indeed I believe the only professional degree offered at our nearest uni is teaching – and whilst this is a good for those who desire it, it hardly offers much choice. Thus my children will in all likelihood suffer the double whammy of higher fees at desirable unis coupled with the exorbitant housing costs; but obviously I’m just a fussy parent.
As for the comment about mature students; that’s also untrue. I am currently studying for a Masters at a uni 250 miles away; again that’s the nearest place offering the course. Of course, we could just relocate the whole family to the South East; have no jobs, claim loads of benefits as well as the suggested help for poor students and have access to loads of choice right on our doorstep. Financially this would nearly make sense for us; the loss of our joint incomes being nearly compensated by the gains especially if both children went at the same time.