I have started to look at university courses. Despite my firm belief that secondary school finished yesterday and I've only just begun sixth form, it is already time to think about the next stage. Nobody can experience an open day for you. Those personal statements don't write themselves. It's a process I am enjoying; examining a course I could submerge myself in for three whole years. However, among the eye-opening talks and advice is one massive elephant, stamping its feet on the decision every person my age will have to make: finance.
To think people were once paid grants encouraging them to go to university seems like another world, a parallel universe. Since the introduction of tuition fees in the late 1990s, rising from a mere £1,000 a year to more than £9,000 today, the debate over whether they should be scraped, and how universities should be financed, has been rife. The current cap of £9,250 is seen not as a cap by universities but a set amount. It's obvious: who would offer a lower costing course? It would make their university look rubbish in comparison. The logical belief is to think massive tuition fees are preventing the poorest from accessing higher education. Surely nobody can disagree with the view that a person's financial background shouldn't prevent them from going to university. Pleasingly, the entry rank ratio, looking at the gap between the most advantaged and disadvantaged groups, has shown a decrease from 6.0 in 2006 to less than 4.0 in 2016. Whether this is because of tuition fees is unclear, but more pupils from poorer backgrounds are attending university. Despite this, there have been calls to completely abolish tuition fees. Due to the surprise success of Labour in last year's election, a debate about how universities should be funded remains on the table. Mr Corbyn supports increasing corporation tax (as do I) and taxes on those earning above £80,000 as a method for paying the roughly £8 billion a year cost of state-funded universities. Nevertheless, although the appeal of taking the cost from the student to the government can look appealing, I am not persuaded that the abolition of tuition fees should be a high priority on anyone's list. Let us remember, governments don't have money. Apart from funds from the EU, which we pay into anyway, government are not given money automatically. It comes from the public, in all sorts of taxes. Therefore, by abolishing the burden on the student, the cost would remain, but would instead come from taxpayers. Many of these people work in lower paid jobs (we hear about exploitative zero-hour contracts all the time) and already have a minimal sized purse. By forcing them to subsidize people who are likely to have higher paid, middle class jobs, the government would be hurting the poorest in society. One could raise the argument that everything should be funded by the individual. If you support individuals funding their own tuition, why do you support an NHS? Shouldn't everyone be forced to pay for private schools? This, of course, is nonsense. Healthcare, free at the point of use, is an essential part of a civilized society that cares about the individuals within it. A good quality education, up to 18, must be compulsory to ensure people can access the apprenticeships and qualifications required for future work. While higher education should be available and is essential for many higher paid jobs, it is not a necessity for everyone. Therefore, why should everyone pay the burden? Tuition fees are a loan. It is required they are paid back. However, the method of repayments is often unclear to those who have not done research or attended university talks. Anyone, of any income, can apply for a tuition fee loan. This is given to fund the time at university, academically, over the number of years you are there. A person only begins to pay back their fees when they earn over £25,000. Previously, this was £21,000, so, by increasing the amount at which you pay, those in lower paid work after university are prevented from paying the debt. The amount paid is 9% of a person's income over £25,000. For example, were a graduate to earn £27,600, the average UK salary, they would only pay 9% of £2,600, equating to £234 a year. The debt itself is scraped after 30 years, meaning, apart from the people who earn masses throughout their life, most people don't pay back the full sum. The amount taken each month is, like income tax and national insurance, automatically removed, meaning the money is gone instantly and doesn't have to be thought about. It's perfectly clear that the main problem with university finance is not tuition fees, but the living costs. University is certainly not just academia, with the challenges of living away from home, cooking, cleaning, washing clothing, paying rent and generally acting like a competent, sane adult all flung on young undergraduates. The rent alone for properties both on and off campus can be massive, and this is where financial burdens kick in. Instead of a loan paid back when the graduate is earning, the rent has be received here, now. It's quite right that maintenance loans are means-tested, as those going to university with families who can clearly afford all the costs shouldn't be receiving extra money. However, even the loans themselves are often not enough for the poorest aspiring to attend university. While most universities offer helpful bursary systems (essentially free money that doesn't have to be paid back), more time and dedication must ensure those who haven't had financial luxuries, but are hard workers, academically bright and aspire to success, can do well. So far, this piece has just focused on universities. What about the many millions of people that decide the University of Life is fine for them and wish to enter work. Shouldn’t the government ensure money and excellent teaching is within apprenticeships and vocational courses? I fundamentally believe, that while we are nearly all united by values such as decency, respect, liberty and democracy, we are all individuals. Each of us wants something different. Those that wish to go to university should be able to and those who don't should have just as many opportunities too. That is perfectly natural. Of course, this system isn't perfect. Nobody says goodbye to 9% of a proportion of their income easily. If you are going to increase taxes (let's be honest, who really supports such a move?), it would be far more worthwhile to spend the surplus proceeds reversing welfare cuts and investing in the NHS, helping the poorest in Britain rather than giving a pay-off to future middle-class earners. For the knowledge gained, the beautiful campus, learning to live as an adult, the unforgettable experience everyone talks about and the decent salary, the current system seems far fairer than passing the buck to those who never had the privilege of attending university.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Author:Noah enjoys writing a blog and drinking tea Archives
September 2022
Categories
All
|