![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
chrishansenhomeWhen I was a young nipper, students rioted over common public concerns like the Vietnam War or here in the UK, the Poll Tax. Yesterday, the student demonstrations over the imposition of higher student fees in universities turned into a riot. The students marched past Conservative Central Office headquarters in the Millbank Building, and some took it upon themselves to storm the building, break down windows and doors, swarm to the roof, and hurl at least one fire extinguisher off the roof, narrowly missing several people on the ground.
Now there is a long tradition here of students getting a university education for free. This ended several years ago with the imposition of tuition fees (covered by student loans) by the Labour Government. These fees are now expected to rise to £9,000 / year (around US$13,500) in the next four years, with the student loans expanded to cover them. The repayment of the loans will be gradual, over 30 years or so, and repayment will not kick in until the graduate is in work earning more than £21,000 a year (around US$30K or so). If the graduate loses his or her job, the loan repayments cease. After 30 years, any further balance will be written off. (Note for USans: most university education courses last only 3 years here, not 4. Thus, the total debt for tuition would be around US$41,000. Further, this only applies to English students. Those from other countries of the UK will not pay this much, if anything at all.)
Those of you who have been in higher education in the US recently will laugh at this. For some of you, the total debt of the English student over three years will be your debt for just one year of your four-year degree.
Now it would be lovely if we could afford to send 50% of English teenagers to university for free. We cannot. The numbers of students, combined with the national deficit, means that continuing to fund everyone's university education is impossible under current conditions. One would think that businesses and the rich would be happy to suffer higher taxes for this purpose. One would be wrong. The rich and business would flee to lower-tax jurisdictions in an instant. Globalisation, which has involved removing many barriers to international business, has had the corollary effect of maximising the opportunities for businesses and the rich to move around to a place where their tax expenditures are minimal.
I am also of the opinion that getting something (a university degree) for nothing is not a good way to start one's career. When I started at Columbia Univ. in 1970, tuition was $2,500 a year. It's now more than $40,000. I had $1,600 of scholarships, and $500 in a loan from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This left my parents to fund $400 a year. I was left with a debt of $2,000 when I graduated. It was paid off by around 1980 or 1981 at $50 per month or so. If we accept that one 1970 dollar is worth 16 2010 dollars, that would have been US$32,000 in today's money. Yes, it's quite a lot. However, graduates tend to get better jobs and keep them longer. So repayment of the debt is easier for them.
The students should be cracking the books and not rioting. Demonstrations are natural: who wouldn't be annoyed at the withdrawal of a state benefit that would hit him or her in the wallet? When these students end up being taxpayers, I expect that they will not demonstrate against higher taxes to pay for education, especially if those taxes hit them hardest.
Universities here (which have been slackers at hitting up their alumni/ae for cash, as the government has always provided most of their funding) need to get better at fundraising from grateful alumni/ae, and start building up cash funds out of which to fund scholarships for those who are most deprived among their students. They need to find students from poor backgrounds who can benefit from a university education, and fund them through their degree courses.
The government needs to ensure that the students do not suffer during their time at university, but needs to ensure that they have good jobs to go to, and that future students do not expect a free education, but appreciate that the goodness of education is made clearer through ensuring that they themselves help to fund it.
Now there is a long tradition here of students getting a university education for free. This ended several years ago with the imposition of tuition fees (covered by student loans) by the Labour Government. These fees are now expected to rise to £9,000 / year (around US$13,500) in the next four years, with the student loans expanded to cover them. The repayment of the loans will be gradual, over 30 years or so, and repayment will not kick in until the graduate is in work earning more than £21,000 a year (around US$30K or so). If the graduate loses his or her job, the loan repayments cease. After 30 years, any further balance will be written off. (Note for USans: most university education courses last only 3 years here, not 4. Thus, the total debt for tuition would be around US$41,000. Further, this only applies to English students. Those from other countries of the UK will not pay this much, if anything at all.)
Those of you who have been in higher education in the US recently will laugh at this. For some of you, the total debt of the English student over three years will be your debt for just one year of your four-year degree.
Now it would be lovely if we could afford to send 50% of English teenagers to university for free. We cannot. The numbers of students, combined with the national deficit, means that continuing to fund everyone's university education is impossible under current conditions. One would think that businesses and the rich would be happy to suffer higher taxes for this purpose. One would be wrong. The rich and business would flee to lower-tax jurisdictions in an instant. Globalisation, which has involved removing many barriers to international business, has had the corollary effect of maximising the opportunities for businesses and the rich to move around to a place where their tax expenditures are minimal.
I am also of the opinion that getting something (a university degree) for nothing is not a good way to start one's career. When I started at Columbia Univ. in 1970, tuition was $2,500 a year. It's now more than $40,000. I had $1,600 of scholarships, and $500 in a loan from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This left my parents to fund $400 a year. I was left with a debt of $2,000 when I graduated. It was paid off by around 1980 or 1981 at $50 per month or so. If we accept that one 1970 dollar is worth 16 2010 dollars, that would have been US$32,000 in today's money. Yes, it's quite a lot. However, graduates tend to get better jobs and keep them longer. So repayment of the debt is easier for them.
The students should be cracking the books and not rioting. Demonstrations are natural: who wouldn't be annoyed at the withdrawal of a state benefit that would hit him or her in the wallet? When these students end up being taxpayers, I expect that they will not demonstrate against higher taxes to pay for education, especially if those taxes hit them hardest.
Universities here (which have been slackers at hitting up their alumni/ae for cash, as the government has always provided most of their funding) need to get better at fundraising from grateful alumni/ae, and start building up cash funds out of which to fund scholarships for those who are most deprived among their students. They need to find students from poor backgrounds who can benefit from a university education, and fund them through their degree courses.
The government needs to ensure that the students do not suffer during their time at university, but needs to ensure that they have good jobs to go to, and that future students do not expect a free education, but appreciate that the goodness of education is made clearer through ensuring that they themselves help to fund it.
