New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
We should remove all fees for higher education, and replace this with a graduate tax #48
Conversation
👍 This still gives a funding stream for HE, but as you say, removes the up front 'debt' stigma. Seems reasonable. |
If you're proposing a simple re - naming of the current system from But On 9 Jan 2014 11:18, "pezholio" notifications@github.com wrote:
|
It's a bit of both really. The payment will only be for 20 years (which is probably roughly what a student on an average income would take to pay off their existing debt), and will be means tested against income, so means those who earn more pay more. |
👍 Nice! |
My initial instinct was as soon as they start paying tax, but not sure that's fair. I think similar to the current student loan threshold is fair. |
👍 |
Not sure I agree with this. If we're going to remove all fees from Higher Education, which I think we should, then it should be paid for through general taxation rather than a Graduate Tax (which isn't much different from the current loan that's repaid through later earnings). A Graduate Tax means that two people in the same job will earn different amounts, just because one of them happened to go to University decades ago - which doesn't seem fair, and might still put off some people from university. Given that all society benefits from graduates, not just the individuals who go, and that taxation is already linked to income, we should pay for it using general taxation. |
As a 1998 undergrad I was one of the first to experience the joys of I think the principle behind the current system strikes the right balance That's why I back the idea of redesignating the current system as a with kind regards, about.me/pauljrobinson On 9 January 2014 15:39, Frankie Roberto notifications@github.com wrote:
|
I strongly agree with @frankieroberto here. A 'graduate tax' is a tuition fee in all but name, as it's basically transactional - if you use a service, then you pay for it. I'd favour paying for higher education through general taxation (which may or may not involve an increase in the higher and additional rates, depending on how the overall budget balances). This also acknowledges that there are positive externalities for society at large from higher education, particularly through research funding. However, (and I suspect that this is not the majority view here), I'd also like to see the distinction between academic / research focused higher ed, and vocational / training focused higher ed reintroduced. This doesn't necessarily mean that single institutions only offer one or the other, but just that the difference in intended outcomes for different courses and subjects is acknowledged explicitly, possibly with a differnent qualification title. If this happend, funding for vocational training could be raised through business taxation, as businesses are the ones that primarily benefit from vocational training. Happy to open a seperate PR around this if there's interest. |
Hm, yes. We educate our children because it benefits society as a whole, not just them, and this is the same the higher education. This is one of those times where I can see my own thinking being limited by the current state of affairs, and that's not right. I'd agree with funding HE through general taxation, as it used to be. I also agree with more vocational options as well, so I'd be interested in a PR on that, yes. @pezholio, what are your thoughts on that? |
My tuppence (not necessarily well thought through): I do not believe that all University education is equal. I find it quite unfair that a scholar of (examples following are based solely on my own knowledge of what other graduates in my Uni days said of their courses) e.g. Bioscience gets the same level of financial help as one who does e.g. English Literature - the workloads are totally different as is the level of equipment needed and the "value" of the department, and the outcomes for society. That is to say that I don't believe that going to uni and studying a course "because that's what one does, I'll do Psychology" is a good reason compared to going to uni "because I want to be a frickin brain surgeon, and need to graduate in Medicine". I don't believe the level of funding and hence level of societal support can possibly be regarded as equivalent, and so I feel that really, one should not necessarily means-test a student, but more means-test a subject. If the subject has graduates going on to earn X thousand a year, then it should get (perhaps) half the level of support for graduates going on to earn 2X thousand per year - but then those 2X students will have higher graduate tax in order to level it out - this way, people going to Uni actually think about what they want to do, look at the courses, the costs, the value of graduating, and then they may instead choose to go and do something more vocational (like an apprenticeship, common in Germany, I believe) if they decide it is not really for them. My support calculation there is clearly not well thought through because the level of value to society cannot just be determined by earnt income - the clear example here is that a well qualified nurse earns pittance compared to a many other less socially beneficial professions - but it serves only as an example of my meaning. Summary: I don't believe flat support from general taxation is acceptable, and I don't believe the current system is acceptable. There are huge amounts of data on earnings, value to society, employment rate after graduating etc, and our policy should use the data to determine support, not vagueries based on what feels right. Sometimes complex is better, more appropriate, than simple. 👎 to PR from me. |
Interesting stuff from Steve: On a personal level I agree on the 'hours worked' point. I received three But as you say a Doctor provides far more value to society than someone who The difficulty is that I would like to live in not just a healthy society Like studying history. Yeah there's no real value in studying it. But with kind regards, about.me/pauljrobinson On 11 January 2014 16:25, Steve Pike notifications@github.com wrote:
|
I don't think we should look at the benefit to society from university on purely utilitarian grounds (as a liberal arts graduate myself 😉 ), university teaches things like critical thinking, self-directed learning and other skills that are not necessarily related to the subject in hand. Also, more tutor-heavy subjects (such as microbiology for example), are more expensive courses to run, so it could be argued that cheaper, self-directed courses prop up the more expensive courses. Also, I don't think subjects that contribute a lot to the cultural life of the country should be the preserve of a privileged few who can afford tuition fees. Doing that means that we potentially block out the voices of writers and artists from less privileged backgrounds. |
Agreed. The system should value the contribution of everyone in society, with kind regards, about.me/pauljrobinson On 13 January 2014 09:30, pezholio notifications@github.com wrote:
|
This is a really great example of where our own assumptions are coming to the fore without evidence. This is something that must have been studied in depth. We should find and review the evidence, and base our policy on that. |
I know you're right. I'm just familiar with the 'worthless degree' argument. with kind regards, about.me/pauljrobinson On 13 January 2014 09:55, James Smith notifications@github.com wrote:
|
To be clear: My argument was absolutely nothing to do with "worthless degrees" - it was about resource use in a degree and effective "pay back" - within the same domain as the "graduate tax" idea. Please read all my examples as simple thought experiments rather than "this one degree is worthless". You could reposition my argument, so that I am suggesting that a degree is "worthless" but I am not, more like "costs less". Also, I think you misunderstood my meaning about how much support a Medicine student would get. I was not trying to suggest they would have a higher burden to do their degree (see my point about nurses). Again, these are all just arbitrary examples. Replace any course name with a random string of characters if it helps. My (limited) interactions with students/graduates/job seekers on some courses have coloured my example choice, but I'm not putting any subject in a box… I'm just saying that currently, it seems too level (happy to accept that this is an incorrect view!). Courses may be taking on too many students simply because they get good money from them (shock!) and the graduates struggle to go into jobs in that field, a related field, etc. I know that any good degree gives great life skills, but I know from my recent experience of being at uni that some people are there because they don't know what else to do, and they may have needed a little extra help deciding at the age of 17... cost is a great decider (but higher flat fees are not a good check as we know - debt is horrific), more options are a good decider (sometimes!), like vocational courses held in as-high regard (or apprenticeships), so I suggest that the data is used to decide how much help a course gets and in which ways, perhaps even how many students should be able to do it based on some metric. I don't know what those metrics are, and I don't know how it should be 'unflattened', but I reckon the data exists and it should be used. That is all. Blanket policy/vagueries when there is data to make better decisions should not be something we go for, otherwise we are just entering ideology land and that is what we already have in government. Possibly as an addendum, I would suggest that the idea of student loan/graduate debt, etc is fully extended to encompass all the other options that exist to get a 16 or 18 year old to the point where they can get a job. I don't know why uni students should be treated (in bulk!) differently to plumbers. The cost of learning is whatever it is for that particular field, and saying one group get X special rate (flat across the whole group even if they are all different) and another group have a whole different framework to get through (I have no idea how a plumber gets qualified?) is ridiculous. If one wants to become professional at X then they should be given the options all together with all the same caveats and conditions. (Maybe that means making universities that do ENTIRELY non-academic (if that is possible) courses, and treating them the same as a typical uni? Do these already exist?) |
Today I will be numbering my points, thus:
|
Strong 👎 from me on this one. |
I've proposed abolishing tuition fees completely in #150. Let's see if we can get somewhere on this :) |
closing as #150 was accepted as an alternative. |
This pull request has been automatically generated by prose.io.