Higher Education Funding
Posted by Sammy Wilson, MP for East Antrim, at 16:15, Mon 8 November 2010:
I was fortunate to be one of those people who had the opportunity to obtain a university education free of charge. I was the first person in my entire extended family to achieve a degree not because I was smarter than my parents, uncles, aunties or cousins, it was simply due to the fact that the Butler Education Act and the decision by governments in the 1960s and 70s to fund Higher Education, opened doors that in the past my family could never have afforded to open.
I am grateful for the opportunities which I was given. They changed my life and made it possible for me to do jobs which were rewarding and which have I loved. As I sat through the debate on the funding of Higher Education in the House Of Commons on Wednesday and the minister outlined his proposals to lift the cap on tuition fees to £9000 per year and then explain the repayment arrangements for the debt which students would have available to them, I had a sense of sadness because despite what was said I knew that the proposals will exclude many able young people from the economic background from which I came, ever achieving the liberating experience of higher education. I know that if the cost of taking a degree had been to finish up with over £40,000 worth of debt my parents and my own natural instincts would have dissuaded me from going to university.
Whilst I know that attitudes to debt are different today than they were in the 1970s, nevertheless the cost of a home and lifestyle changes already make it difficult for young people on average incomes to make ends meet. If they have now to add on to that thousands of pounds of student debt then many may well decide that university education is not for them. Not only will they be poorer in the future but there will also be a problem for the economy which needs the skills they would obtain through further study.
I know we cannot go back to the halcyon days of my youth. First of all given the number of people now undertaking higher education, 50% now as opposed to less than 10% when I did my degree, the cost of running higher education has rocketed. Secondly there is a need to look at the level of public spending because of our economic difficulties. Thirdly there is a recognition that since a degree does increase earning power those who have the opportunity should make some contribution to the cost over and above the normal tax payments they make.
There are those who continue to argue that we should adopt the 1970s free for all approach to university education. It may be populist but it is unrealistic. Whilst we do have control over the financial arrangements for Higher Education in N.I. any changes in the funding arrangements in England are reflected in the amount of money which comes to the N.I. budget through the Barnett formula. So any divergence which we make from the policy at Westminster will require us to make a choice between being more generous to Higher Education but spending less on something else. Those who argue that we do so will never say where the money should be taken off.
When the issue was debated at the Assembly this week my party sought to put forward a motion which said three things. Firstly that public funded Higher Education should be based on ability to learn not ability to pay. Secondly that the minister should bring forward proposals on how students from the most disadvantaged backgrounds could be assisted and thirdly that there should be control over the fees which universities can charge.
I believe that this represents a balanced approach in the current circumstances. As I said during the debate in the House of Common, my fear in relation to the removal of the cap on student tuition fees is that universities rather than reducing costs and looking at how they could raise income, will take the easy way out and load the burden on students through charging them more. There is already evidence that Universities are not cost efficient and that degrees are more expensive than they need to be.
We need to get the balance right between adequate funding for institutions which can make a real difference to the skills base of our economy and ensuring that we do not price bright young people out of the opportunities they offer. We also need to ask whether degree courses are always the right method of delivering the skills which we require especially when industry and economists are arguing that the real shortages are in some of the technical skills such as IT, engineering and all types of technicians.
If we get the decisions right we will make our economy stronger and keep open opportunities for young people, our most valuable resource.
Comments
If you are subscribed to HearFromYourMP in this constituency,
log in to post a reply.
Otherwise, if you live in the UK,
sign up in order to
HearFromYourMP.
Posted by Hugh Marcus, 20:48, Mon 8 November 2010: (Is this post abusive?) #
Some interesting and realistic comments from Sammy. As a father who has two daughters at university and one who’s now got a good career thanks to having a decent honours degree, I can see the benefit of having a university education. However as my children have grown up I have become increasingly concerned about two aspects of the university debate. The first is: that while Tony Blair’s original goal of getting more young people from poorer backgrounds into universities was very laudable, like much of what Labour did during its long period in power, it was strong on rhetoric but seriously short on implementation. The reality of what really happened was that lots more young people from middle class (not poorer) backgrounds went to university. This leads me to my second concern. As funding and applicants were both in plentiful supply, the universities simply created courses to cater for the demand. As a result there now are lots of what I call ‘soft’ degrees. That is, degrees, which are not too difficult to get, where the level of mental effort and self-discipline is minimal, and sadly, are little use in the real world. What I have seen in my children’s peers is that going to university has become the goal. When you ask many of them what they plan to do beyond university they haven’t a clue. What a waste of time and money. I have always encouraged my children to take a more long-term approach, to think about what it was they wanted to do in life and then ask themselves what steps they needed to take to get there. If that involved university – great, but if not then there was no money wasted and no debt incurred. What concerns me about what’s happening now is that this raise in fees is still not addressing this issue. But perhaps if I put my cynical hat on for a moment, the Coalition knows that with large fees (and large debts) demand for 3rd rate courses will drop off. In the long term that might be no bad thing.
However it’s a pity that hard working young people who’s parents happen not to be ‘well off’ will not be able to advance as quickly as others.
What is badly needed: is for the Govt to remind everyone that university is a means to and end (a good career) not an end in itself.
Posted by Sammy Wilson, 12:28, Wed 17 November 2010: (Is this post abusive?) #
Thank you for your comment.
I totally agree and indeed have argued on a number of occasions both in the Assembly and the House of Commons that this artificial target of sending 50% of young people to university regardless of the degrees that they are doing it is a bit of a nonsense and probably diverts skills away from the real areas where they are needed in the economy. It also means that we have now got many people with degrees who are only capable of finding very low paid administrative posts which seems to me to be unfair on the young people and wasteful on the education resources.
If we are to use fees I would prefer to see them used in a differential way to try and attract young people into degree courses where we know there are skill shortages and where firms consistently tell me they need to have a greater supply of well qualified students. Thanks for your comments and I think if everyone took the sensible approach that you have described then university education might actually mean more in the long term both for those who undertake it and for the economy.