Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

Tuition fees

by In Wales Mon Dec 6th, 2010 at 07:04:32 AM EST

It's been a busy week but still it is remiss of me to have not commented on the protests against Government proposals to increase the cap on University tuition fees.

Back in the day(!) when I was studying for my undergraduate degree at Cardiff, I was lucky enough to start in 1997, the last year where grants were still available (albeit minimal) and no tuition fees were charged.  Student loans saw me through on my living expenses and I worked each summer to make up the rest of the money I needed. Doing a chemistry degree involved most days being full of lectures and lab sessions, and being deaf meant that I had to use all of my time outside lectures to catch up on what I missed from not hearing the lectures.  The additional reading involved for me was huge. I just didn't have time to work whilst studying.

frontpaged - Nomad


The legislation to introduce fees stemmed from the conclusions of the Dearing report commissioned by John Major in 1996, published in 1997 with the recommendations being implemented in 1998.
See wikipedia and the Guardian timeline for more background. The development of the fees system is horrendously complex, with the devolved nations using their powers to implement different systems.

During 2003/4 when I was President of NUS Wales, the Labour Government were pushing through the Education Bill, containing the highly unpopular proposals for variable fees (top-up fees), allowing universities to charge variable fees up to a maximum of £3k per year. We ran a huge campaign that year, involving demonstrations, petitions, lobbying and protests. When lobbying in Parliament before the second reading, I had MPs crying in front of me because they were under so much pressure to vote for the proposals which they didn't agree with.

I've never agreed with fees, and I certainly don't agree with upping the cap to £9k a year, however it is paid back (repayments, graduate tax etc). You can throw the usual arguments around about it, access to education for students from all backgrounds and not just an elite, graduates who benefit from their education pay more in tax, those who graduate in careers such as nursing work in roles of high social value, people will be deterred by debt and so on.

Had I not received a grant and been unburdened by fees I could not have gone to University, nor did I have a home to go back to outside of term time.  My education was my key out of a very bad place with few prospects. My alternative was not a good one, partly due to family circumstances and also due to my disability.  Disabled people are twice as likely to be unemployed as non-disabled people. I now have a PhD, I was building a good career and I now run my own business.  I don't actually use my degree any more but it has been highly valuable to me.

So what is a university education actually for?  I think that is where the argument lies. On a fundamental level, what should students gain from university? What kind of people do we want to be turning out of our higher education sector?

I gained from living independently, meeting new people, volunteering, getting involved in politics, being taught how to think for myself, how to solve problems, how to be disciplined in organising and prioritising life and to be passionate about learning and about developing myself.  Those are the transferable skills our graduates need.

We don't need drones, trained up on courses that have been meddled with to extremes by businesses who shouldn't be expecting the public purse to fund specialist training for their organisations, leaving graduates with no flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances.  We don't want higher education only to be the privilege of the elite, who then continue to dominate in key decision making roles across society, suppressing diversity and only furthering their own interests.

Equally we shouldn't be forcing young people into university when a vocational career is better suited.  We need a whole range of skills to drive our economy and the further education sector plays an equally crucial role in providing training and life long learning opportunities to people of all ages.  I've benefited as much from courses delivered by FE colleges as I have from my higher education degrees.  FE and HE sectors should be valued equally.

This is an area where devolution has played such an important role.  In Wales we demonstrate in words and actions how we value skills and vocational training. Schemes such as ProAct and ReAct, helping workers to upskill and retain employment are Welsh initiatives that really show what our values are. The life long learning agenda has benefited from high level commitment. But even so, the FE sector is chronically underfunded.
It is true to say the HE sector is also underfunded.  Which brings us back to fees.

Where should the money come from to pay for higher education?  I'm a socialist so it is easy for me to say that it should come through taxation because graduates who benefit financially will contribute more in tax but also in skills.  Society as a whole benefits from a good education. Driving those values forward is important, for our economy and for our well-being as communities and individuals.

I don't pretend it is an easy issue to solve.  I applaud the Welsh Assembly Government for their stance on fees (Welsh domiciled students will not have to pay the top up component of fees) although admittedly I don't know we will afford to plug the funding gap.

I'm not sure I have even begun to address the issues yet, but I felt I needed to comment, because the same arguments are being thrown forth as 6 years ago, but the stakes feel a lot bigger this time around.

Display:
Tuition fees will not rise for Welsh students - Education News - News - WalesOnline

STUDENTS in Wales were yesterday spared a rise in tuition fees, under radical plans unveiled by the Assembly Government.

Education Minister Leighton Andrews delivered on his promise to protect Welsh students by subsidising increased costs wherever in the UK they choose to study.

Some universities in Wales will be able to charge up to £9,000 a year in fees, which is triple the current £3,290 level.

But the additional cost will be met by the Assembly Government, and Welsh students who go to university in 2012/13 will be no worse off than if they had gone to university this year.

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Fri Dec 3rd, 2010 at 03:54:34 AM EST
European Tribune - Tuition fees

On a fundamental level, what should students gain from university? What kind of people do we want to be turning out of our higher education sector?

people like this?

I gained from living independently, meeting new people, volunteering, getting involved in politics, being taught how to think for myself, how to solve problems, how to be disciplined in organising and prioritising life and to be passionate about learning and about developing myself.  Those are the transferable skills our graduates need.

what kind of people do we want to turn out period?

listening to the debate about this in italy, it often seems that unis are there just to provide corporate fodder, or else...the terrible gloom of over-educated overqualified job seekers.

that's one side of the argument, the other, that education maximises peoples' potential, seems touted for the most part only from the students -and a few teachers.

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Fri Dec 3rd, 2010 at 10:20:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Right wing policy is never about political or economic effectiveness.

It's always about creating hierarchies, and excluding those lower down the hierarchy from power and opportunity.

Whatever other arguments are used, that's always the bottom line.

So although asking what universities are for is a valid question, I think it's more important to underline again that all of the economic and political arguments reduce to an excuse to punch the poor in the face.

That may not seem very helpful, but I think it's useful to understand what the aim is - and also to understand that the only useful opposition is a broad-scale movement aimed at keeping the kinds of people who enjoy punching the poor in the face away from political and economic power.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Fri Dec 3rd, 2010 at 08:40:33 AM EST
ThatBritGuy:
a broad-scale movement aimed at keeping the kinds of people who enjoy punching the poor in the face away from political and economic power.

great idea, but how?

psychotherapists on every corner, (next to the lottery ticket sellers)?

emotional intelligence SATs?

old kindergarten cctv footage of kids pulling wings off flies used as filter for political aspirants?

i have some weird vision of how they test for peoples' gay tendencies, showing them porn and seeing what they get excited for...

showing people getting bribes and shilling for invisible hucksters and seeing who perks up?

you must have some ideas on how to effect this noble dream, or are they all in the next book?


'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Fri Dec 3rd, 2010 at 09:48:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If I understand you well, there are two postulates in your comment:

First, for most of the people in (political, economic...) power, their main (only?) motivation is a sadistic need to "punch the poor in the face" and they enjoy it.  

Second, a significant number of people are by essence, psychopaths who "enjoy punching the poor in the face" and, in the current system, they tend to reach powerful positions. Conversely, other people are immune from this "disease", and deserve to be in power without any risk for them to abuse this power.

Am I rightly understanding your vision of society?

"People only accept change when they are faced with necessity, and only recognize necessity when a crisis is upon them." - Jean Monnet

by Melanchthon on Fri Dec 3rd, 2010 at 10:18:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'd be more nuanced than that. The sociopathy runs on a continuum from simple stupidity and lack of awareness at one extreme to outright clinical personality disorder at the other.

As someone I know who used to work for an MP said - "These people are nuts."

Usefully, politics is set up so that it's possible to avoid awareness of political consequences until a mob turns up and burns your house down.

Lack of direct experience of consequences is built into economics as a feature. If I have to fire X people to cut costs, the fate of those people no longer interests me. But the state of my balance sheet does.

Exploring all of this in detail would be a book-sized project.

But in practice, it does boil down to poor punching - unrestrainedly so in the US, slightly less so in the UK (at least for now), and moderately less so in countries like France, perhaps because the poor have more of a history of punching back.

Anyone who wants to know more about how far rhetoric and action by the Right would go without opposition could do worse than review the 19th century history of the English Poor Laws - which I had to write about recently for a UK magazine, and which I'm still traumatised by.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Fri Dec 3rd, 2010 at 11:31:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But you didn't answer my second remark. Do you think these people are psycho-sociopaths from the beginning and once and for all? And the non-sociopathic ones cannot adopt the same behaviour once in power. If so, as you say, the solution is very simple: we just have to prevent these psycho-sociopaths from reaching powerful positions. Now, we have the problem mentioned by melo: how can we detect them? And how to detect them early enough, before they can do harm? In kindergarten?

Oh, and while I've seen some managers go a long way to avoid firing people, some of the worst management practices I've witnessed were taking place within non-profit organisations led by sincere leftists...

"People only accept change when they are faced with necessity, and only recognize necessity when a crisis is upon them." - Jean Monnet

by Melanchthon on Fri Dec 3rd, 2010 at 12:24:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Clinically, psychopathy seems to be related to brain measurable brain dysfunction. Sociopathy is slightly fuzzier, but there are established clinical questionnaires that are used for diagnosis, and they seem fairly reliable.

My suggestion is that the political feedback loops we have now - many of which are fall under that thing called "economics" - reward and enforce sociopathic behaviour in corporate and political contexts. Individuals who are that way inclined find it easy to thrive. Individuals who aren't, don't, but may find themselves acting in ways that perpetuate that culture in opposition to their private values.

Pre-university education matters too, but that's a different topic.

Left/Right is a one-dimensional measure for a multi-dimensional phenomenon. You can of course have Left-wing sociopathy. But there's not so much of it around at the moment and it's not so visible, because active sociopaths will go where the power is - and that's not currently on the Left. At the moment there isn't enough juice in the Left to keep the crazies happy there. It's true this might change in the future.

In practice the distinction is between empathetic and exploitative behaviour. Currently rather a lot of the latter has pooled on the Right.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Fri Dec 3rd, 2010 at 02:07:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
So you're suggesting that every candidate to an election should  undergo a test to detect potential sociopathy and that those whose result is positive should be barred from running? I suppose this should apply to any position involving some power, be it political, economical or other...

This raises a few questions:

  • at what level of power should the testing start?
  • as you said there is "a continuum from simple stupidity and lack of awareness at one extreme to outright clinical personality disorder ", wher should be the threshold and who would decide about it?
  • what should be done with those who are identified as sociopaths? Should they wear a badge in order to warn other people about them?
  • what about the false positives?

   

"People only accept change when they are faced with necessity, and only recognize necessity when a crisis is upon them." - Jean Monnet
by Melanchthon on Fri Dec 3rd, 2010 at 05:57:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Actually the main question it raises is why we seem to fill important decision-making posts on the basis of irrelevant qualities, such as scripted speech-making, glibness, media presence, seriousness™ and visual appeal.

Would you fill an engineering position without evidence of competence? Would you hire a plumber because of their charm?

Why do we set the bar so low for politicians, economists and bankers?

Let's be clear about this - this isn't about dining room discussion. This is about selecting individuals who are given powers that include ecocide, genocide, state-sanctioned violence of all kinds including economic violence against their own populations, and international war-making.

Should we not select the people who make these decisions on the basis of aptitude, emotional stability, basic competence and ability to accurately model consequences?

How many more people have to die because of preventable wars and preventable poverty before the risk of a false positive becomes acceptable, in your opinion?

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Fri Dec 3rd, 2010 at 06:24:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
My own sense and observation of the last fifty years of US society tends to confirm TGB's thesis that US business and political structures are such that people with what reasonably could be called socio-pathic characteristics have an advantage in business and politics. But it is complicated.

The contracting company for which I worked the longest time as an employee had a president who was a very astute businessman. A colleague who worked closely with him as an estimator was of the opinion that, to be successful, a company had to have a president with the morals of a thief, and that our CEO qualified well in those regards. I always felt that I was limited in what I could do for that company because he feared that I was not sufficiently ruthless. But our president had another side as well and was genuinely concerned with the welfare of his long time employees and with fair treatment. One year, when all of the business turned out to be work that I was involved with, I was the only employee to get a bonus.

After I became self-employed I found my reluctance to follow the official line when I knew it to be bullshit to be a detriment to my success, both when working for public and private companies. Those situations are what taught me that there was an analog to Gresham's Law that operated in organizations: that counterfeit competence and integrity would drive the genuine article out of circulation.

It was my experience with educational institutions as a consultant that revealed the extent to which careerist considerations trumped technical and economic factors in decision making. The people I saw doing these things were not fools -- far from it. Neither were they unambiguously evil. But the consequences came to be that vast amounts of public monies were squandered as a result of turf wars, personal power plays and, in some cases, personal gain. The result is that the public got only about two thirds of what it could have gotten under the culture and methods that had existed up to the mid-'70s.

It was also my experience that the higher one went in the organizational chart, the more callous the people could be -- not always -- but often enough. The pattern seemed worse in private companies. It is built into the culture. People use that fact to justify what otherwise would be unjustifiable. "Only doing what they have to do to survive." "If I don't do it, you know somebody else will." And so they will.

The problem is finding something effective that can be done about this situation. Many who are likely the most serious cases of sociopathy, or outright psychopathy, are brilliant people who could respond to a psychological assessment instrument in a way that would make them look like a saint, but they are scarcely likely to ever be subjected to such an ordeal. But denying the existence of the problem doesn't help either. It is a quandary.

The problem is that it costs so much more to build things today than it did 40 years ago while, at the same time, we are now less able to afford to build needed facilities than we then were. It is with such considerations in mind that I recommend making all dealings with public money, at a minimum, subject to anonymous recording by any and all participants while providing substantial rewards for whistle-blowing and protections for the whistle-blowers.  

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Tue Dec 7th, 2010 at 09:14:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Ive often wondered which fool came up with that plan on the governments part. I knew several other NUS representitives at Welsh Universities, and  it was a feeling from them that the UK national organisation were far too close to the government and gave in far too easily. Amongst students this  resulted in people thinking that higher ups in the union only saw it as a stepping stone towards an MPs salary in the future.

Social networking this time around has made it feel more as if the members are in control (Plus there's the feeling that the more senior members haven't got their future employment prospects  in mind while discussing things with the government)

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Fri Dec 3rd, 2010 at 10:12:58 AM EST
I could wax eloquent about the economic inanity of restricting access to education, since by any reasonable measure education more than pays for itself at all levels. But I'm not going to do that. Because such economic wankery would obscure the central point: Free and equal access to higher education is fundamentally about power.

Our society vests a quite inordinate amount of power in those members who sport a diploma from an institution of higher education. This means that excluding people from higher education on the basis of pure economic disadvantage is a democratic problem long before it ever becomes an economic one.

Furthermore, universities are important components of the engaged democratic civil society. A university is a large - and therefore powerful - organisation, with a culture that is distinct from both the corporate and the political cultures that dominate other social arenas. It can furthermore harness the inordinate persuasive power that our society vests in those with academic credentials, in a way that politicians and corporations cannot do so easily.

Ensuring that universities are independent of political and corporate meddling is therefore just as important to the functioning of a democracy as ensuring the same thing is true of the press. Tuition fees erode this independence, by linking universities' incomes more closely with the post-graduation incomes of their students - something that depends on their favour with the corporate and government sectors.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Dec 3rd, 2010 at 08:42:28 PM EST
I agree with much of what you say. At another level, I'll say, universities are for the advancement of humanity.

And this has been part of our history. What are the origins of the Elightenment and the Renaissance? Many trace those origins to changes in education.

It's important that human beings learn at advanced levels.

As someone from the US university system (who also did a stint at the University of Padova in Italy) I have to say I am not against fees in education, nor do I find them a block to higher education. I still have student loans and have actually never regretted taking them nor paying them. Public higher education in the USA is still relatively affordable. In my state system, the cost of tuition is under $5k per year. A student who works in summer (even at minimum wage) and who maintains a 10 hour a week work study job during the year (work study is provided by universities) should earn an income of $7-8k over the year, which combined with $6k in student loans, will provide them with $14k a year toward their college degree. Should they come from lower income families, they are eligible for Pell Grants which will make up for the remainder of their needs. With tuition at below $5k, they have $12k to live on for housing and food and books.

It's really not a bad deal.

I think there is something to be said for paying for part of your education while having it subsidized. IMO, worse than paying something for your education is having a dysfunctional system that doesn't allow you to graduate on time. And cuts in education are surely leading toward the latter.

One other factor: the horror stories you hear about with American universities (high tuition, huge loans) are related to private schools and for-profit online schools. But 90% of American students attend public schools. Plus, the extraordinarily high tuition at those private schools are a form of redistribution to poor students. 40% of all tuition money is redistributed in the form of financial aid to needy students. At the Ivy league schools, your entire tuition is paid for if you are a middle class student (I believe that below the threshold of $80k or something like that, college is free at Harvard and the like). If accepted into a private school that offers you know financial aid, the best option is to go to a public school unless you come from a wealthy family.

by Upstate NY on Sun Dec 5th, 2010 at 12:29:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Should read "no financial aid" not "know"
by Upstate NY on Sun Dec 5th, 2010 at 12:31:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
(I believe that below the threshold of $80k or something like that, college is free at Harvard and the like)

That's the threshold for free tuition, lodging, food, everything at those schools.  The de facto level is around 100K.  They also calculate estimated other costs e.g. books, computers, travel, fun, and then factor a certain amount of work-study into that.  If you don't want to do the work-study, then you're expected to take out a loan for that portion. The biggest undergrad loan problems come from second tier private schools where costs are almost as high, but there is little grant money available in the financial aid package.  The same sort of issues arise for out of state public university students and to a much lesser extent students from states with high in state tuition.  There's also grad school debt for professional degrees.

The move to grants by the top schools is relatively new, starting in the late nineties iirc.  Back when I was an undergrad, people whose parents couldn't afford to pay tuition were stuck with massive debt.  I was lucky, my dad's employer paid three quarters of tuition, both my parents were IT types in their peak earning years, and I was an only child.

by MarekNYC on Sun Dec 5th, 2010 at 12:47:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Do universities publish statistics showing the class breakdown of their students?

Loans are a form of slavery that push graduates towards certain forms of employment. They turn education into an investment that has to be calculated according to prevailing market forces. Students will move away from broader high-risk low-return contributions that may include a volunteer social element, and move towards low-risk high-return jobs.

If there are any. Which there may not be.

And I suspect that even where support exists, many poorer parents won't know about it and won't understand how to apply for it. That's certainly the situation in the UK.

Public schools and universities do offer bursaries here. But you won't know this unless you're already middle class. And you - or your parents - may even have problems filling in the forms correctly.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sun Dec 5th, 2010 at 01:16:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If you look at payscale.com which tracks salaries by major, you'll see that majors such as English Literature and Philosophy earn MORE than business majors in the USA. So, I think your point does apply to, say, Social Worker jobs which are very low pay. That's a hard one, since indeed, student loans at that point may be too cumbersome.

But, there are some things in place that take absorb some of the hit. There is some that's called IBR that allows American students with loans to pay an amount that is scaled to income. You never have to pay more if your income doesn't rise. You pay that amount for 20 years. I believe the % is around 5%. So, you might consider the loan a 5% tax on income (which given US tax rates may actually be lower than the amount an employed social worker in Europe ends up paying for education through their own taxes). In addition, if the employee works for the government (which social workers often do) then all their loans are forgiven after 10 years of payment at that low rate.

As for seeking this information, each high school has a guidance counselor office which specializes in college preparation, and they often do a credible job of making certain that financial aid information is available. My parents received no higher than a 2nd grade education in Greece (they grew up during WW2 and the Civil War when there was no schooling) and knew next to nothing about American education, but this information was available to me. I actually went to private university on 3/4s scholarship, and even chose to pay that additional 1/4 over a full scholarship at a university as prestigious as the one I went to. All that information was provided to me through school.

I can't say that's true in every case however.

by Upstate NY on Mon Dec 6th, 2010 at 01:51:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think another important point here is that a system is not independent of its history. From your description, the US uses tuition fees as a way to launder public funds into the educational sector, so as to be able to pretend that it is not a subsidy for the universities. I would be remiss if I failed to note the similarity to the way the US launders funds for industrial policy (and R&D) through the military budget.

This seems to me to reflect a peculiarity in American politics, rather than an intrinsic aspect of having tuition fees or an over-bloated military budget. In Europe, direct subsidies to universities are not politically verboten, so when people propose tuition fees, they are not doing it in order to launder some public money for the universities into a more politically palatable guise. They're doing it to restrict university education to rich people's stupid kids.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Dec 7th, 2010 at 01:00:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
IMO, worse than paying something for your education is having a dysfunctional system that doesn't allow you to graduate on time. And cuts in education are surely leading toward the latter.

But this is a false dichotomy, because fully funding a proper educational and research system is a net gain in real economic terms, so the sovereign can always "afford" it, in the same way the sovereign can always "afford" high speed rail lines between cities that need them. Sure, a high speed rail line where the ticket price has to cover a third of the capital cost as well as the operating cost is better than no line at all. But that's a silly dichotomy as well, since you can afford in real economic terms to simply write off the capital costs.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Dec 5th, 2010 at 02:56:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree. But the reality is that America is devolving rapidly on all fronts, infrastructure, research, social safety net, education. Without a doubt, we should fight for full funding.

One problem often used here however is to look at the Canadian and European systems where colleges are funded at half the rate as American universities. American schools spend a huge amount of money. I teach 2 classes a semester, and this year I have 10 students in one class and 25 in another. Next year, the minimums will be raised to 25 with most classes at 40. All because of cuts.

I compare my university with one just up the road at the U of Toronto. Toronto is a great school, but if you look at state funding for it, it is not as high as state funding for education in New York. I sense our politicians are dismantling our education system because they think of it as a luxury.

by Upstate NY on Mon Dec 6th, 2010 at 01:54:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Facts on Fees - the facts - Exquisite Life

The Conservative Party has produced a new website, Facts on Fees, to explain what's happening with tuition fees. Here are the website's key points, with commentary by me in red. This is, if you will, a fact check on Facts on Fees.

If you are listening Facts on Fees, it would help if you could clarify where some of your figures came from. Please post a comment below.



Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Wed Dec 8th, 2010 at 12:01:50 PM EST


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]