The Government’s plan to introduce variable tuition fees for full-time undergraduates has been hugely controversial and has aroused considerable opposition. This is unfortunate, as the policy represents a logical and practical act of redistribution, both of wealth and of educational opportunity, which should be welcomed by all socialists.
First, it will apply the same principles to full-time undergraduates as already apply to part-time undergraduates, postgraduates, the Open University and all further education colleges. Outside the comparatively secluded world of full-time degree courses, a regulated market has always been the norm in post-school education.
Second, it will ensure that those who obtain the greatest benefit from a university education (usually, though admittedly not always, the graduates of the leading research universities) make a fairer contribution to the public investment that leads to their enhanced career opportunities and higher salaries.
Third, it recognises the different earnings potential of different disciplines. No-one applying for a degree in medicine, law or information technology is under any doubt that their future earnings will, all things being equal, be far greater than if they had applied for a degree in social work, education or general arts.
Fourth, by requiring a greater contribution from graduates, it reduces the share of public investment allocated to the university sector and enables a corresponding increase to be allocated to primary, secondary and further education. This is exactly what happened after the initial introduction of tuition fees in 1998. This is what we must continue to do if we are serious about developing the potential of all our young people.
Fifth, it redistributes from today’s hard-up undergraduates, and their struggling parents, to tomorrow’s well-paid graduates. The abolition of up-front payment of fees from 2006 will be hugely popular with parents and will lift the pressure of today’s students. One of the greatest weaknesses of the current system is the excessive burden it places on parents (most of whom are non-graduates) whose joint income, although modest, requires them to pay the full tuition fee. In 2006, at a stroke, these parents will be over £1,150 a year better off. The fee will then be paid back after graduation, through payroll deduction, by their much higher-earning sons and daughters.
There are some who fear the new system will deter students from working class-families. The fact is, however, that when full time undergraduate tuition was free, and generous grants were available, the proportion of working class students in our universities was close to zero.
The key factor in widening participation is not low cost but appropriate entry qualifications. Ninety percent of students with at least two A-levels continue to university.
There are some who fear that the new system will lead to students choosing courses on grounds of cost and not suitability. Far more likely is that students will become much better informed about the quality of individual courses, and the careers to which they lead, and that more students will start to make realistic and rational choices based on their aspirations and qualifications.
Some have claimed that the proposals will lead to a two-tier system. Since when did we have a single-tier university system? Every seventeen year-old completing a UCAS form knows the hierarchies amongst British universities. We should be less concerned about the existence of an elite and more concerned about opening up access to this elite and ensuring the dynamism and the diversity of the whole system.
The new system will not be without its pitfalls. Nobody knows yet how universities will deal with fee levels and bursaries. Nobody knows yet how tough the access regulator will be. But if we are serious about mass higher education, we have to invest more, and invest earlier, in our schools. That means asking more from those who take the most out. For Labour MPs, this shouldn’t be a hard choice to make.