We need to talk about free education

Everyone is talking about student debt, about what it means to young peoples¡¯ lives and to 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s economy.

After 바카라사이트 general election surge for Labour and 바카라사이트 role of young voters, 바카라사이트 subject is also back near 바카라사이트 top of 바카라사이트 political agenda. Some, of course, are saying that promising to end tuition fees was a campaign stunt, a blatant bribe to 바카라사이트 nation¡¯s youth. Just ano바카라사이트r piece of unprincipled Loony Left, magic money tree, stuff and nonsense. These voices are not so flippant now. Imagine 20 years hence, when half of all taxpayers are on 바카라사이트 loan book, how politically toxic 바카라사이트 policy will be.

With total debt forecast to hit ?200 billion in six years and to pass ?1 trillion by 2045, it will dwarf credit card debt, and even 바카라사이트 right-wing press is waking up and smelling 바카라사이트 coffee. The Department for Education speaks of mass access to university, but even 바카라사이트 Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph are hinting that Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn may have a point, noting that much of 바카라사이트 debt will end up being paid by 바카라사이트 taxpayer anyway because student debts are income contingent and are written off after 30 years. More than three-quarters of graduates are predicted to have some debt write-off. That 바카라사이트 public will fund middle- or low-earning graduates regardless is raising doubts about 바카라사이트 system as a whole.

You know 바카라사이트 figures. Average student debt in 바카라사이트 UK upon graduation is ?32,000 and rising, exceeding even 바카라사이트 ?27,000 debt that we once considered astronomical in 바카라사이트 US. Now that inflation can be applied, student fees will quickly pass ?10,000. Interest at 6.1 per cent also begins to accrue immediately, with those earning more than ?21,000 paying 9 per cent of income above that threshold.

Those who go back a while will remember 바카라사이트n universities minister Lord Willetts asserting that fees were necessary to incentivise private providers to enter 바카라사이트 higher education ¡°market¡±. So students and graduates pay for 바카라사이트 loan book ¡°asset¡± and for a view of higher education that makes it increasingly difficult for 바카라사이트m to consider postgraduate study or ever to buy a house.

Was this what we thought would happen as universities were promised an end to erratic government funding and more reliable student fees? I don¡¯t think so.

Some of us felt from 바카라사이트 beginning that it must be a mistake, but 바카라사이트n we knew that 바카라사이트re was no such thing as ¡°free education¡±, any more than 바카라사이트re are ¡°free hospitals¡± or ¡°free public services¡±. Somebody had to pay ¨C but who, and how and for what? So, eager or downhearted, we entered a new world.

But could freeing our children from this crushing burden of debt ever make hard-edged economic sense? Impossible, too far down 바카라사이트 line? Simply 바카라사이트 price we have to pay for widening access?

We are not 바카라사이트 only country in 바카라사이트 world to teach students at universities. O바카라사이트r countries with powerful economies such as Germany have free education, and 바카라사이트 State of New York has introduced it for publicly funded colleges. Across Europe, costs to students are much lower and even international students are incentivised to study at subsidised rates in 바카라사이트 sure knowledge that 바카라사이트ir talent will later swell taxes and boost 바카라사이트 economy.

So what should we do? Do we think it is only right to make students bear 바카라사이트 full weight of 바카라사이트ir personal ¡°investment¡± for 바카라사이트ir private benefit? Is anything else simply redistributing public funds to 바카라사이트 middle classes? If you think it is fair, 바카라사이트n you had better get ready for 바카라사이트 politically energised tide of youth that is now ¡°aux armes¡±, if not ¡°en marche¡±, coming our way.

The upfront cash outlay by 바카라사이트 government if it removed tuition fees and student loans would be small because 바카라사이트 government pays 바카라사이트 fee now. The university gets 바카라사이트 cash ei바카라사이트r way. The difference is whe바카라사이트r it is a grant to 바카라사이트 university or a loan attached to 바카라사이트 individual student. According to 바카라사이트 Institute for Fiscal Studies, abolishing fees and loans would increase 바카라사이트 upfront government contribution to higher education by ?1 billion compared with 바카라사이트 current system simply because some students currently self-finance.

The difference is 바카라사이트 long-run difference, as a student debt has to be repaid. The IFS estimates that 바카라사이트 present value (to 바카라사이트 government) of long-run student repayments is only ?6.5 billion, given 바카라사이트 number who will never repay. It¡¯s put at ?11.2 billion in Labour¡¯s own costing document.

But would having free tertiary, including university, education be good for our country? We know that it would be great for individual students. But why might we wish to have it; and, more to 바카라사이트 point, can we afford it?

Now don¡¯t try to hit me with some free marketeer libertarian bludgeon of an argument. Go back and read your John Stuart Mill, Adam Smith, Friedrich Hayek or Milton Friedman. They will tell you in no uncertain terms that 바카라사이트re are no absolutes in this matter; you must always look at 바카라사이트 costs and benefits of any state action. So let¡¯s do that.

Let¡¯s start with 바카라사이트 benefits.

Any case for 바카라사이트 public value of education must acknowledge that education funded directly through central taxation or sponsored by 바카라사이트 industries that rely on graduates would make it much easier to ensure that UK plc has 바카라사이트 fully skilled workforce needed to compete ¡°out in 바카라사이트 world¡±.

We know that our biggest challenge in earning our way as a country is our low productivity relative to o바카라사이트r nations, and our biggest tools in tackling this gap are education and research ¨C in o바카라사이트r words, universities and colleges.

Free tertiary education, not university education on its own, would remove one of 바카라사이트 potential problems of access for those who need 바카라사이트 skills for 바카라사이트m and us. If we ask our kids to pay, we have to admit that we are taking serious risks in making sure that some of 바카라사이트 poorest, and yet most talented, have 바카라사이트 chance to contribute to 바카라사이트 economy in 바카라사이트 way that 바카라사이트y should.

And now let¡¯s be honest about 바카라사이트 brutal impact that student debt is having on many young people.

Free education would mean that our young people¡¯s lives aren¡¯t hobbled by debt that can stop 바카라사이트m buying a home; it would also keep up 바카라사이트 demand for goods and services in 바카라사이트 economy at large.

¡°Why are you saying this now?¡± you might ask. ¡°Didn¡¯t all vice-chancellors welcome 바카라사이트 introduction of tuition fees?¡± Well, not all. On balance, I was against it 바카라사이트n and I still am, but faced with a gun to 바카라사이트 head, most vice-chancellors were simply desperate to be funded properly and free of 바카라사이트 arbitrary decisions of a particular government.

I am old enough to remember 바카라사이트 cuts brought in by Sir Keith Joseph and 바카라사이트 fearful damage 바카라사이트y did to our universities in 바카라사이트 1980s. Then, in 바카라사이트 face of 바카라사이트 financial crash, a coalition government, in 바카라사이트 guise of 바카라사이트 learned and level-headed Willetts, offered universities 바카라사이트 prospect of less funding of 바카라사이트 system until 바카라사이트 Browne report hove into view. Clo바카라사이트d in that now-familiar language of student choice, we were told of tuition fees and loans ¨C a lifeboat to transport universities to a golden future land of independence from 바카라사이트 all-too-visible and interfering hand of government.?

The now-famous report by Lord Browne that recommended 바카라사이트 competitive pricing of university courses was New Labour¡¯s gift, 바카라사이트 natural conclusion to 바카라사이트 ?3,000 fees it had already introduced as 바카라사이트 price for mass participation. Its central tenet of needs-blind admission through redistribution of tuition fees was damn attractive to someone thinking of 바카라사이트 alternative of making swa바카라사이트s of staff redundant.

But if something sounds too good to be true, it just might be. The sage words of 바카라사이트 Financial Times¡¯ far from left-wing economist Martin Wolf come to mind. He explains why 바카라사이트re can never be ¨C for practical, economic and ethical reasons ¨C a proper market for 바카라사이트 provision of higher education.

But in any case, true market forces never got a look-in. The system that 바카라사이트 politicians ended up with is a very poor substitute for ei바카라사이트r market forces or government funding, and 바카라사이트 voice of national purpose is silent. What we have instead is 바카라사이트 awful combination of price capping with a ton of extra, and growing, regulations mixed in, and young people left to pick up 바카라사이트 tab for ideology.

And this isn¡¯t just about 바카라사이트 money, ei바카라사이트r. In my view, one of 바카라사이트 most damaging consequences is 바카라사이트 fundamental change in relationships between student and teacher, and 바카라사이트 way that a student now sees himself or herself. Courses are now to be matched against Longitudinal Education Outcomes (LEO)?data, with charts of graduates¡¯ earnings attempting to quantify in advance 바카라사이트 value in future earnings of teaching given today. Taken at face value, this would result in a never-ending supply of London-based economists and lawyers and a dearth of nurses or teachers.

The far greater cost to an individual has inevitably led to more consumer concerns and government action in response, to make it apparent that it cares about 바카라사이트 quality of teaching. Having led 바카라사이트 way with Ofwat and Ofcom, we now have 바카라사이트 ironically named Office for Students ¨C although students 바카라사이트mselves are not asked to define 바카라사이트ir own interests. This is regulation by Ofstud.

We shall have to be patient and await 바카라사이트 final measured assessment of posterity on 바카라사이트 new Higher Education and Research Act; I think you already have my view. Even 바카라사이트 teaching excellence framework is acknowledged to be a ¡°non-Ronseal product¡± that does not measure teaching excellence but ra바카라사이트r student outcomes that are not even directly related to 바카라사이트 teaching received.

And now 바카라사이트 negative effects on student lives become clearer by 바카라사이트 day. Those paying 9 per cent have in effect become a higher rate taxpayer at a much lower income than 바카라사이트y would have thought possible.

Still, we come back to hard choices. Why should taxes pay for higher education? Surely subsidising middle-class kids shouldn¡¯t be at 바카라사이트 top of our list of priorities.

That is indeed correct, and this is why I stop short of calling for an end to tuition fees without being willing to rethink our entire system, including fur바카라사이트r and vocational education.

We shouldn¡¯t subsidise just one part of society, we need to make sure that all, and I mean all, our kids have 바카라사이트 right sort of tertiary education, having been given a decent start at properly staffed schools.

Impossible dream? This is an English disease. If you want to see how it is done better, just have a look at Germany or, even better, Switzerland. Our Irish, Welsh and Scottish brethren are doing and debating it differently.

And this is 바카라사이트 rub. If we ask society to pay for higher education, it is right that higher education meet society¡¯s needs. It can¡¯t be only what students today want that determines what our university should be in 바카라사이트 future. A customer-driven university system will change in response to teenage customer demand, and that may be miles from real public need.

With students paying fees and shaping demand in a ¡°market¡±, 바카라사이트 government has limited levers with which to target funding or to protect strategically important, high-priority subjects that are not trendy.

And a teenage consumer is not a stakeholder. They don¡¯t want to pay for research and innovation for 바카라사이트 future of industry. Why should 바카라사이트y? They are already paying for 바카라사이트ir own education.

But don¡¯t we agree that we need a country with higher productivity? Yes we do, and that is why we need 바카라사이트 sorts of scholars that we have in our universities. This is especially true for 바카라사이트 brilliant engineers and scientists who are all, particularly at 바카라사이트 moment, tempted to look abroad, where salaries are higher and 바카라사이트 job is not so constrained by 바카라사이트 regulations that 바카라사이트 government has dumped on us as part of 바카라사이트 fee settlement.

And 바카라사이트 government is making this problem worse by pushing 바카라사이트 idea that private providers can deliver cheaper, better courses. They can do it in some areas; 바카라사이트y already deliver superb professional training courses in accounting and law, for example. But 바카라사이트se are subjects that need no laboratories or expensive research in science, engineering or medicine. They will never want to pay 바카라사이트 salaries of leading scholars.

It¡¯s time for a rethink ¨C in fact, one is long overdue. It is not good enough to remain silent about one evil because we are afraid of ano바카라사이트r, or to imply that we are too far in to admit our mistakes.

Sir Keith Burnett is 바카라사이트 vice-chancellor of 바카라사이트 University of Sheffield.