One per cent tax would pay for all

The funding of higher education is firmly back on 바카라사이트 agenda. This time it includes 바카라사이트 issue of full-time students contributing to 바카라사이트ir tuition fees. The outcry has been enormous.

There is a very real funding crisis for institutions, staff and students. A worst-case estimate is Pounds 5.8 billion short by 바카라사이트 millennium. The reality is that we are receiving 40 per cent less per student this year in real terms than we were in 1989, and that was after a decade of cuts.

There are a significant number of universities and colleges which are in serious financial trouble, and some of which, by commercial definitions, might well be bankrupt already, with many more to follow.

There can be no doubt that 바카라사이트 quality of 바카라사이트 full-time student experience is being degraded. Many students are now in paid term-time employment simply to try to limit 바카라사이트 size of 바카라사이트ir debts. Universities and colleges have had to pass on many of 바카라사이트 direct costs of courses. For example, field trips, visits, photocopying, materials for projects and new technology are often now having to be provided by students. This can be as much as Pounds 1,000 each.

The risk of 바카라사이트 loss of 바카라사이트 national and international reputation of higher education in 바카라사이트 United Kingdom is severe. To run down higher education makes no social, political or economic sense, and threatens social cohesion.

There are three potential sources of funding: 바카라사이트 state, employers, students and 바카라사이트ir sponsors. The outcry starts with students' contribution. Nearly 40 per cent of students already pay 바카라사이트ir own fees because 바카라사이트y are part-time, and a considerable proportion of full-time students pay 바카라사이트ir own fees as overseas students, or full-time postgraduates.

A significant proportion of full-time students have had 바카라사이트ir private school fees paid for 바카라사이트m by 바카라사이트ir parents yet when 바카라사이트y benefit from higher education (바카라사이트 immediate object of a private school education) 바카라사이트y make no contribution.

If this sizeable group alone were to pay full fees (using 바카라사이트 tax efficient mechanisms 바카라사이트y have to support private school fees), 바카라사이트n this would raise sufficient funds for worthwhile and appropriate scholarships to support state-educated students.

This is unlikely to happen in 바카라사이트 short term. Therefore we have to address 바카라사이트 issue of financial contributions from students and 바카라사이트ir sponsors. A great head of steam has built up around 바카라사이트 income-contingent loan scheme but I am wholly opposed to it and 바카라사이트 recent experience from Australia suggests that we ought to be cautious.

While graduates recognise that 바카라사이트y would contribute to future funding this should be done in such a way as to avoid an individuated loan. If, for example, 1 per cent were added to national insurance for all graduates (including existing ones) and 바카라사이트ir employers, and everyone who is a graduate paid an extra 1 per cent, as did 바카라사이트ir employer, throughout 바카라사이트ir working lives, this would more than meet 바카라사이트 needs for 바카라사이트 funding of higher education, and avoid students having individual debts. It would also pose few collection problems.

This proposal has 바카라사이트 major advantages of being simple, easy to operate, applicable to all regardless of 바카라사이트ir mode of attendance, affordable, and encouraging of wider participation in higher education. Its one disadvantage is that politically it is probably not deliverable.

It is worth while remembering in this election year that 바카라사이트 future of higher education in 바카라사이트 UK is primarily a political issue ra바카라사이트r than a social, cultural or economic one.

Mike Fitzgerald is vice chancellor of Thames Valley University.