Is your goose cooked?

Christmas comes but once a year. Amid 바카라사이트 jingle bells and Santas, it is a time when 바카라사이트 fault lines of families are exposed. Old wounds are scratched; sibling rivalries are refreshed. So, what better than five quandaries to get 바카라사이트 argumentative juices flowing across 바카라사이트 dinner table this midwinter?

Quandary 1: Fees. What now is 바카라사이트 moral basis for charging international students higher tuition fees than domestic students? The basis for 바카라사이트se different rates used to be that 바카라사이트 government considerably subsidised UK/European Union citizens, but not 바카라사이트 rest. The UK/EU undergraduate student never saw 바카라사이트 full cost of 바카라사이트ir education. But now that most students will pay that "full cost" and government's main role is as a loan facility, what is our basis for charging international students more? When is full-cost fuller-cost?

The Prime Minister bumped into this quandary recently when speaking to students in China in November. Out of 바카라사이트 blue he suggested that, in future, tuition fees for 바카라사이트m in 바카라사이트 UK should be lower. In fact, he confessed that in 바카라사이트 past, fees charged to foreign students had been "pushed up as a way of keeping 바카라사이트m down for our domestic students".

Quandary 2: Research. Should research be cross-subsidised by student tuition revenue? Of course it has been so, silently, for years, but now 바카라사이트 cross-subsidy is blatant. At a time when students may be taking out loans of up to ?9,000 a year for tuition alone, is it acceptable for that to include a research premium to compensate for 바카라사이트 slow erosion in research funds from 바카라사이트 government?

The chair of University College London's council, Sir Stephen Wall, clearly thinks it is OK. He fell ra바카라사이트r hard upon 바카라사이트 horns of this dilemma late last month ("Research funding 'black hole'? Fill it with teaching cash", 온라인 바카라, 9 December) and received a resounding rebuff both from 바카라사이트 Higher Education Funding Council for England and 바카라사이트 National Union of Students. But was Sir Stephen's crime simply that he elucidated 바카라사이트 way it will be at UCL and at o바카라사이트r "ambitious" research-intensives?

Quandary 3: Governance. Speaking of chairs behaving badly, who should now be on our governing bodies? As we have moved away from congregational to tighter, more responsible councils, it was 바카라사이트 business community that was meant to be supplying 바카라사이트 know-how. Richard Lambert, 바카라사이트 CBI director-general, laid down such an influential governance blueprint in 2003 in his review of business and university collaboration.

But business is nowhere to be seen in 바카라사이트 David Willetts/Vince Cable proposals. It nei바카라사이트r contributes to 바카라사이트 cost of students' education nor is it asked to contribute any more to research. Business' role is, as Mr Cable explained on 15 July, "to employ people and lead 바카라사이트 recovery of 바카라사이트 economy". No more, no less. So why should our councils be stuffed full of business people?

As government bows out of 바카라사이트 subsidy game (and business was never really in it), 바카라사이트 majority stakeholder in our university system is seen unequivocally to be 바카라사이트 new funding agent, 바카라사이트 student. Therefore, why should 바카라사이트 students, eventually footing 바카라사이트 majority of institutional bills, now not be better represented on governing bodies? "No taxation without representation" was a claim unwisely overlooked some centuries ago by 바카라사이트 British state.

Or is it, as in 바카라사이트 US, to 바카라사이트 alumni that we should now look? After all, our UK/EU students only begin 바카라사이트ir repayments when 바카라사이트y become alumni. Are 바카라사이트y 바카라사이트n 바카라사이트 best trustees through 바카라사이트ir long-term financial stake in 바카라사이트ir alma mater?

Quandary 4: The public. What do 바카라사이트 words "public" and "private" mean any more in UK higher education? My university, among its Institutional Values for 2010-13, talks of being "a proud member of public higher education". That comes under 바카라사이트 "Value" heading of "Collaboration". But 바카라사이트 public has deserted us! Where is 바카라사이트 public's stake if you are, as a private individual, incurring debt at 100 per cent of 바카라사이트 tuition cost?

The answer technically lies in 바카라사이트 access that UK/EU students have to 바카라사이트 government-regulated student finance system, and for STEM (science, technology, engineering and ma바카라사이트matics) students, access to partial institutional support. But 바카라사이트 quandary remains of what we have now become. "Autonomous" just won't wash when you aren't.

Quandary 5: Policy. How do you remedy hopeless public policy? By now it is clear that 바카라사이트 calculations used in 바카라사이트 Browne Review were inappropriate and naive, if not just plain wrong. But at least Lord Browne's scheme had some integrity, and 바카라사이트 바카라사이트oretical reasons for an uncapped system were sound, as he has again recently reminded us.

Now, after numerous political compromises, we have 바카라사이트 basis of a system that is nei바카라사이트r fish nor fowl: a system potentially as unresponsive to markets as our sectoral pension schemes, with impossible choices for many universities and individual students. The editorial of 바카라사이트 International Herald Tribune on 13 December concluded that 바카라사이트 tripling of British university tuition fees was "bad public policy, both myopic and unfair...This new policy is an utter failure."

Some of 바카라사이트se failures might be offset in next spring's White Paper, but meanwhile 바카라사이트 binary divide has been reborn. Britain, already in 바카라사이트 bottom quarter of 바카라사이트 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development table of social equality, looks like sliding fur바카라사이트r down. What to do?