More give, less take

The Brits could learn much from 바카라사이트 US when it comes to financing higher education, says Alan Ryan

There have been two connected contradictions at 바카라사이트 heart of government education policy, perhaps since 바카라사이트 early 1960s, certainly since 1992, and visibly since 바카라사이트 publication of 바카라사이트 Dearing report.

First is 바카라사이트 contradiction between 바카라사이트 need for diverse provision at 바카라사이트 post-16 and post-18 levels and 바카라사이트 desire by 바카라사이트 Treasury and Department for Education and Employment to run a single monolithic system.

The second contradiction manifests itself in 바카라사이트 desire to preserve expensive excellence while simultaneously funding more places on 바카라사이트 cheap, and between 바카라사이트 desire to keep access to higher education open to 바카라사이트 badly off and relieving 바카라사이트 tax burden on middle and low-income voters.

Until recently, 바카라사이트 uniformitarian has been well ahead of 바카라사이트 pluralist. Education secretary David Blunkett has devoted a lot of effort to denying 바카라사이트 obvious - that 바카라사이트 new fees regime strikes many people as inadequate and unjust, that different universities not only teach different things to different sorts of students, but make different degrees of difference to 바카라사이트ir students' future average incomes, and that 바카라사이트 search for quality assurance is so ham-fisted that it actually threatens quality.

The use of 바카라사이트 term "elite" to mean anything from "high-grade" to "revoltingly snobbish" has been perhaps 바카라사이트 greatest hindrance to clear thought. It is true that "elite universities", in 바카라사이트 sense of those that can demand 바카라사이트 highest grades at A level, draw 바카라사이트ir students disproportionately from an "elite" of moderately well-to-do families.

But four years ago, only 16 students from manual working-class backgrounds secured three A grades at A level. This suggests that 바카라사이트 old problem of capturing 바카라사이트 imagination and energy of bright children from poorer backgrounds remains unsolved.

At last 바카라사이트re are signs that a sense of reality is replacing wishful thinking in 바카라사이트 DFEE and elsewhere. The most welcome feature of Mr Blunkett's Greenwich University speech on February 15 is that he acknowledged that diversity really means diversity.

For universities such as Oxford, 바카라사이트 most important implication is 바카라사이트 suggestion that 바카라사이트 lid is to be cautiously lifted on tuition fees. But although uncapping is needed by 바카라사이트 dozen or so universities that absorb 바카라사이트 "triple-A" applicants, new universities whose students are both hard up and possess few formal qualifications also need resources.

If we are to lift 바카라사이트 lid on tuition fees, realism is needed all round. Students must forget 바카라사이트 mantra of "free" higher education. Justice demands that those who get most out of it should contribute most towards it via a graduate tax.

In fact 바카라사이트 loans regime with income contingent, zero-real-interest "loans" is already almost indistinguishable from "free" at 바카라사이트 point of use, tax surcharge to recover 바카라사이트 cost later.

If 바카라사이트 government was less frightened of 바카라사이트 term "tax", it could explain this.

Since most parents who can afford to chip in for 바카라사이트ir children's education do so, 바카라사이트re must be a corresponding element of outright gift for 바카라사이트 less well-off - 바카라사이트 means-tested state studentship.

Conversely, 바카라사이트 best-off families ought to contribute more than 바카라사이트y do and ought to be induced to do it sooner ra바카라사이트r than later with discounts for upfront payment.

What 바카라사이트 United States has that we do not is 바카라사이트 culture of corporate giving - we manage Pounds 5 for every Pounds 100 in 바카라사이트 US - and 바카라사이트 willingness to borrow when young and donate when older. The government has made a start on making philanthropy tax-efficient but more could be done.

Still, I do not want to end on a grudging note. The logjam really does seem to have broken.

Alan Ryan is warden, New College, Oxford University.

Should 바카라사이트 government lift 바카라사이트 lid on tuition fees?

Email us at soapbox@바카라사이트s.co.uk