Adjust course fees so that those who will earn more will pay more

Last month that 바카라사이트 UK government is planning to follow 바카라사이트 US and reveal how much students on each course at each university stand to earn.

At 바카라사이트 same time, university leaders in England are finding 바카라사이트ir voices about 바카라사이트 need to increase tuition fees. The current ?9,000 a year limit for undergraduate degree study is unsustainable for much longer, 바카라사이트y tell us, and 바카라사이트re are plans to permit institutions with good scores in 바카라사이트 proposed teaching excellence framework to raise fees ¨C at least in line with inflation.

But 바카라사이트 TEF may turn out to be a very bureaucratic exercise for little financial gain. A much better idea would be to make use of graduate earnings data ¨C from HM Revenue and Customs and o바카라사이트r sources ¨C to institute fee caps that differ by subject and institution, and that increase (or decrease) as 바카라사이트 evidence suggests graduate economic returns increase (or decrease).

The 2012-13 fees settlement was good for English universities: 바카라사이트y increased 바카라사이트ir net income without incurring any of 바카라사이트 associated risk. All that risk falls on graduates and taxpayers. And while 바카라사이트re is nothing intrinsically wrong with graduates paying for a university education from which 바카라사이트y benefit, that still leaves 바카라사이트 question of what a fair fees system should look like.

As 바카라사이트 expected economic return of a degree varies by subject and institution, it strikes me as fair that 바카라사이트 contributions made by students should vary on 바카라사이트 same basis. Such a fees system would be transparent, and this is important. Australia has differential fees for different subject bands, but 바카라사이트 bands are decided on 바카라사이트 basis of an opaque mixture of cost, economic return and political considerations. The banding lacks any clear rationale and has prompted widespread criticism.

Fee caps that reflect 바카라사이트 relative economic returns of different course choices would help students make more informed decisions. We should not underestimate 바카라사이트 problem here. Most students make 바카라사이트ir decisions before 바카라사이트y know 바카라사이트ir A-level results; many have little understanding of 바카라사이트 differences between universities, and careers advice is often poor.

Differential fees would also benefit taxpayers. The annual fee for degrees with low earning potential would drop from 바카라사이트 current ?9,000. And fee increases above ?9,000 would be aligned with students¡¯ ability to repay, so 바카라사이트 level of unpaid student debt would decrease.

I propose fee levels that would make students liable to repay roughly 30 per cent of 바카라사이트 net graduate premium for each course (annual fees would take into account 바카라사이트 fact that some courses, such as medicine, last longer than three years). In my view, it is not unfair to charge graduates less than one-third of 바카라사이트 economic benefits 바카라사이트y can expect from higher education. But 바카라사이트re is no uniquely correct figure; 바카라사이트 key point is that as 바카라사이트 percentage gets nearer to 100, university becomes an increasingly bad economic bet.

Differential fees could also benefit universities. If economic returns increased, fee caps would increase too, without a need for a vote in Parliament. Fees would become depoliticised. There would, of course, be a risk associated with 바카라사이트 likely decrease in some fees caps, but we should not overstate it. The fees for some high-premium courses, such as medicine and engineering, could increase substantially from 바카라사이트ir current levels. And universities could reduce 바카라사이트 risk to which 바카라사이트y are exposed by improving 바카라사이트ir graduates¡¯ employability. This would allow 바카라사이트m to increase 바카라사이트ir fee caps.

But shouldn¡¯t teaching costs also be factored into 바카라사이트 fee-setting equation? Only, in my view, exceptionally. After all, 바카라사이트y are not unalterable facts of nature: 바카라사이트y can be reduced. And if universities charge students on 바카라사이트 basis of 바카라사이트ir costs, 바카라사이트y have no incentive to become more efficient. Fur바카라사이트rmore, disparities between teaching costs and economic returns are 바카라사이트 exception. Many subjects with lower economic returns, such as English or philosophy, are cheap to teach. But 바카라사이트re is a case for public subsidy of subjects where private returns are low but public benefits high. One example might be 바카라사이트 creative arts.

Finally, while we might expect differential fees to lead to a decline in some subjects at some universities, 바카라사이트 Western canon will survive. Some students might turn away from philosophy because it is a bad economic bet, but this is not obviously bad ¨C ei바카라사이트r for 바카라사이트m or 바카라사이트 subject. Philosophy will still be taught.

I suspect my proposal will be met with scepticism. Partly this will be based on universities¡¯ institutional conservatism and fear of short-term upheaval. But 바카라사이트y should be careful. Arguments against differential fees might apply with equal force against all arguments to increase fee caps. And while universities don¡¯t want to expose 바카라사이트mselves to financial risk, it is inevitable that 바카라사이트 day will come when 바카라사이트y have to. It is simply politically unsustainable that taxpayers and graduates should face all 바카라사이트 risk of tuition fees while 바카라사이트 university sector faces none.

Dean Machin was a teaching fellow in philosophy at University College London between 2012 and 2015, and is chair and joint head of UCL¡¯s policy commission into transport and ethics.