Really shocked at myself for thinking this (tuition fees)

Senua, I really wouldn't hold up Buckingham as an example. The guy in charge is a lovely chap who was in the news last year for saying women only get firsts by sleeping with their tutors. And it's a poisonous place to work (someone I know who is unfortunate enough to be on staff there and regrets taking the job).

Why doesn't everyone who received a free university education pay it back, or give the amount (over time) back to their old college, for current and future students?

I've just looked at Buckingham. They charge about £9000 a year, but only for two years.
Perhaps we will get more independent Universities.

Takver - yes, I agree, the balance between independence and government conditions remains to be seen, and of course is bound to change over time. I'd be very surprised if the £9,000 cap lasted for very long though.

I'm not wishing for it senua. I feel pretty neutral about the changes - I think they have some advantages and some disadvantages, and that how those will balance up in detail is impossible to say at this point. Things will definitely be different - and my job along with that of many colleagues is not necessarily secure - but overall and on average I am not convinced that things will be worse, and they might be better.

But I'd have no qualms at all about the students asking hard questions about the quality of their experience. I am confident that in all of the departments I have taught in they would be getting a good deal, even for £9,000 a year.

huddspur, I think there are two key differences

• someone who earns a very large amount will pay more tax over their lifetime over and above what they would have paid as a repayment

• with a loan, relatively wealthy parents could choose to pay their dc's fees, and so leave them with nothing to repay, and a clear start in life. With a tax, that is not possible, and student Cameron jr (just for example) will have to pay, in the same way as student Bloggs jr.

arionater, I do see the appeal of independence, but I fear that the government will continue to impose conditions etc. before they will provide loans.

I don't get the housebuying obsession and have no problem with my daughter paying back her uni fees. I would far rather she bought herself an education than a Barratts House.

Be careful what you wish for, arionater.
Now that there is a direct link between the student and the University, the students are going to start asking hard questions about what exactly they are getting for their money.

The reason many universities support the proposed system rather than a graduate tax is that it makes the link between the student and the university direct, cutting out the treasury/government as a middle man - that could and may create a 'market' as jackstarlight says; it also gives universities a good deal of independence from the state in contrast to a system where they depend upon all the money coming via the government. A lot of people in higher education feel chronically messed around by politicians with little real interest in or understanding of higher education and are attracted by a system that brings greater independence.

Imo - The main practical difference between the graduate tax and the loan for fees approach, is thst the graduate loan introduces a 'market' into HE.

It allows variation in fees which in turn should reflect the true 'value' of the degree.

Whether this is a good thing or a very bad thing depends on your view point.

I think the problem is if you put the graduate tax at the same level as the proposed loan repayment level, then whats the difference between the graduate tax and the current system. You will still be paying money to the Government because you have a degree at a similar rate. The only difference would be that at least with the loan repayment scheme there is an end in sight ie when you've paid it all back whilst with the graduate tax then you pay indefinitely

huddspur, "The browne review investigated a graduate tax and found that it wouldn't generate enough revenue in order to fund universities until about 2040 I think and would in the short term lead to rise in the amount of central spending from Government which we can't afford. I also think it could put very punitive levels of taxation on graduates on low salaries"

I don't understand that argument - since the fees are loaned up front, and only repaid once income is over £21K (or whatever), I don't see how a graduate tax that kicked in at that rate could raise money more slowly.

It could put punitive levels of taxation on graduates with low salaries - it would depend on the level that it was set at and where it kicked in. If it didn't apply unless you earned over £21K, it would be no more punitive than a debt that you have to repay once you earn over £21K.

There is clearly a wider question as to whether society as a whole should fund tertiary education, rather than graduates contributing some or all of the cost, but that is a separate point, I think.

Expat's right

Exactly, WW. The writing's on the wall for fee-free higher ed in Scotland.

Thyere is no point in going to university when it no longer gives you a leg up into a better job / career

so the only point to go would be a vocational course that you have to take at uni level - engineering medicine law etc

there is no point in saddling yourself with debt to do a non-vocational degree

the whole joy of education for education's sake is out of the window

this is what happens when a govt aims for 50% of the population at university - what is the point? Undergraduate degrees are devalued

A graduate tax is a terrible idea - it is a penalty for being educated. That's not how a civilised nation should behave.

'Alfa, I gather we will have the highest tuition fees of any Western developed nation - at least that's what they said on Radio 4 news so I'm inclined to believe it.'

Compared to the US. LOL! Haahahaaaa. And they have to pay up front there, too.

Somehow, it hasn't stopped people from becoming doctors, lawyers, teachers, nurses, etc.

Yes, many have lots of debt. Seem to manage okay.

No society can afford a system of free higher education for a vast percentage of school leavers.

Something's gotta give and since we're not a socialist nation, it ain't gonna be people voting for higher taxes to fund greater services.

Yes, in the past it was free. Well, yeah, in the past there were decent pensions and lower house prices.

The ship has sailed, folks. It's slipped past the horizon and all you'll get for crying over it is maybe a nice ocean view.

It's either this or a graduate tax but going for free isn't sustainable.

And anyone who thinks that will carry on in Scotland or Wales, too, ad infinitum, is kidding themselves.

As Xenia has been pointing out for years, there is no money in caring and women continue to shot themselves in the foot by going into these roles for what is perceived as pin money, if men had to support a family on a social workers wage you can bet your life it would be higher.

The browne review investigated a graduate tax and found that it wouldn't generate enough revenue in order to fund universities until about 2040 I think and would in the short term lead to rise in the amount of central spending from Government which we can't afford. I also think it could put very punitive levels of taxation on graduates on low salaries.

jackstarlight - I think that the starting point would have to be set each year, say based on the previous year's median full time wage (mean is pulled upwards by the small number of ultra high earners).

How to be sure it all goes to universities - good question given how much the Treasury dislikes hypothecated taxes. And of course it would come in after the event, so to speak (though of course it could apply to those of us who already have degrees). But I'm sure that it would be possible to draft suitable legislation.

Takver - That's a good argument for a graduate tax. A few points:

• Can the tax system cope with kicking in at the level you suggested? I thought it needed to be at a standard threshold - i.e the standard tax threshold of about £4k (hopefully going to be raised to £10k).

How do we make sure all the money collected actually goes to the universities?

jackstarlight, I am really unconvinced that graduates now will have that much higher earnings compared to non-graduates, there are just too many of them for that to be the case, IMO.

The high cost of buying a first home is also a concern to the 65% of school leavers who don't get to be university graduates.

True - They might not have graduate loans to pay back - but then they will, on average, be earning £300k less than a graduate over their working lives.