to think a graduate tax is a very bad idea

[olderandwider]

Just read that a graduate tax is now Government's preferred option for funding universities. Lord Browne is reporting later in year on his findings, so the idea may stay on the drawing board - but still, I need to rant.

1. How will this grad tax be ring-fenced so the universities get the money? What is to stop Gov just treating this grad tax as an extra income stream to pay for new pet projects or pre-election sweeteners?

2)It will encourage a brain drain as graduates go abroad to avoid paying the tax.

3. The idea that graduates earn on average over a lifetime £100,000 more than non-grads presumably is based on figures pre-dating the huge rise in the 90s of graduates (because graduates of the 90s haven't completed their careers and won't for several decades so their earnings are unknown.)

So, perhaps the graduate earnings premium has been diluted to the point that for many, a degree is not longer a guarantee of far better earnings. Doesn't that make the grad tax very unfair?

4. Once you put a tax in place, it usually stays there. And goes up. Will students know before they enrol at uni what their extra tax rate will be? Or are they signing a blank cheque for the Gov to dip into their earnings whenever it feels a bit short?

Anyone agree with me? Or is this actually fairer than, say, allowing unis to charge more for tuition fees in return for providing burseries for poorer students.

(Whispers) Perhaps the place to start is to get rid of the number of useless degrees coming from former polys middle of the road universities which feed into pointless public sector jobs, which seem to have been created to house the swelling tide of useless graduates?

As an example, I know a man who took a degree in American Studies from the third ranked University in the city we live in, which used to be the poly. It included a year in America, which seemed to involve him going on lots of road trips, to judge from his mySpace blog.

Now, I'm not denying that this was a fantastic life-experience, although since he was twenty five at the time, one could argue he was a bit past needing a gap year...

He now works for the local council... where he's gone to Pakistan three times (all fully funded) to build "community links" and was recently spotted in our town centre in a silly tshirt, asking people to fill in pledge cards saying what they were going to do to help the community.

For this, he's paid upwards of £25k a year, in the North of England.

It's harsh, I know, but his degree and his job are a nonsense in the current climate. We're struggling in our area to keep funding the local maternity unit, which is rated as one of the best in the country, but money is being spent printing pledge cards and t-shirts for a man with no real grip on reality and whose degree is in American history and politics, not even those of the country he's working for!

If the money loaned to him by the government had been invested more wisely, we could have another nurse or teacher, scientist or engineer, and their salary would be covered by what's being paid to him.

And even a graduate tax/loan repayment is pointless, because it's just shuffling money from government department to another.

If fewer, far fewer, people went to Uni, the degree would be worth something again, which would justify taxing graduates (although the higher salary - higher income tax thing makes me iffy about this!) Fewer courses equals fewer students to support, so get rid of the dross altogether, thus equalling fewer subsidised housing places needed in Halls, fewer lecturers etc. That's a big drain off the Universities altogether.

Then up the amount of subsidy per student, hike the entry requirements and fund the remainder to the hilt. High quality, well-trained graduates are the result and they can then go on to earn the salaries needed to pay back large amounts of tax and/or contributions to their alma mater.

With only, say, 20 universities in the country, it wouldn't be hard to organise a system so that the contributions to a student loan were paid back directly to the university in question.

And, yes, some degrees could be done in far less time but not all. Mine couldn't have been (Chem/Maths dual honours).

Oh, and don't get me started on EMA!!

What about EU students? Presumably they don't count as foreign students so don't have to pay up front. They would access the free degree, then disappear off and avoid the graduate tax.

The trouble with all these government initiatives is that they don't appear to have any criminals and scammers sitting on their committees. These members are vital in my opinion to highlight all the ways in which people could potentially get around things. Ministers and civil servants appear to believe that we all live in this law-abiding naive society where no-one looks for a loophole and no-one would dream of cheating.

"I can't see the electorate being overjoyed at the prospect of funding thousands of average students through average courses."

As a matter of interest: why not?
You fund kids through GCSE and A Level. Why shouldn't degrees etc be funded? Where (and why) is the cut-off?

I didn't suggest limiting the number of students, btw.

Governments and economists argue we need lots of graduates as we are a 'knowledge economy' i.e. we don't make stuff any more and even if a British company does come up with a bright idea, it's much cheaper to have it made in a developing country. So the country needs to encourage people into higher education.

My husband got a degree part time at former poly, working class boy from a council estate, now has an msc from another former poly and earns far more than anyone I know who went to a red brick and is a highyl skilled professional.

I wish people would drop the snobbery about former polys

I wonder though (and maybe I'm just being a bit awkward here), if e.g. an English/history/media studies degree can be done in 2 years, but a science/engineering/maths degree could not, whether the courses for those subjects should not be made more challenging?

I also think not all students should be treated equally in this respect. Students studying for subjects where we have a shortage of people should not have to pay a graduate tax.

Well, I suspect maths could be, actually. All of the maths students seemed to have as much free time as I did! Those who didn't were studying things that required them to physically be there for a lot of time doing lab work and so on.

I don't think it's necessarily challenging vs easy. I put in plenty of hours of work at home and in the library but I was able to fit it in as I chose and all it required was a pen, paper and book.

I can see what you mean about shortage subjects, but shortage subjects tend to be the time-consuming ones which cost a lot of money. Where is the money going to come from to pay for these degrees if they're not being subsidised by the cheap arts ones? Which people would presumably be put off from studying if they knew they had a graduate tax attached.

I did media studies. Not sure it could be compressed into two years - there's an awful lot of professional stuff involved, including producing an entire magazine for a client in the third year as well as writing a dissertation.

We did a teenage mag specialising in sex ed for a charity, caused a bit of a hoo-ha when the Mail got hold of it. Dissertation was something like 10,000 words on the role of the tabloids in the 1992 election (Kelvin Mackenzie was fab and gave me a lot of his time).

Everyone on the course spent a lot of time doing work experience as well as working to earn money. Work experience is the only way to get a job in the media.

Previous years including studying the history and politics of the UK and international media, training in professional print and broadcast technology, libel law from the guy who wrote the set text book, interviewing, writing news and features, and a lot of critical theory and post-modern philosophy that I have entirely forgotten. There was probably more to it but it's a long time ago now.

There's probably even more involved these days with the explosion of the internet.

YANBU

Just did a straw poll at my office - (where everyone, admittedly, is a graduate) and there is mass disgust.

As a graduate, I am a) paying back my student loan and, bar maternity leave, will be doing so again. I am also paying tax on my earnings, which feels like a bloody big chunk of money each month. And now I have to pay another tax for having, what, the ridiculous notion that I might get further education and not be penalised for it?

When so many jobs require a 2.1, not getting a degree just isn't an option for many people. I work in recruitment, and ALL the graduate schemes require a 2.1. There is an ENTIRE graduate recruitment sector that non-graduates just aren't welcome in. To side-step that is very difficult.

to be fair in retail you can actually work up the ladder aswell but there tends to be a degree (arf) of snobbery that the graduate managers are 'better' than the non graduate management

slacksally, I'm not sure how the shortage subjects would be funded - it would probably require some investment from the Government (which would pay off in the long run). Something along the lines that the NHS funds degrees in certain subjects (such as Biomedical Sciences) and people going onto certain types of teaching course (e.g. physics teaching) get a small stipend to help them. However, this would make the "hard" subjects that lots of people want to avoid much more attractive whilst making those people who want to do some nonsense degree from some third-rate "university" think much harder about their reasons for doing so.

Still, I am fortunate enough that I am from the generation where we still received grants to go to university (albeit very small ones).

"people who want to do some nonsense degree from some third-rate "university" think much harder about their reasons for doing so."

Far more of 'those people' will be kids from schools where most pupils don't get very good exam results. What you are suggesting amounts to discrimination against poorer students.

'Third rate' universities - have you personally assessed the standard of teaching? You might be surprised. Some of the newer universities offer world-class courses in particular specialist areas.

'Their reasons for doing so'. Well, the older universities don't tend to offer such a wide range of vocational courses. If we want graduates in work and paying taxes, especially in new technologies, we need the new universities as well as the told. I'm all in favour of Ancient Greek, btw, don't go around telling classicists their degrees are a waste of public money. Thinking and the spread of knowledge is A Good Thing. But there are lots of things to think about, especially in a society where technology is changing so dramatically.

edam - did I say I was talking about ex-polys/newer universities? I wasn't getting at some older vs. newer debate. However, some courses are less well regarded than others or are about as much use as a plastic frying pan. Other courses equip people with essential skills with which to enter into a vocation.

I just think that subjects where we have a skills shortage should be encouraged (as this will contribute to the country's economy in the long run), whereas subjects which are not in high demand are perhaps luxuries which should not be funded by the tax payer.

Does that make sense?

And btw, some skills which are in high demand do not require very high A'levels. We have a shortage of chemistry teachers for instance in this country (to the point where in some schools kids are being taught chemistry by e.g. biology graduates), but because no-one wants to study chemistry as it is perceived as hard, the entry requirements for chemistry are comparatively low. That is just one example.

I just think people should go to university with an idea of what their degree will do for them career-wise. I think the days are gone when doing a degree for the hell of it is seen as a public right, but why penalise someone (by forcing a graduate tax on them) for doing a degree which will in the long run benefit the entire economy by providing people trained in desperately needed skills.

'He is basically a communist in Lib Dem clothing.

PMSL he really si nto! Not aht i've met him but nothing in his autobio to suggest that at all

Am a recentish grad and was taught to view student loa repayments as a tax on having received a higher education, but whilst this wouldnt have put me off I do agree this might lead to a brain drain, even at a pre-graduation stage.

Even less mainstream degrees are useful as a ticket.

I did a degree that whilst old fashioned and traditonal also has a ridicukously low employment rate: now things happened to me not linked to the course but had they not, I would now, like most of my course mates, now be a qualified teacher. The degree was the ticket not teh destination.

Instead I am hoing in a few yeaqrs it will enable socail work conversionl had I done a vocational degree I woudl not have the same flexibility.

DH otoh is studying a well regarded degree in techonolgy and absolutely it's right for him for very different reasons- mainly the rpactical quals accummulated along the way( after a year he is already a qualified sparky, at teh end of this year it's rigging and next IIRC er- pyrotechnics. ... stage and lighting degrree, more X Factor background than Am Dram though)

It's not just about the degree you take but what else it offers, either via the 'ticket' factor, or avenues studied en route.

re: condensing degrees into 2 years -

i don't think this is wise - even in the case of arts degrees where the amount of tuitiion is minimal, you are meant to be doing reading outside of lectures (which, if I'd done it all would have been full time hours without question)

and much of the problem is some of the egrees which we need more people to be doing cost more in real terms - Chemistry degree with 20 hours of tuition time per week with much expensive equipment used costs vastly more than any book-based arts degree -

universiies are droppin chemistry for cheaper to run courses - why don't they look to cut the number of low-value courss.

incidentally, i fail to see the value of arts degrees with low entry requirements - if the standard of e.g. an English course, is not higher that A level - what is doing being called a degree?

Oh, OK Unseen, just look as if it was an older/newer thing, glad it isn't.

England, who says English degrees aren't any more demanding than a A-level? I have very vague memories of considering applying to do English, with English A-level, and I'm damn sure the degree syllabus was a lot more stretching! (Sometimes wonder where I'd be if I hadn't changed my mind and gone to read law and hated it, tbh.)

"i don't think this is wise - even in the case of arts degrees where the amount of tuitiion is minimal, you are meant to be doing reading outside of lectures (which, if I'd done it all would have been full time hours without question)"

It's all a bit self-fulfilling, though. Leaving aside the "Philip Larkin did a two year wartime degree, as did Kingsley Amis, and they turned out as decent enough writers" argument, at the moment students are only funded for about 30 weeks: halls of residence are only available, student loans only fund said halls of residence, etc, etc. So that's 90 weeks. A lot of people then go on to say "ah, but people need the other 20 weeks to work in order to fund their studies". Yes, they do, but they also need to fund the 60 weeks of holidays. Working 45 weeks a year (like when you're at school) for two years would be a hell of a lot cheaper, so the inability to get part-time work as much may balance out.

We've had two year degrees and four (I think) year medical qualifications, 1940--1948, and the products of those courses were the backbone of post-war medicine and academia.

Ah we all have those if only's Edam!

I started out on a nurse training scheme, only it happened to be a trial that soon was disocntinued and was so crap that after 18 months I couldn't take any more playing chess with strangers and decided to get a real job.

Was right decision for me but still, if i ahd faced up to Mum and gone to Uni instead....

Ah well LOL

WRT to those English degrees, I know mine and DH's universities were really ehavily moderated by exam boards wrt to standards so although they take less star candidates many palces are amde up by people with Access or work experince and then filled via clearing etc, so still people with (hopefully) potential, just not your classic aged 18 star pupil.

My 2:1 may not match that from the rigours of one from Oxbridge but is still abocve A level by a long way (and I was offered bristol on same access grades so it's not just the newer places)

I don't know about oher Uni's but ourrs simply isn;t avaialble outside the usual terms- tyhis year the Ryder Cup guys have rented it. Dh's already struggles becuase they ahve so many groups using a specialist dedicated workspace.

I;d happily have done mine in 2 years (actually perhaps no- I needed to work around chidlren, like many students do, but theortetically YKWIM) but University was unable to manage it I guess.

"I don't know about oher Uni's but ourrs simply isn;t avaialble outside the usual terms- tyhis year the Ryder Cup guys have rented it. Dh's already struggles becuase they ahve so many groups using a specialist dedicated workspace."

Yeah, but that's again self-fulfilling. With the students only there 30 weeks a year, they'd be nuts to leave the halls fallow the rest of the time. And they always rented them out or used them for conferences, back to the sixties at least.

There is an argument against more intense degrees, which is that it would further encourage universities to deliver teaching with postgrads and teaching fellows/associates, whilst researchers disappear from undergraduates' view. I don't know how you solve that.

They use them for professional events- it's a specific rare 'sapce', a totally blacked out room equipped for lighting and sound technology.

just what those specific events are though I couldn;t tell you but they get the course an awful lot of sponsored equipment to use.

Universities are also still busy during the undergraduate holidays with e.g. research activities, which still bring in a significant amount of income. (Academics don't get the same holidays as the undergrads!)

Other countries such as America and Germany have been investing in research during the economic downturn. I think it is a shame that the UK does not value this significant side of academic activity in the same way as other countries. Eventually however if universities are turned into basically pure teaching institutions, many of the best regarded academics will go elsewhere and the UK will be left with a sub-standard higher education system.

tokyonambu, thank you, you've expressed what I wanted to say much more eloquently than I did.