Tuition Fees in British Universities Essay Example for Free

Tuition Fees in British Universities EssayReview in in all the arguments for and against the introduction of Tuition Fees for entry into British Universities as reported in the media.IntroductionBritish high education enjoyed the golden days of 70s 80s when the generous abet of taxpayer was even protected from the intrusion of the Government by the autonomous University Grants Committee. During this period, non only there were no cultivation tippytoes but there was also a generous means-tested mandatory grants enjoyed by just about of the students.However, these generous facilities could not be maintained since the beginnings of 1980s and the gradual abolition of keep started with eliminating the overseas students subsidies, limitations in the eligibility for worldly concern- huge social welf ar grants and the freezing of mandatory grants. Eventually grants were totally abolished in 1997 and were replaced by loans. (Johnstone, 2004) The exertion party represented by Mr Charles Clarke, Secretary of State for Education, proposed lawmaking for top-up fees which became law in the Higher Education Act 2004, though it will be implemented in the 2006 2007 academic year.Previously the undergraduate fees in most universities were 1,050. However, by the implementation of differential fees or top-up the universities will be able to charge much more(prenominal)(prenominal). According to the shielder (2002) The new intentions would mean that universities could charge nearby the real cost of canvas, thought to be an average of 5,000 in the UK. But depending on the institution, department and course, it could be much more. More loans would be available to allow in students to pay fees up front.This issue has been debated by different parties and is still facing a lot of opposition despite the fact that it is meant to be implemented in the academic year 2006 2007. In this paper I am going to study the arguments for and against under the following h eadingsThe policy-making DebateUniversities and Students Point of ViewConclusionsThe Political DebateThe Governments debate for top-up tuition fees originates from describing the role and mission of universities and the challenges they face to accomplish their goals. Mr Clarke summarises the ambitions that the Government is planning to achieve by the proposal in his white paper asFirst, our universities have to make better progress in harnessing our knowledge to the process of creating wealth.And, second, they have to extend the opportunities of higher education to all of our population, irrespective of their personal and economic background (Clarks White story Speech)Then he further states the role of universities nationally in adapting to the changing world and effecting change rather than being affected by it.In short, in a world of accelerating change, we all need to understand that our societys principal weapon in ensuring that we master change, rather than surrendering to it , is our education dust, and principally our universitiesThen he identifies the missions of the universities are research, knowledge transfer and, perhaps most important of all, teaching (Clarke, White Paper Speech) Then he describes the challenges universities face to achieve these missions and argues for an endowment device as the best solution for creating a financial regime. However, this will take a long time onward it becomes a reliable resource. Therefore he argues for the short term support and concludesAs countries throughout the world have discovered, requiring students to lend to the cost of their education is the only realistic alternative.The Governments justification is that this is only fair since graduates earn double the earnings of non-graduates and therefore should contribute to the carcass producing the considerable economic benefits they will enjoy as graduates. It is also pointed out that the taxpayer will rightly make a comparison and ask what they benefi t from their support of the system.The Secretary of State for Education announced the details of the Governments proposal, which can be summarised in the following pointsUniversities will be able to substitute fees from 0 to 3,000 but fees can vary between courses, not just betweenDisadvantaged students will get financial support to study what they motivation when theyAll students will also protect by abolishing up-front This means no student or their family has to find tuition fees before they start their course.Students will be helped further by increasing the student loan in line with living Students shouldnt have to rely on credit cards and commercial debt.The bursary system will also be fair on both students and the universities, who will use some of their extra income to provideThe immediate criticism make was that the Labour Party effected the legislation though their manifesto promise regarding tuition fees reads We have no plans to introduce University top-up fees, a nd have legislated to prevent their introduction. The defensive rebuttal made by the Labour Party is that the legislation will not take effect during 2001 2005 Parliament which angered even the supporters of the Labour Party who did not similar this mechanism of defence.On the other hand, the Liberal Democrats Party has a strong counter debate based on a number of points. Firstly they prize that top-up fees are unfair for a number of reasonsThey claim that tuition fees widened the gap between social classes the evidence for which is provided by the independent National Audit Office, which belongs to the In their research report in the Student Income and Expenditure go over 2002-2003 they conclude that The social class gap among those entering higher education is unacceptably wide and has widened.Tuition fees have been a strong disincentive for access to higher education and now with the top-up fees this situation will In fact, this is the conclusion of Professor Claire Callend er of siemens Bank University who conducted a research for the Government. He concludes Top-up fees of 3000 will put even more poor students off university.The poorest students are affected most of all by the debt This is evidential in the Student Income and Expenditure Survey which reports that in 2002-2003, the poorest students affected by the burden of debt were 43% more than the rich students. More evidences were provided by Barclay in a survey conducted in 2004 (Annual Survey of Expected Student Debt) which revealed that the projected average debt on graduation is 12,069 (up 10% on the previous year). Barclays surveys also predicted that debt on graduation will triple by 2010, to 33,708.Another point indicating social classes gap is the fact that poor students take perennial hours of paid Statistics of Students Income and Expenditure Survey of 2002-2003 report that 58% of students took paid work during term time while this was 47% in the survey of 1998-1999. This situation is particularly bad for students on longer courses, e.g. medical studentsAccording to their Sign the Petition article titled Scrap Tuition Fees and Top-up Fees the repayment system is also In their own spoken communicationThe post-graduation repayment system will impose what amounts to a very high marginal rate of income tax (higher than the rate paid by a millionaire) on those to the lowest degree able to pay young graduates just out of college and those working in lower paid jobs in the public services and voluntary sector (disproportionately women and from the heathen minorities). The House of Commons Library concludes that graduates earning as low as 35,115 are already paying a marginal tax rate of 50%, as they pay off their student loans. They will be doing so for a great deal longer to pay off much greater debts if top-up fees are introduced as the Government proposes. The Library figures also reveal that graduates earning as little as 15,000 will pay a marginal tax rate of 42%, more than the current marginal rate for the very highest earners.Secondly, the Liberal Democrats claim that top-up fees will not solve the backup problem. While there is no misgiving that universities need money, the important call into question is where this money should come from. The Governments argument in support of top-up fees is that it will create a more sustainable funding regime, the same justification of for tuition fees which did not sort out the funding problem for universities. Similar results are expected with top-up fees.Top-up fees will not solve the funding problem Everybody agrees that universities need more money. The question is, where should the money come from? The Government says that top-up fees are needed in order to create a more sustainable funding regime. But exactly the same argument was used to justify tuition fees. Instead, funding per student by the taxpayer was cut during Labours offset printing term in office and tuition fees merely plu gged the gap, leaving universities no better off. The same is likely to happen with top-up fees.Thirdly the Liberal Democrats think that the Governments scheme is inefficient.The Government is switching from up-front fees to post-graduation repayment via the student loan system. The cost to the taxpayer of financing this debt will be substantial. The Explanatory Notes published aboard the Higher Education Bill indicate that, in order to raise 1 billion for universities in top-up fees income, the cost to the taxpayer will be in the portion of 445 million (Scrap the Tuition Fees article).Finally the liberal Democrats are of the opinion that education should be free and nobody should be denied access to learning because of their financial abilities. This cannot be achieved unless tuition is free.The Liberal Democrats are challenged by a valid question What would you do? They promise that they would abolish all tuition fees. In other nomenclature they would cancel the present 1125 a nd make sure that no other charge will be considered.In addition they would assist the low-income students by reintroducing maintenance grants to endure living costs and restore the students right to housing and unemployment benefits during summer. The assistance will not be limited to students it will also be extended to universities by providing more resources that will enable them to recruit and retain good staff and improve the quality of services in terms of buildings and libraries etc. A more ambitious resolution is the followingDevelop a 21st century higher education system which would bring together universities, further education and e-learning, undecided up routes to technical and vocational as well as academic qualifications and make it easier for those who wish to study part-time (Scrap Tuition Fees articleHowever, how is this going to be achieved? The Liberal Democrats say that these commitments can be funded by their proposed 50% income tax for those who earn more th an 100,000. Whether this would be sufficient or not is another question to be answered.Universities and Students Point of ViewUniversities UK, a body representing vice-chancellors, is of the opinion that the Education Bill (which is now a law) is necessary and fair. (Brown, 2003) Brown emphasises the need for increased funding for university teaching, which had been reduced over the last two decades resulting in universities facing difficulties to achieve their main goals. He asserts that we risk losing our international reputation for the quality and effectiveness of our higher education system.Another Universities UK authority asked to comment by the BBC News commented as followsLets look at what is actually being proposed in the UK. The package here offers students no up-front fees, loan forgiveness at 25 years, no real rate of interest, a generous grant and bursary system and a cap on the fee itself. By these means, the UK scheme seeks to avoid the problems which others have fou nd elsewhere. What is being proposed in the UK will ensure that the poorest students will be better off while studying under these arrangements than they are now and they are also effectively indemnified against low earnings after graduation.Therefore, we can conclude that universities support the Governments proposal and see it as the most appropriate solution. Brown in his articles dismissed the counter argument of the Conservatives and concluded that the Governments proposal is fair and offers a sustainable solutionUniversities are asking for a major increase in funding, partly from public funds and partly from individuals. Given the scale of the funding gap, Universities UK thinks its fair to ask those who benefit most from higher education graduates to contribute proportionally more to its costs. While the higher earnings of graduates mean that the mass of UK taxpayers who earn over 100,000 have benefited from higher education, a significant proportion of this group have no t. We therefore consider this solution to be a relatively poorly targeted way of raising the necessary money, compared with the form of progressive taxation offered by the Government proposals which targets only those who have been to university.On the other hand, students represented by National Union of Students, seem to be against the to-up fees scheme and are pointing out the fall in applications for universities which they describe as extremely worrying. In the words of NUS president Kat Fletcher, The drop in applications is extremely worrying, and suggests that top-up fees and the debt they represent are deterring potential students.According to Mandy Telford, National Union of Students presidentIf top-up fees come in, then more and more students will be forced to choose their course based on its cost and therefore put themselves at a disadvantage before they even graduate. Increased fees will mean some employers will look at the cost of a course rather than a graduates abili ty. Furthermore, if the Government does not provide a decent student funding package, then those students forced to work long hours in paid work will be ineffective to get involved in CV-enhancing extra-curricular activities. This will further widen the gulf between the haves and have-nots on campus and after graduation.It is obvious that the students are against the scheme and are upset about consequences they portrait whether they are actual or assumed ones.ConclusionsIt is definite that the scheme proposed by the Government is facing a lot of opposition in the main from obviously the Liberal Democrats, the UKs well organized National Student Unions, the Labour Partys vocal political left. This is so despite the fact that some parts of the Governments proposal seem fair and plausible.It would have been in the interest of all parties concerned to remove the issue from the political agenda and refer it to professionals to study and recommend feasible solutions.ReferencesJohnstone , D. Bruce (2004) Fear and Loathing of Tuition Fees An American Perspective on Higher Education Finance in the UK downloaded on 12 declination fromhttp//www.gse.buffalo.edu/org/inthigheredfinance/Publications/Fear%20and%20Loathing%20of%20Tuition%20Fees%20PDF.pdfLiberal Democrats (scraptuitionfees.com) Why do the Liberal Democrats oppose tuition fees and to-up fees? downloaded on 11 December 2006 from http//www.scraptuitionfees.com/pages/Why.phtmlWikipedia, the free encyclopedia Top-up fees downloaded on 11 December 2006 from http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-up_feesCurtis, Polly Clarke comes out fighting over fees -Guardian Unlimited (November 26 2003) downloaded on 11 December 2006 from http//politics.guardian.co.uk/queensspeech2003/story/0,13994,1093724,00.htmlNewspaper Article Students motivation Top-Up Fees Looked at as Applications Fall The Birmingham Post February 16, 2006.Newspaper Article Charles Clarkes statement to the Commons Guardian Unlimited (January 22 2 003) downloaded on 11 December 2006 from http//education.guardian.co.uk/specialreports/tuitionfees/story/0,,880051,00.htmlNigel Brown (2003) Whats it worth? The case for variable graduate contributions A report for Universities UK Universities UKBBC News Viewpoints Tuition fees downloaded on 11 December 2006 from http//news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3583401.stmWebb, Steve Liberal Democrat MP (11 August 2003) Current Features Top-up Fees Cause Universal Concern downloaded on 11 December 2006 from http//www.libdems.org.uk/parliament/feature.html?id=5133navPage=features.htmlGuardian Unlimited (November 26 2003) Paying the price in education downloaded on 11 December 2006 from http//education.guardian.co.uk/students/tuitionfees/story/0,12757,1093673,00.htmlSing Gill, Parmjit MP (25 January 2005) Adjournment Debate University top-up and tuition fees downloaded on 11 December 2006 fro http//www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/parliament/showBriefing.asp?id=20