A "reality check" in the BBC suggest that the government would have to put aside an extra £11bn a year to pay for tuition fees, although once those who do not pay back their loans is factored in, this falls to £8bn a year.
However, surely there is a very real possibility that this move will lead to a large rise in the numbers who go to college/university? If so, the provision of yet more free tuition fees is not the only cost that will need to be financed by the public purse, you will have more people not contributing to the economy and paying no taxes for another three years.
The "ageing population" is always the focus when discussing the pressures on the public purse but there is also a big problem at the other end of working life. Most pensioners today started work and paying taxes at 16 or 18. Today, far more do not make any contribution until they are in their early 20s. This would be ok if higher education made people into high earners but it often does not.
Labour's policies are nonsensical but I am not a fan of the Tory policies either. What we really need is subsidy for the students who will benefit our economy, the best and brightest doing the courses in the areas our economy needs and where there is high demand - doctors, nurses, us IT geeks, scientists, engineers etc. For the rest, maybe it makes no sense to have a common fee; some universities provide better value than others.
A few links:
https://www.theguardian.com/educatio...ion-fee-pledge
Just graduating from university is no longer enough to get a job
Thousands of new graduates out of work, figures show - Telegraph
Students gaining good degrees with 'little or no work', says Which? - Telegraph
Too many universities teach pointless degrees that offer nothing to their students or society
However, surely there is a very real possibility that this move will lead to a large rise in the numbers who go to college/university? If so, the provision of yet more free tuition fees is not the only cost that will need to be financed by the public purse, you will have more people not contributing to the economy and paying no taxes for another three years.
The "ageing population" is always the focus when discussing the pressures on the public purse but there is also a big problem at the other end of working life. Most pensioners today started work and paying taxes at 16 or 18. Today, far more do not make any contribution until they are in their early 20s. This would be ok if higher education made people into high earners but it often does not.
Labour's policies are nonsensical but I am not a fan of the Tory policies either. What we really need is subsidy for the students who will benefit our economy, the best and brightest doing the courses in the areas our economy needs and where there is high demand - doctors, nurses, us IT geeks, scientists, engineers etc. For the rest, maybe it makes no sense to have a common fee; some universities provide better value than others.
A few links:
In 1960, only 5% of young people entered higher education; today it is about 40%, with around 400,000 new English undergraduates each year.
Just graduating from university is no longer enough to get a job. (Has chart)
A third of working graduates took jobs as cleaners, office juniors and road sweepers six months after leaving university
A report from Which?, the consumer group, raised serious concerns over the value of higher education courses following the imposition of £9,000 annual tuition fees. The study, which was based on a series of large-scale surveys of students and recent graduates, found average workloads of under 30 hours a week - 25 per cent less than the recommended level set in national guidelines.
Too many universities teach pointless degrees that offer nothing to their students or society
Comment