Public Funding is being cut, it but the financial aid required to support students is being increased.
The Review has recommended a cut of c. £2.5bn from the current teaching grant and £0.4bn from maintenance grants, but this is offset by a £1.9bn increase in funding in fee loans (section 5.7, page 44). The outcome of this is that the funding will closer follow the student. The remaining £0.7bn teaching grant will follow higher-cost subjects at Band A (Clinical), Band B (such as Sciences) and “potentially” Band C (such as Modern Languages, explicitly mentioned, Mathematics, Art and Music).

Graduates will have the best value unsecured loan they will ever get.
Even now, students pay nothing up front for their education. The idea that an 18 year old is saddled with debt is a misconception that both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats used to gain students’ votes. Now, Labour are using it. The debt only gets repaid when graduates (not students) are earning above the repayment threshold. Currently this threshold is below the minimum wage so Browne is right to propose it gets increased to £21k. If you consider that the estimated value of a degree is in excess of £120k over a career, a loan of £30k will still leave the graduate with a net profit. If they fail to earn above the threshold, then clearly their degree was not as valuable to their career earnings (not even starting on the life-skills that university life can provide) and the Government will write off interest and, after 30 years, any remaining debt.

The only significant difference is that there will be more incentive for people to pay off their loan if the interest rate is higher. The proposal is that the Government no longer underwrites the loan by setting the rate at the cost to them to borrow. Many graduates will want to pay off more which should provide Government with more repayment income, but more importantly see the demographic of those with a remaining loan being those people who need it most.

Students will have more choice.
I realise this statement could be controversial. Some arguments have already been made that “elite” universities will try to pile in the students to certain subjects so that their teaching costs can be lower. The Browne Review quite clearly states that universities will have to do more to access the funding that follows their students. This includes having clearer measures on Widening Participation and on teaching quality. School careers services will need to ensure they can engage with their A-level students to put into context the importance of Student-Staff Ratios so that where a university is trying to ‘pile in the students’ their quality scores will be lower and students should be actively encouraged to consider study elsewhere.

Universities can offer more places.
There are currently a significant number of qualified applicants who cannot get places at University. The current hard limit is imposed by Government as the teaching grant is relative to the number of students being taught, with a fixed cost per student. The Review recommends changing this so that the cost per student is what changes, although my interpretation is that this variation will only apply to subjects with block funding.

A Graduate Tax or complete Government Grant would not be better.
Currently, the Student Loans Company can require anyone with a loan to repay it, regardless of where they are working. A Graduate Tax can only be recovered from tax-payers in this country, and if the State pays for students to study here who then emigrate, as a nation we do not benefit from the investment we have made through our taxes. This proposal protects the investment. In addition, I believe a graduate tax is unfair to people who easily earn enough to repay the cost of their tuition, and as such the protection offered to low-paid graduates would have to be removed. There is a benefit to going to University but it is not infinite, which is what a tax would be.

This is quite a critical argument for Higher Education – after all, not everyone goes to University, yet to those people who want to they believe it should be free. But what about everyone who didn’t go? Are they happy that a proportion of the population should pay for it?

I think the Browne Review makes a lot of sensible suggestions, and in this context the one I pick up on is the fact that funding should continue to have a private contribution, which for HE can be linked to a clear benefit (higher income). My personal views are that state funding should largely support essential services which help everyone, including primary and secondary schools, the fire service and the police. University, though, is a choice. Once you turn 18 you enter the “real world”, usually completely unprepared for it, and you either land in a profession or you have an idea about what you want to do. University does, to a large extent, prepare you for a career but not necessarily a profession. An apprentice may be getting similar training but would be paying for it by virtue of a low income. There may be other sources of income but ultimately it gets paid for.

What started me out on this was that Browne introduces the idea of giving. If you have fully repaid your loan, and are still benefiting from your education, then consider giving more. Normally, charitable donations are given by people who can see a benefit to what is being done. You can easily understand that medical charities are so popular as nearly everyone can link an illness or passing of someone close to them to a particular cause, and in most cases there is a charity trying to prevent it. The problem is where you cannot see that link clearly.

I would love to live in a world where we had lower tax and people either paid more for a service they used or gave voluntarily to charity. The only problem is, we don’t have that culture in the UK. I give to the University of Birmingham because I see the value of HE and believe my money will make a difference. I also support music charities, because I have a passion for it, but I wouldn’t expect that to be paid by the State.

Music can also be supported by fees to concerts. You don’t actually quite know what you’re getting, but you can judge its value at the end. Here is where HE is no different. Where it is though, is the size of the investment. Think how much if would cost if you had to buy all of your CDs and pay for all of your gig tickets aged 18. Would it really be much different to the cost of going to University?

My point is this. Nothing is free and yet we live in a country where we expect it to be. The line between a public service and a private benefit is being influenced by what we expect to be funded, but forget ourselves when considering who is paying for it all. I admit, it is difficult to work out who is benefiting and by how much when you’re 18, but when you’re 40 or 50 you should be able to look back at your degree and work out where you would have been without it. If you gave that back to your university, we wouldn’t need as much public funding, and students wouldn’t have to pay for their education up front.

So, try to work out where you’d be if you hadn’t been to University, value it and give some of the difference back to your alma mater. You’ll be helping all taxpayers and students alike.

I think the idea of a £10,000 a year tuition fee scares people, yet that is a very round-about annual fee for a private school and it costs universities significantly more than that to educate students. At present, the rest of the funding comes from government or research council grants, but I think the HE sector needs some more transparency for people to see the true cost of higher education, rather than believe that universities get by on £3,225 a year per student. This transparency can extend further too, beyond degrees to include any vocational or professional development traning provided to make people better qualified or more able to do their jobs. If the true cost is clear from the start then it makes it easier for us to talk about who is paying for it.

The student loan system has the advantage that students have to take some responsibility for the funding of their education; the rate is more than competitive and they only have to repay it when they are benefitting financially. However, it does not show how much the state has paid for them and absolutely does not put any pressure on employers to even acknowledge the expense. I think there is scope for the student loan scheme to be extended so that anyone undertaking training can apply for it to be paid for through that system. Ultimately, they have the responsibility to pay it back anyway and as long as there are safeguards on the system it could work very well.

A lot is spoken about the value of a degree, however this is often done in terms of employability and seen as a requirement to get a better job. However this isn’t really the case, a good degree, or indeed good vocational training, gives someone the skills necessary to pursue a long and productive career. This training shouldn’t stop after three years – it should continue throughout someone’s career, as they look to add new skills and take on new opportunities. Some employers shirk all responsibility for professional development, however some have very well developed CPD or graduate entry schemes and this is to be commended.

The bottom line for me is that employers should contribute. They benefit directly from having an employee who has more qualifications and better skills. However, this benefit is clearly restricted to the time the employer will employ this person. A lot of risk exists in training staff who could then move to a different employer as soon as the training has been completed. I don’t believe the right solution is to contract people to ensure that any investment can be redeemed before the employee moves on. Something needs to be done across the board, or specifically with respect to the individual’s debt. Either an employer tax, which could be written off for companies already investing heavily in graduate schemes or CPD, or an employer contribution to the student loan. This does not have to be significantly high (I, for example, currently only pay £72 a month back), but could easily be matched by an employer and would half my student loan.

This transparency should help us as a nation understand what the true value of higher education is. At present, it is estimated that the financial benefit over the course of your career is around £100,000. If your education costs you £30,000 then you stand to benefit anyway. However, so does your employer, and surely they should be as responsible as you are for paying for it?