Frances Cairncross argues in the Independent for a range of measures that will prevent the UK Higher Education sector becoming the 21st Century equivalent of the British motor industry. She suggests that de-regulating tuition fees, and allowing universities to set their own charges would remove the inequity of the current system where the same fee is charged across the sector for wildly different provision. She goes on to say that “the answer lies in a loan scheme, one that can and should be financed by universities and banks working together, but that will need government underwriting and support.” The way to get round the conundrum of funding students from poorer families is a voucher scheme, she says. FD colleagues may not find it that hard to imagine organisations bearing the names of universities (or consortia of universities) alongside the words “financial services”. Remember you read it here first! Of course The Open University is no stranger to helping students finance their courses through OUSBA...
There is no shortage of comment on the graduate tax idea that Vince Cable expounded in his recent speech and Martin Wolf (our favourite FT economist) joined the debate last Friday supporting the opposition to such a tax, the proceeds of which could not possibly stay hypothecated to universities and would fail to collect from graduates who fled the country. I don’t know where Mick Jagger pays his tax, but Nick Barr’s observation that had a graduate tax been in place, the Rolling Stone would have bank-rolled the whole higher education system times over, is a reminder of the downside of the idea. If you watch nothing else to inform yourself of the options, view Nick’s performance at last year’s UUK debate on Who Pays?
Peter Scott has also made his views known in the Guardian saying that a graduate tax is illogical. Since when has that prevented the imposition of a tax?