It is a sad day indeed when a Minister of the Crown, the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, Dr Vince Cable MP, can advocate that a Member of Parliament should be able to disregard a promise, a signed pledge, an oath, a word and his bond, recorded in black and white, because it now no longer suits them. I believed until today that whilst politicians may occasionally make mistakes, they were fundamentally people of honour, of substance who were honest and who would take a moral stand upon their word if it was given in good faith. Mr Cable has today shattered that illusion. To every Liberal Democrat MP, either vote as you pledged or resign your post.
I applaud those Liberal Democrats who have taken a stand and stood up for their moral principles of honesty and respect for the electorate. But to those Members of the House of Commons who intend to ignore their mandate, to break their word and trample over the foundations of democracy, I and all of the student movement condemn you and declare you unfit to govern and undeserving of any trust whatsoever. You have sold your souls for power. You have betrayed the nation.
Vice President Education - Chris Dingle
Tuesday, 12 October 2010
Sunday, 26 September 2010
The Death of Widening Participation?
The higher education sector is currently undergoing a time of significant uncertainty and is under threat more than it has been for many years. The higher education sector has been steadily expanding since the first stones were laid at Bologna, Paris and Oxford up until the present day; however economic difficulties and the need to balance the budget deficit are now about to take their toll on higher education.
Shortly Lord Browne, the former CEO of British Petroleum, will report the findings and recommendations of his committee on tuition fees. It is widely expected that he will recommend that the tuition fee cap be increased to £7,000 per year. This is approximately a doubling of the current cap and could raise average student debt to levels that are unprecedented and akin to a mortgage.
The effect that such an increase will have, will be utterly devastating for higher education and will have a huge effect on Kingston University. Kingston University, before 1992 Kingston Polytechnic, has a history of widening participation in higher education. We have traditionally been an institution committed to providing students from non traditional university backgrounds with a university experience that allows them to grow and improves social mobility. A recent report by the National Union of Students and HSBC found that up to 70% of students may be deterred from university by £7,000 tuition fees. The students that will be deterred are our students and we will suffer as an institution as a result.
But the wider question is one of why do we have universities? Art 2 of the First Protocol of the European Convention of Human Rights guarantees the right to education for all; yet the recent A-level results saw over 150,000 students turned away from universities. In a time of economic difficulty can we fund education for all?
The reality is that we cannot currently afford this system, as our funding is insufficient for the task; but raising tuition fees to these levels will decimate the higher education system and universities like Kingston will have to change their entire ethos to cope with a new world and support students with unprecedented levels of debt. It can only be hoped that we do not lose our identity as a university in the process.
The NUS graduate tax proposal is one that we as a students’ union whole heartedly support. It is progressive and does not hang a noose around the neck of students, in the way a mortgage like tuition debt will. The NUS proposal links earnings to contributions and places a cap on the maximum contribution. It is fair and progressive and will allow the higher education sector and universities like Kingston, to remain organisations that bring change and improve society.
The election of Ed Miliband and the recent events at the Liberal Democrat conference present our society with a golden opportunity. Every liberal democrat MP signed the NUS pledge to vote against a rise in fees. Students who voted for them will not forget this! Ed Miliband who has declared himself in favour of a graduate tax would seem to make a potential ally for the liberals, who at their conference voted to explore cross party support for a graduate tax. This could be the first rebellion of the coalition in the making. The NUS will now certainly look to exploit this.
The government are now going to have to look at Lord Browne’s recommendations and it can only be hoped that Mr Cable and Mr Willet’s look at the long term effects that a tuition fee increase will have when making their decision. British universities have a long and proud tradition of excellent teaching and research that should be protected and should continue long into the future. We at Kingston, hope that we can continue to bring a university education, to all who wish to pursue it.
Christopher Dingle – Vice President Education – Kingston University Students’ Union
Shortly Lord Browne, the former CEO of British Petroleum, will report the findings and recommendations of his committee on tuition fees. It is widely expected that he will recommend that the tuition fee cap be increased to £7,000 per year. This is approximately a doubling of the current cap and could raise average student debt to levels that are unprecedented and akin to a mortgage.
The effect that such an increase will have, will be utterly devastating for higher education and will have a huge effect on Kingston University. Kingston University, before 1992 Kingston Polytechnic, has a history of widening participation in higher education. We have traditionally been an institution committed to providing students from non traditional university backgrounds with a university experience that allows them to grow and improves social mobility. A recent report by the National Union of Students and HSBC found that up to 70% of students may be deterred from university by £7,000 tuition fees. The students that will be deterred are our students and we will suffer as an institution as a result.
But the wider question is one of why do we have universities? Art 2 of the First Protocol of the European Convention of Human Rights guarantees the right to education for all; yet the recent A-level results saw over 150,000 students turned away from universities. In a time of economic difficulty can we fund education for all?
The reality is that we cannot currently afford this system, as our funding is insufficient for the task; but raising tuition fees to these levels will decimate the higher education system and universities like Kingston will have to change their entire ethos to cope with a new world and support students with unprecedented levels of debt. It can only be hoped that we do not lose our identity as a university in the process.
The NUS graduate tax proposal is one that we as a students’ union whole heartedly support. It is progressive and does not hang a noose around the neck of students, in the way a mortgage like tuition debt will. The NUS proposal links earnings to contributions and places a cap on the maximum contribution. It is fair and progressive and will allow the higher education sector and universities like Kingston, to remain organisations that bring change and improve society.
The election of Ed Miliband and the recent events at the Liberal Democrat conference present our society with a golden opportunity. Every liberal democrat MP signed the NUS pledge to vote against a rise in fees. Students who voted for them will not forget this! Ed Miliband who has declared himself in favour of a graduate tax would seem to make a potential ally for the liberals, who at their conference voted to explore cross party support for a graduate tax. This could be the first rebellion of the coalition in the making. The NUS will now certainly look to exploit this.
The government are now going to have to look at Lord Browne’s recommendations and it can only be hoped that Mr Cable and Mr Willet’s look at the long term effects that a tuition fee increase will have when making their decision. British universities have a long and proud tradition of excellent teaching and research that should be protected and should continue long into the future. We at Kingston, hope that we can continue to bring a university education, to all who wish to pursue it.
Christopher Dingle – Vice President Education – Kingston University Students’ Union
Wednesday, 25 August 2010
ARISTOTLE OR SOMETHING FRESH?
Allegedly the first example of Higher Education we have is that of Plato's Academy in Athens. The work by the master Raphael in 1510 depicts this 'ideal' of a higher form of learning. But is it ideal? Even then the great men that were Plato and Aristotle would wear a pouch on their back to collect money for the lectures they gave. The ideal was fee paying! Something that we as a movement have never fully supported.
But is the ideal from 330 BC the ideal for today? What is the ideal of Higher Education?
Growing up my idea of university centred on the hallowed grounds of Oxford and Cambridge and my idea of perfection was those institutions. They were elitist and exclusive and to reach those heights was an accolade that would make my family proud. However, being somewhat distracted by rugby, alcohol and the other delights of the world, I did not perform as I should have in my A-levels.
After taking a year and reassessing what I wanted to do. I applied for Law at Kingston. My family could not be any more proud of me were I studying at Oxford, Cambridge or Harvard rather than Kingston. I also doubt I would have been any happier with my choice. What I came to understand about Higher Education is that it is a gift. That gift is not given, it is earned. For those who take the opportunity of higher education and university and work at it; the experiences you gain are invaluable and the paths you open up can change your life. Universities that have histories of widening participation expand that gift.
Recent A-level results have indeed left many people without that opportunity. The sad reality is that education is not open to all. Not everyone will be able to do a degree. There are some students going into some fantastic apprenticeships and some students even training as accountants without a degree. But what they are missing out on is the cultural and personal experience university gives you. They will not have the same experience going straight into work that graduates will have had through university. They will also not have the same academic skills. An apprenticeship teaches you to do a job. A degree teaches you to learn and become better at everything you do.
So what do we want our higher education to be? Do we want to teach people to do jobs? Then why have higher education? Scrap it and introduce apprenticeships for all. The reality is the university is meant to be about more than a job. It is about maturing as a person, learning who you are, what you can be and importantly, equipping you to get there.
Education should be for all.
Thursday, 12 August 2010
MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING!
Once again we step into the valley of the shadow of death and we are all threatened by the evil that is the graduate tax. Nurses and Teachers will pay more and the world will fall into darkness. Now that we have the media rubbish out of the way let us examine the realities of the NUS graduate tax plan.
It will be a life sentence, say the papers. Gradautes will pay more! The proposal outlined by NUS would in fact result in graduates in the lower pay range paying on average £500 less and average earnings graduates would pay roughly the same. It is only those who earn above the average who would pay more, as is just.
The money would go the treasury! I completely agree this would be a disaster but there are plenty of alternatives. The legal devices of trusts have been used to protect money for over a thousand years. There is no reason why such a trust device could not be used here to make certain that the money never sees the treasury. A trust controlled by the higher education sector, independent of parliament and the government could funnel the funds straight from the taxman into their control, where it could be distributed free from political influence for the good of the sector.
The difficulty here is working out how the trust would be administered and who the trustees would be. One suggestion is a trust for each university with the board of governors of that institutions as the trustees. Another could be regional trusts with responsbility for the universities in their region. Or perhaps a national unitary trust would be appropriate. There is a clear discussion here that needs to be had.
We do of course already have a form of graduate tax. At current deductions for student loans are made from earnings over £15000 on the PAYE system. It is essential that any new system be of substance and not a simple rebranding. This system would need to see money going straight to where it was needed and would see those who earn more, paying more.
Another claim has been that this system would disrupt short term cash flow. The NUS plan suggests that universities be allowed to issue bonds on future revenue ensuring that the system is soluble and sustainable.
Academic independence and recognition of excellence is essential in a funding system. Research should be properly funded and excellence recognised. But this will NEVER be acheived through a commercial market based system. The average annual tuition fee is the US is currently $26273 without books or living. That would mean an average debt of £50,350 for UK degree, that is over double the current average level of student debt. Increasing fees simply places the burden once again, on students!
So what do we need? The NUS proposal has 5 clear points that are needed for a fair and progressive system that guarantees the future of the sector:
It will be a life sentence, say the papers. Gradautes will pay more! The proposal outlined by NUS would in fact result in graduates in the lower pay range paying on average £500 less and average earnings graduates would pay roughly the same. It is only those who earn above the average who would pay more, as is just.
The money would go the treasury! I completely agree this would be a disaster but there are plenty of alternatives. The legal devices of trusts have been used to protect money for over a thousand years. There is no reason why such a trust device could not be used here to make certain that the money never sees the treasury. A trust controlled by the higher education sector, independent of parliament and the government could funnel the funds straight from the taxman into their control, where it could be distributed free from political influence for the good of the sector.
The difficulty here is working out how the trust would be administered and who the trustees would be. One suggestion is a trust for each university with the board of governors of that institutions as the trustees. Another could be regional trusts with responsbility for the universities in their region. Or perhaps a national unitary trust would be appropriate. There is a clear discussion here that needs to be had.
We do of course already have a form of graduate tax. At current deductions for student loans are made from earnings over £15000 on the PAYE system. It is essential that any new system be of substance and not a simple rebranding. This system would need to see money going straight to where it was needed and would see those who earn more, paying more.
Another claim has been that this system would disrupt short term cash flow. The NUS plan suggests that universities be allowed to issue bonds on future revenue ensuring that the system is soluble and sustainable.
Academic independence and recognition of excellence is essential in a funding system. Research should be properly funded and excellence recognised. But this will NEVER be acheived through a commercial market based system. The average annual tuition fee is the US is currently $26273 without books or living. That would mean an average debt of £50,350 for UK degree, that is over double the current average level of student debt. Increasing fees simply places the burden once again, on students!
So what do we need? The NUS proposal has 5 clear points that are needed for a fair and progressive system that guarantees the future of the sector:
- End the market in course of university prices. - A degree should cost the same at Oxford at or at Kingston. There should be no variation in cost.
- Ensure that graduates on low pay don't pay; set a maximum for high earners. There should be a lower threshold of earnings below which no payments are collected, balanced by an overall, single maximum amount that any person can pay in total.
- Only charge students a percentage of their earnings for a fixed period. This progressive method means that the system is fair and that students at the poles of the spectrum are treated fairly.
- Ringfence the money in a trust. - An independent trust controlled by the sector could determine its own rules for distributing its funds and would allow the sector to look after its own interests.
- Issue bonds to solve the issue of short term cash flow.
Tuesday, 27 July 2010
WELL WHAT DID/DO WE EXPECT?
Well it has been another exciting week in the student funding debate. Following the hope provoking comments of our Secretary for State for Business, Innovation and Skills recently we now have some more clear indications of what the government intends to do about student funding. They don't know.
Mr Cable it seems has said one thing, only to be shot down by a 'senior conservative source' who has dismissed the idea of a graduate tax being adopted. It seems a clear example, of the pantomime horse. The head going one way, and the rear end the other way. I'll leave you to decide which is which?
The reality is that the government have no more idea of what they are going to do about higher education than the average plebeian in town on a saturday night. Nor is their message any more coherent.
The problem is that no one is quite sure what the higher education system is there to provide. Students are now unsure what the point in a degree is as graduate unemployment has risen. The last government's policy of higher education for the masses, has meant that degrees have been devalued and has changed the expectation of large parts of the population who all now want top jobs.
The question surrounding how to we fund universities will depend to a great extent to what to we expect of universities. Do we expect higher education to be open to all? In which case as a public service should it not be publicly funded? Do we expect universities to be there to provide a skilled workforce for specific jobs? Should industry bear some of the burden? Or should we privatise the sector? The question boils down to one of need. What does the economy need from higher education? Clearly graduates are not in as high demand as they once were.
The recent elevation of BPP law school to the status of a university college, could be an indication of what is to come. Privitisation may be the way that the government intend to go. But are universities ready for a large number of well educated customers who don't want 9am lectures?
Almost certainly not. The government need to start to be clear about their expectations. But they need to understand the market and what the customer (students) want, before they can address the funding issue. They need to understand the role of universities before deciding who should pay.
Ultimately universities in this country have a strong tradition on high quality education, and the production of graduates and research that is world class. In this time of austerity, everyone must tighten their belts. Students belts are already tight enough. The government and the Browne committee should think twice before asking them to tighten them further.
Christopher Dingle
Vice President Education
Kingston University Students' Union
Mr Cable it seems has said one thing, only to be shot down by a 'senior conservative source' who has dismissed the idea of a graduate tax being adopted. It seems a clear example, of the pantomime horse. The head going one way, and the rear end the other way. I'll leave you to decide which is which?
The reality is that the government have no more idea of what they are going to do about higher education than the average plebeian in town on a saturday night. Nor is their message any more coherent.
The problem is that no one is quite sure what the higher education system is there to provide. Students are now unsure what the point in a degree is as graduate unemployment has risen. The last government's policy of higher education for the masses, has meant that degrees have been devalued and has changed the expectation of large parts of the population who all now want top jobs.
The question surrounding how to we fund universities will depend to a great extent to what to we expect of universities. Do we expect higher education to be open to all? In which case as a public service should it not be publicly funded? Do we expect universities to be there to provide a skilled workforce for specific jobs? Should industry bear some of the burden? Or should we privatise the sector? The question boils down to one of need. What does the economy need from higher education? Clearly graduates are not in as high demand as they once were.
The recent elevation of BPP law school to the status of a university college, could be an indication of what is to come. Privitisation may be the way that the government intend to go. But are universities ready for a large number of well educated customers who don't want 9am lectures?
Almost certainly not. The government need to start to be clear about their expectations. But they need to understand the market and what the customer (students) want, before they can address the funding issue. They need to understand the role of universities before deciding who should pay.
Ultimately universities in this country have a strong tradition on high quality education, and the production of graduates and research that is world class. In this time of austerity, everyone must tighten their belts. Students belts are already tight enough. The government and the Browne committee should think twice before asking them to tighten them further.
Christopher Dingle
Vice President Education
Kingston University Students' Union
Thursday, 15 July 2010
IS IT REALLY CABLE OR JUST A WIRE IN DISGUISE?
The Secretary of State for the Department for Business Innovation and Skills, Vince Cable, today gave a speech suggesting a graduate tax as an alternative system for funding students in the future. Whilst we should all welcome his suggestion to the Browne committee, is this really a change, or a convenient rebrand for those liberal democrats who don't want to vote against their NUS pledges because of the coalition agreement?
The average student debt is now over £23,500 per graduate. This staggering figure is hung around the neck of our gradautes, whilst we not only charge them interest on this amount, but we also expect them to reinvigorate the economy and rebuild our crumbling infrastructure. We need to reassess our expectations of the university system; the public, the government and students all.
The graduate tax question is not one of nomenclature, but one of substance. We could very well call the current system graduate taxation. Graduates who accrue debt from their university funding currently repay it to the government from their pay packet in the same way tax or national insurance is paid. This currently happens once a graduate starts earning over £15,000 per annum.
But if Mr Cable tries to redress the current system in the guise of a graduate tax, then absolutely nothing is acheived. Students will still suffer at the hands of intransparent systems from universities where often hidden charges strike after tuition and students will continue to be sadled with insustainable levels of debt.
A fair system should see the abolition of tuition fees in favour of a taxation system where people are taxed progressively based up on their earnings. We should live in a system where if you earn more, you pay more, if you earn less, you pay less. No system should burden nurses with the same level of contribution as an investment banker. We should be enabling the population in this country to bring about growth, not burdening it under a weighty system where people must struggle to drag us out of the economic mire.
It is also true that universities must change their expectations. Students are now no longer willing to sit down and be told they must pay extra, or that isn't covered by your tuition. Students and universities must ensure they have shared expectations, both of what is expected from the institution and what the outcomes of higher education should be both to the student and in the wider national context.
Ultimately we won't know what this system is for some time. At the moment, the idea is a mere suggestion to the Browne committee who may decide it is not worth looking at. However if the government produces proposals for a system that is fair, progressive and transparent, then we should support and embrace it.
If, however, the government think they can con us with a new name, they are sorely mistaken. We don't want a wire, we want a Cable of significantly more substance.
Chris Dingle
Vice President Education
Kingston University Students' Union
The average student debt is now over £23,500 per graduate. This staggering figure is hung around the neck of our gradautes, whilst we not only charge them interest on this amount, but we also expect them to reinvigorate the economy and rebuild our crumbling infrastructure. We need to reassess our expectations of the university system; the public, the government and students all.
The graduate tax question is not one of nomenclature, but one of substance. We could very well call the current system graduate taxation. Graduates who accrue debt from their university funding currently repay it to the government from their pay packet in the same way tax or national insurance is paid. This currently happens once a graduate starts earning over £15,000 per annum.
But if Mr Cable tries to redress the current system in the guise of a graduate tax, then absolutely nothing is acheived. Students will still suffer at the hands of intransparent systems from universities where often hidden charges strike after tuition and students will continue to be sadled with insustainable levels of debt.
A fair system should see the abolition of tuition fees in favour of a taxation system where people are taxed progressively based up on their earnings. We should live in a system where if you earn more, you pay more, if you earn less, you pay less. No system should burden nurses with the same level of contribution as an investment banker. We should be enabling the population in this country to bring about growth, not burdening it under a weighty system where people must struggle to drag us out of the economic mire.
It is also true that universities must change their expectations. Students are now no longer willing to sit down and be told they must pay extra, or that isn't covered by your tuition. Students and universities must ensure they have shared expectations, both of what is expected from the institution and what the outcomes of higher education should be both to the student and in the wider national context.
Ultimately we won't know what this system is for some time. At the moment, the idea is a mere suggestion to the Browne committee who may decide it is not worth looking at. However if the government produces proposals for a system that is fair, progressive and transparent, then we should support and embrace it.
If, however, the government think they can con us with a new name, they are sorely mistaken. We don't want a wire, we want a Cable of significantly more substance.
Chris Dingle
Vice President Education
Kingston University Students' Union
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)