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

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