Higher Education (Again)

[Pilmour Boy]

I've just been sent this (I'm not sure why, or who from) which is a "briefing" from Charles Clarke's Office on the Higher Education Bill which was published today. Anybody feel like ripping it apart?

Quote:
Protecting the poorest students

£3000 per year for the poorest students
Under new proposals 30 per cent of the poorest full time students will be guaranteed at least £3000 per year. Disadvantaged students will get financial support to study what they want when they want.

The government will provide £2700 in the form of a £1500 maintenance grant (raised from £1000) and £1200 fee grant. Universities will contribute a minimum of £300.

Up to £1800 will be in up front cash and the remaining £1200 will offset fees to help alleviate fears of graduate debt.

A student who gets the maximum government money will also get a minimum of £300 if their university decides to charge above £300 for their course.

All students from families on incomes between £15,200 and £31,230 will receive a means tested percentage of the full amount.

Poorest part-time students
For the first time we are providing a statutory entitlement for the poorest part-time students – providing a fee grant of up to £575 and we are offering a £250 maintenance grant. And we will look at how the funding system might further support the development of part time study in HE.

Potential cash flexibility for students in the future
A number of colleagues have argued for the combination of the grant and fee remission. In principle we support this and are looking at the practical and financial implications. We will produce a discussion paper and hold a seminar before second reading.

Aspiration and achievement
The key is to ensure that more students from disadvantaged backgrounds stay on in education post 16. From September this year, educational maintenance allowances of £30 per week (£1500 per year) for students from less well off families. In addition OFFA will ensure that universities with fewer disadvantaged students do more outreach work to attract applications.


Protecting all universities

Freedom for all universities to vary fees from £0 to £3000

All universities will be able to vary fees from £0 to £3000 for any course. Variability will be between courses within universities not simply between universities.

Variability remains key. We do not agree that a substantially higher fixed fee would be the way to raise additional resources. It would be deeply damaging.

We would be denying universities the freedom to incentivise industrial, vocational, scientific, technical, engineering and sandwich courses, or foundation degrees, which are vital for the economic future of this country.

A fair bursary system

To provide the minimum £300 bursary for courses of £3000, no university would have to use more than around 10 per cent of its additional fee income – even those with the highest percentage of students from the poorest backgrounds.

This means that modern universities will be able to use at least 90 per cent of any increased income from fees.

OFFA will expect those universities with fewer students from the poorest backgrounds to do more than the minimum to attract applications through outreach and additional financial support.

Universities get more money for taking disadvantaged students through the Widening Participation Fund of £250 million.


Protecting all students

Upfront fees will be abolished

No student or parent will be forced to pay anything before or during their studies, unless they want to. Graduates will only pay when they earn over £15,000, at a rate they can afford through the tax system like national insurance and pension contributions.

Student loan rise to meet the average basic living costs

We will increase the amount of student loan available to ensure that all students have enough money to meet their average basic living costs while at university and so there is no need for any student to take on additional commercial loans to pay for essential living costs.

This is in response to the recent Student Income and Expenditure Survey (SIES), a comprehensive survey of full-time students’ income and expenditure patterns.

Although this is not affordable at this stage, the government’s aspiration is to move to a position where the first part of the loan is no longer means tested, so that students will be treat as financially independent at 18.

Capping the real terms fee at £3000

The fee will be capped at £3000. Each year it will rise only by inflation.

The Government will not raise the cap in real terms throughout the next Parliament and the bill ensures any proposal to raise the fee cap in real terms is subject to affirmative resolution. There will be a debate on the floor of both Houses so that every Member could vote upon such a proposal.

We will also establish an independent review, working with OFFA, to report to Parliament, based upon the first three years of their operation.



Protecting low earning graduates

All graduate debt to be wiped out after 25 years

The average graduate will expect to repay their loan in around 13 years.

For some it may take longer. Those who take lower paid jobs, those in and out of work and those who take time out to raise a family will have any amount outstanding after 25 years wiped out.

This will make the Graduate Contribution Scheme even more progressive. If you earn a lot you pay back quickly, if you earn a moderate amount you pay when you can afford and you know that there is a cut off point.

Graduate earning threshold will be raised from £10,000 to £15,000

Graduates will pay through the tax system based on money earned not money owed, like a graduate tax.

This would be no real rate of interest.

Fees and living loans will be rolled together payable when the graduate earns over £15,000, rather than £10,000 which is the current level.

A graduate earning £20,000 will pay just £8.65 per week no matter what they owe, compared with £17.31 per week now.
The Higher Education Bill

The bill includes provisions to:

a. Transform the existing Arts and Humanities Research Board into an Arts and Humanities Research Council, to be set up by Royal Charter in the same way as the existing research councils, under the auspices of the Office for Science and Technology.
b. Allow the Secretary of State to designate an independent provider for the review of student complaints not related to academic matters, and restrict the powers of university visitors to deal with such complaints.
c. Allow universities to set their own variable fees, between £0 and £3,000, which will be repaid by graduates in line with their income once they are earning over £15,000.
d. Require institutions to have an access agreement with a new Office for Fair Access, setting out their approach to widening participation, before being allowed to charge fees above the standard rate.
e. Prevent student debt being written off on discharge from bankruptcy, reflecting the non-commercial nature of that debt.
f. Transfer student support functions to the National Assembly for Wales, giving them overall responsibility for student support in Wales.
g. Permit data sharing with other government bodies and external organisations, with the consent of the person to whom that information relates, in order to simplify student support arrangements, and arrangements in other government and HE bodies.

End quote.

[Paranoid]

I'm sure its all very interesting...but you actually took the time to rehash it all?!?

[hr]..I've got this pain down all the diodes on my left side...

[Pilmour Boy]

No, that's verbatim from the document in the email I received.

[hr]Nothing in life is free.
The only things that change are who pays for it, and when they pay.

[Pilmour Boy]

And the "anybody feel like ripping it apart" wasn't a challenge, it was just because I don't have the time.

I was at a "Big Conversation" [puke] event last night with Denis McShane, and he was trying to justify it solely on the benefits to the nation from having universities that can compete with the US ones- nothing to do with social justice, which is what I think that one of the main functions of education is.

[zeppelin]

This is a government proposal? Should we be bothering to rip it apart, or instead attack the party which is proposing it?

The idea that this proposal has been thought out at all suprises me. The idea that the universities will be quite happy to provide "a minimum" of £300 for 30% of the poorest students is ridiculous. That could be watered down to mean almost anything: the universities could charge £300 more per course, and make an even bigger profit.

Knowing the unusual demographics of this venerable instituion, I think it would be hard to claim that our poorest 30% were on a par with the 30% poorest at some other universities. So then what.

This shouldn't be classed as a proposal and instead should be shot down in parliment.

[Mr Comedy]

Here is my suggestion -
The government should abandon the 50% target, and instead look to invest more in vocational based learning. The porblem with these suggestions is that anyone who cannot pay off the loan/grant/whatever in 25 years has it written off by the government. Assuming that people will marry, and have families, this can be assumed to be around 5% of those from university. Where is the government going to get that money from?
And why are they imposing what amounts to restrictions on universities that admit less state school pupils?
Face it, the Oxfords, Cambridges and St Andrews will always have more public school pupils.
I could say lots more, but I can't be arsed at the moment, and I'm off to the pub.

[exnihilo]

The things that annoy me most about all of this are the following assertions:

1) That the people who benefit will pay. As though our society gets no benefit from educating its people.

2) That the graduates should pay and not the taxpayer. As though graduates will not BE taxpayers.

Top up fees amount to neither more nor less than an increase in the middle tax bands by the back door. And they're being brought in in this way to close a hole in government finances without actually increasing the rate of income tax. Its pathetic. All it means is that the rate in a few years time will be effectively higher than it seems to be on paper. Sigh.

[Rennie]

Well said exnillo, but are the Government going to be receiving the monney themselves or does it go to the universities? If it goes to the uni's then they aren't realy taxing are they?

I think the bill will benefit the poorest students (families earning under £15,000 a year - practically no-one in St Andrews then) , but I don't like the way the Government is putting their case across.

In the first paragraph it is made out as though poor families will be £3000 better off, then in fact this goes towards fees, and therefore does not count. The only benefit I see to poorer families is the £1,000 grant being offered, which will make a slight difference. After all, this is the group that the Government are really aiming at gettin into universities, so that one day we'll all be paying higher taxes and the world will be a better place blah blah.

So, in that sense, I support the bill. As long as the means testing is fair, I don't see a problem with people having to pay for their education - most other countries have to and if it improves the quality then this is good also. Surely no one wuld suggest that poorer families shouldn't be given grants to encourage them to send kids to university, and this has to be paid somehow. If the family can afford it, wheather it be not going on expensive holidays, or buying a home entertainment system then tough shit, that's the concession you make for sending your children to university.

In my opinion Sorry for the spelling!

[Mr Comedy]

no, although exnihilo raises a good point, I'll still stick to my guns and and say that the 50% target is not viable.

[MrGreedy]

If we take it as read that the actual cost of providing education (irrespective of who's paying for it) isn't changing, then funding it in the way proposed rather than from general taxation (as was) or the current interregnum system is just a way of deferring the cost from the present to the future, i.e. today's taxpayers getting an easier ride (because its their votes that Tony wants) at the expense of taxpayers in 10-15 years time (because by then TB will be president of Europe/Pope/God and no longer accountable to anyone).

I also completely agree with points made earlier about providing better vocational education in place of the ridiculous 50% target, and that we're forgetting both the benefits to society of a well-educated workforce and the fact that graduates will pay more tax in their lifetimes.

[Mr Comedy]

hear hear, rar rar, and all that other house of commons noise

[exnihilo]

Okay, there's something wrong here...I've posted something and not been attacked for it. Have I lost my touch???

[Rex Mundi]

I agree with that the 50% should be dropped. It's an arbitrary number that helps no one.

Personally I'm in favour of keeping total university spending stable, while closing a number of institutions. There are too many worthless courses out there that don't help those who take them, and harm all the other students whose universities are forced to scrimp and save. Universities are expensive institutions to run and are not the places to teach people how to be beauticians, hairdressers, or useless subjects like Australian studies, citizenship etc. For example, if you want to be a hairdresser then an apprenticeship is the right way

Vocational Courses, Apprenticeships and improving A-Levels so people don't necessarily need higher education, are the ways to offer everyone the best possible opportunities for their own talents, strengths, and interests.

By the way, ok its good students whose parents earn under £15,000 a year are being helped. But what about the parents who earn above £15,000 but say less that £30,000? Or even people with £50,000 a year but 4 kids in universities? Would you call them wealthy? This bill is not going to affect the rich who can afford to send their children to private schools - many can probably clear the debts for their children. It'll affect the vast middle class in this country (of which a majority of the population is now a member, despite what the press will have you believe). People on the average income in this country are going to be hit hardest, as their children will emerge from university debt ridden and facing 20-25yrs of an extra tax on top of the rest of the taxes. In the end that’s what this bill is, an Education Tax.

[Cain]

[s]exnihilo wrote on 03:07, 9th Jan 2004:
Okay, there's something wrong here...I've posted something and not been attacked for it. Have I lost my touch???


the sinner doesn't revolve around you Jossy, so don't act like it does.

sometimes people have better things to do than listen to the drivel that you spout. it's not even like you study here any more. why don't you go and stick to your day job?





was that alright, or should I have another go?