The letter is here:
http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~axs/gov/joined-up-higher-education.pdf
Comments received from people who have read my letter are below.
Further comments received will be added here, if the authors give
permission.
NB
Nothing on this web site represents official views or policies of the
University of Birmingham or the School of Computer Science.
Quoted letters from others do not necessarily represent my views.
Only
the named authors are responsible for the views presented.
From t.m.williams@cs.bham.ac.uk Wed Jan 21 16:35:45 2004
Return-path:
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 16:35:44 +0000 (GMT)
From: Tim Williams
[Research Associate]
To: Aaron Sloman
Subject: Re: letter to my MP about top-up fees
Aaron, if you want something else to mention regarding joined up thinking,
you could mention that the whole issue of the student fees has been
considered in total isolation to other financial factors which new
graduates have to face, namely current sky high house prices and the fact
that we are being told we now have to save vast ammounts of money for
pensions, starting as soon as we start work if we are to stand any chance
of getting a decent retirement. I haven't done the sums, but it wouldn't
surprise me if in some cases for people just over the re-payment
threshold, you could end up with a very high proportion of your after tax
income simply going straight out again.
This was mentioned by a med student in the newsnight debate on monday
evening, the first time I have ever heard it mentioned on television,
radio or newspapers.
Tim W
--
Tim Williams BSc MSc GIBiol - Research Associate (Autotrain Project)
University of Birmingham School of Computer Science
Home Page : http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~tmw
Tel : +44 (0)121 414 2214 (ext 42214 on internal phone)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From d.j.brooks@cs.bham.ac.uk Wed Jan 21 17:35:48 2004
Return-path:
From: "David J. Brooks"
[PhD student]
To: "Aaron Sloman"
References: <200401211600.i0LG0PLG032519@acws-0051.cs.bham.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: letter to my MP about top-up fees
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 17:35:53 -0000
Dear Aaron,
[Omitted typos mentioned now fixed]
My primary concern is with the motivation for the current top-up proposals,
which I do not believe are aimed at minimising cost for high earners -
rather, they are aimed at keeping an already floundering system in
operation. The government perceives this system to be good because it
treats everyone as equals: everyone (or a majority of the population) will
get good GCSEs, good AS levels, a degree, etc., in the name of making
everyone feel happy that they are being treated equally. In reality, this
is useless, since it devalues these qualifications, and means that there is
little chance of distinguishing people who are able from those who are not.
However, it is a popular system, for the following reasons:
- it reduces perceived class divides (since anyone can achieve the same
thing)
- it reduces the typical British resentment of education (since it is no
longer elitist)
- it allows 50% of the population to do very little for three years except
drink and socialise.
- it reduces unemployment (two reasons: everyone can be a student instead;
and inefficient civil administration tasks such as dealing with
loans/top-up fees provide jobs).
In reality, this happiness means:
- we have lowered our standards to be inclusive rather than exclusive
- without a challenging education, average intelligence will probably
decline (have you seen the US version of Weakest Link?).
- it becomes harder to discriminate good from bad (which makes it harder for
any type of business/academia to make progress).
My question is: what is wrong in being better than someone else at
something? It is often pride or prestige that drives people to better
themselves, which can only be a good thing.
We should not be striving for equality. What the government should be
aiming at is equal *opportunities*: that is, where people are good at doing
something, they should be able to further their ability without being
stopped short by costs, social pressure, etc. This is a fundamentally
different proposition to "everyone achieving the same standards". Rather
than lowering standards to be all-inclusive, we are much better off
discriminating between people on the basis of some standards (be they
academic, research oriented, vocationar, or anything else), and discovering
and nurturing talent. This seemed to be the purpose of the old
grammar/comprehensive split, and also something that universities used to
do. We have moved on from this grand old aim of educating people, to
putting education as a secondary concern after making money.
I can give an example from within our own School, that disgusted me. At the
beginning of term I was told (by someone who will remain anonymous) that it
is much better to have a really low learning curve (approaching nothing at
all) so that we can keep minimise drop-out rates, and keep students in until
their payment comes in. I respect the person who said this to me, and I
know that they would much rather educate than simply farm money, but that is
what the current setup encourages.
In short, I agree with some of your proposals, and will do anything I can to
support you in this (any suggestions). However, I feel your points about
rethinking the whole system don't go far enough. We need a fundamental
analysis of the goals of national education, an a coherent policy for
education based on this analysis - not just related to post-school
education. We need to regain our standards, and no amount of tax (stealth
or otherwise) can make this happen.
Regards,
David
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From noel@dcs.shef.ac.uk Fri Jan 23 10:42:28 2004
Return-path:
Reply-To:
From: "Professor Noel Sharkey"
To: "'Aaron Sloman'"
Subject: RE: the top-up fees debate -- what isn't said
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 10:42:05 -0000
Organization: University of Sheffield
Dear Aaron,
Good for you! I strongly concur with much of your letter and some for
personal reasons. I am happy to have my comments used in whatever way
you choose.
I am from a strong working class background where debt would not have
been an option. I was also one of your Late Category entering university
at age 28yrs having left school at 15yrs. I only did it through a desire
for scholarship - not to get a job. I am very clear that I would not
have entered university under the current system of fees. Well at least
that would have been one professor less to pay.
In my 13 years (between school and university) working in many jobs,
particularly building sites, I met many very clever people - some of the
smartest were general labourers who swept floors for a living because of
sheer frustration. This is a very poor way to use talent that did not
happen to fit in with the school education system for one reason or
another (like myself). It was hard enough for me nearly 30 years ago but
now it would be next to impossible and, if the top up fees become a
reality, it would not be a possibility at all.
best regards,
noel
Noel Sharkey
Professor of Computer Science
EPSRC Senior Media Fellow
University of Sheffield
email: noel@dcs.shef.ac.uk
voicemail: +44 (0)114 2221803
fax: +44 (0)114 2221810
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From jon.crowcroft@cl.cam.ac.uk Fri Jan 23 10:47:47 2004
Return-path:
To: Aaron Sloman
cc: Jon.Crowcroft@cl.cam.ac.uk
Subject: Re: the top-up fees debate -- what isn't said
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 10:47:50 +0000
From: Jon Crowcroft
well said...
Comments for you to add to your web if you like
-----------------------------------------
Irrespective of ethics, has anyone looked at the available income and
its distribution over the population over the next 5-10 years, from
the proposed 50% of people who the government wish to go to University?
If the idea is that Universities are mainly serving middle-class and
wealthy people, then the income currently attracted is already at a maximum from
them - the increase from 40% to 50% will be drawn largely from groups
who haev no income. Therefore the mechanism of a means tested fee will
be implemented mainly on people who would simply pay more if the base
tax rate was raised, and not on the new people - the cost advantage of
raising the money through the Inland Revenue is simple efficiency - it
does away with several iniquities that will be inevitable if someone is
assessed on their parents means before they go to unviersity, and then
pays back after, if their income is high enough (this is clear if you
think about the possible upward and downward trends that could affect
various families and various careers).
Another problem with the fees mechanism is that it creates an
expectation that the Universities will raise some money through fees and
some from the central tax - this creates an opportunity for the Treasury
to put pressure on the Department for Education to reduce the central
allocation in favour of fees, which is not feasible when the entire
source of revenue is from central taxation. It is inevitable that this
will happen, when you look at past attempts at mixed economies.
A third problem with the fees mechanism is the notion that the "user"
gained an unfair advantage by going to University- if we compare the
many Physics graduates in the world of insurance today, they could have
becoem accountants day one, like their colleagues. However, they chose
to study (perhaps to PhD level) and lose income from school leaving age
until the time when they switch to accountancy. There are many such
career trends. The loss of earnings is hard to compute. But what is
clear is that it is not a always a gain to go to University, and this is
not allowed for in the scheme whatsoever. What is particulalry ironic is
that the amongst largest employers of graduates are the Health Service
and the Education System - if the people who graduate earn more from the
state, but have to repay their fees, and this is set against loans from
the City, the state is effectively moving money from the state to the
banks.
Finally, as has been said time and again, central taxation is to support
services that are of national value. The National Governemtn asserts
that it is of national priority to increase the number of people going
to University - if this is the case, all in the nation benefit, not just
those going. Why should those who would have gone anyway, alone foot the bill
for those who wouldn't have gone without this policy? It is clear that
all who can pay, should. As has been said time and again, an educated
population is a national resource.
As you say, the proposals are completely irrelevant to the actual requirements of
the Universities, and so I will not rehearse those arguments you have
already made well.
cheers
jon
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From steedman@kelburn.inf.ed.ac.uk Fri Jan 23 10:48:34 2004
Return-path:
From: Mark Steedman
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 10:48:36 +0000
Organization: School of Informatics, The University of Edinburgh
Subject: Re: the top-up fees debate -- what isn't said
See also the leader in today's Economist.
M
Mark Steedman
School of Informatics
University of Edinburgh
2 Buccleuch Place
EDINBURGH, EH8 9LW
Scotland, United Kingdom
email: steedman@informatics.ed.ac.uk
tel: (0)131 650 4631
Fax: (0)131 650 6626
www: http://www.informatics.ed.ac.uk/~steedman/home.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From P.Ross@napier.ac.uk Fri Jan 23 15:53:23 2004
Return-path:
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:53:53 +0000 (GMT)
From: Peter Ross
To: Aaron Sloman
Subject: Re: the top-up fees debate -- what isn't said
Dear Aaron, Jan 23 2004
I read your letter to Lynne Jones with great interest. I am not in
favour of variable top-up fees, nor even in favour of a system that
taxes the graduates later. Your letter asked whether the cost of
administering the proposed system had been costed. I have little doubt
that it has been costed, but one of my concerns is on what basis the
whole scheme has been costed; the details are not readily available.
The Prime Minister and others have played upon the fact that the cost,
to those who just qualify to make repayments, will be around ten
pounds per week and surely that's not much?
However, the costs to those earning more than the threshold does go up
remarkably quickly, and like many others I foresee that many graduates
will have trouble keeping up repayments and also starting a family or
living sufficiently above penury not to consider leaving for a
better-paid life abroad if they can. But there are further factors to
consider. Once the participation rate of 50% has been reached in
England and Wales, employers won't need to pay much of a premium for
degree holders, so like others I am skeptical about the argument that
a degree will continue to be a value-for-money advantage in the longer
run. The money paid back by degree holders will also flow to
universities (it is claimed), and therefore won't be circulating in
the general economy to the same extent because it seems to me that the
money circulation through universities can be more sluggish than
through other routes; it gets tied up in property and in debt
commitments, for example. So I suspect the taxing of future graduates
will have some bad knock-on effects on important parts of the UK economy,
and I'd like to see the figures on that.
Personally, I would rather that income tax was increased generally.
Goverment thinking seems to value degrees in terms of quantifiable
money and to look on universities as providers of training rather than
education; the economic and social benefits of having a generally
well-educated population seem high to me, but almost impossible to
quantify well and unequivocally in financial terms. The system needs
money, but rather than "users pay" I'd prefer a policy of
"beneficiaries pay", and that's all of us. And universities could be
asked to do more to make that clearly so.
Your letter sketches out a post-school education framework. I'm not
sure I would agree with all of it, but I agree that the current level
of debate is depressing. Scotland is held up as an example of a
country that has achieved a 50% participation rate. Tom Knight, chief
executive of the Association of Scottish Colleges, makes some nice
points in a letter in today's (Glasgow) Herald. Although Scotland has
a 51.5% participation rate, as measured by the Age Participation Index
for those under 21, a hefty proportion of those are doing a higher
national qualification (HNC, in one year, or HND, in two years) at
further education colleges rather than at universities. When mature
students and part-timers are included, FE colleges are the entry point
into HE for around 60% of students. There are schemes whereby
students do their first two years in an FE college and then proceed to
a university for the other two. This contrasts with what seems to be
the thinking down south, that universities should introduce two-year
foundation degrees as a way of increasing the participation rate.
It is common to point to US universities as models of what UK
universities should be like. One of the major differences is, of
course, that many US univerities have over the last decade of so
generated very substantial endowments which provide 5-30% of their
income (see
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,9830,964306,00.html
for some facts on this). In 2002, at least 45 US universities had
endowments of over a billion dollars each, and this year the value of
their endowments has been rising, after falls in the last couple of
years; in the UK, only the three best-endowed managed to reach even
one-tenth of that amount. It seems to me that many UK universities are
not yet in a position to attract substantial endowments and although
the white paper says the government wants to do what it can to promote
endowments, it's not doing much that's useful. Maybe, if universities
manage to become attractive to endowments, the horribly long-term
strategy of taxation of graduates might not seem so essential.
Yours,
Peter Ross
[Feel free to add this to the website if you wish.]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From martyn@thomas-associates.co.uk Sat Jan 24 19:03:15 2004
Return-path:
From: "Martyn Thomas"
To: "Aaron Sloman"
Subject: RE: your letter
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 19:04:23 -0000
Aaron,
Good letter. I share your point of view.
In my view, university tuition fees are unfair, illogical and dangerous.
They are unfair because the expansion of universities was based on the need
for a modern economy to have many more people educated to degree level.
Better and wider education is a public good and we should all pay for it
according to our ability, through taxation. It is unfair to put the burden
on to the students who will already pay for any increase in their salaries
through higher income tax. It is doubly unfair to put the burden just on
those students who do not qualify for financial support, most of whom will
not have gained any direct benefit from the expansion of university courses.
The Government, rightly, has recently increased the stipend that is paid to
students studying for PhDs, because it is important to the UK that we
increase the number of our brightest students who stay on to do research
degrees. Yet the arguments that have been used to justify to-up fees for
undergraduates would apply with equal force to PhD students where the
opposite policy has been implemented. This is illogical.
Accepting the Government's case - that those who benefit most directly
should pay - is dangerous. This argument could be used to justify charging
sixth-form students, patients using the health service, or citizens using
libraries and museums. Is this really the mean-minded society we want our
children to inherit?
Regards
Martyn Thomas