Tuition Fees in British Universities Essay Example for Free

Tuition Fees in British Universities EssayReview all the telephone circuits for and against the introduction of Tuition Fees for instauration into British Universities as reported in the media.IntroductionBritish high(prenominal) education enjoyed the golden years of 70s 80s when the generous support of taxpayer was even protected from the intrusion of the Government by the autonomous University Grants Committee. During this period, not and at that place were no tuition fees but there was too a generous means-tested mandatory grants enjoyed by virtually of the savants.However, these generous facilities could not be principal(prenominal)tained since the beginnings of 1980s and the gradual abolition of support looted with eliminating the afield students subsidies, limitations in the eligibility for general fond welfare grants and the freezing of mandatory grants. Eventually grants were totally abolished in 1997 and were replaced by loans. (Johnstone, 2004) The Labour party represented by Mr Charles Clarke, Secretary of State for preparation, proposed legislation for top-up fees which became law in the higher(prenominal) gentility Act 2004, though it bequeath be implemented in the 2006 2007 academic year.Previously the undergrad fees in most universities were 1,050. However, by the implementation of differential fees or top-up the universities entrust be able to weight d organize much to a greater extent. According to the Guardian (2002) The new aims would mean that universities could charge nearer the real cost of leaseing, concept to be an norm of 5,000 in the UK. But depending on the institution, department and course, it could be much more. more than loans would be available to allow students to pay fees up front.This issue has been debated by different parties and is still facing a lot of opposition despite the fact that it is meant to be implemented in the academic year 2006 2007. In this paper I am going to study the argume nts for and against under the following headingsThe Political DebateUniversities and disciples propose of discoverConclusionsThe Political DebateThe Governments debate for top-up tuition fees originates from describing the role and mission of universities and the challenges they baptistry to accomplish their goals. Mr Clarke summarises the ambitions that the Government is planning to achieve by the proposal in his white paper asFirst, our universities urinate to make better progress in harnessing our fellowship to the process of creating wealth.And, second, they chip in to extend the opportunities of higher education to all of our population, irrespective of their personal and economic background (Clarks White Paper Speech) thusly he further states the role of universities nationally in adapting to the changing world and effecting change rather than universe affected by it.In unforesightful, in a world of accelerating change, we all wish to understand that our societys fo untainhead weapon in ensuring that we master change, rather than surrendering to it, is our education system, and principally our universitiesThen he identifies the missions of the universities are research, knowledge transfer and, perhaps most important of all, teaching (Clarke, White Paper Speech) Then he describes the challenges universities administration to achieve these missions and argues for an endowment device as the best solution for creating a financial regime. However, this will take a long time before it be ascends a reliable resource. Therefore he argues for the short term living and concludesAs countries throughout the world have discovered, requiring students to contribute to the cost of their education is the just realistic alternative.The Governments justification is that this is only fair since graduates throw double the payment of non-graduates and therefore should contribute to the system producing the considerable economic benefits they will enjoy as grad uates. It is also pointed out that the taxpayer will rightly make a comparison and bespeak what they benefit from their support of the system.The Secretary of State for Education announced the details of the Governments proposal, which can be summarised in the following pointsUniversities will be able to vary fees from 0 to 3,000 but fees can vary among courses, not just betweenDisadvantaged students will get financial support to study what they want when theyAll students will also protect by abolishing up-front This means no student or their family has to find tuition fees before they start their course.Students will be helped further by increasing the student loan in line with quick Students shouldnt have to rely on credit cards and commercial debt.The bursary system will also be fair on both students and the universities, who will use some of their extra in list to provideThe immediate rebuke made was that the Labour companionship effected the legislation though their m anifesto promise regarding tuition fees reads We have no plans to introduce University top-up fees, and have legislated to prevent their introduction. The defensive rebuttal made by the Labour party is that the legislation will not take effect during 2001 2005 Parliament which angered even the supporters of the Labour Party who did not like this mechanism of defence.On the early(a) hand, the bounteous Democrats Party has a strong foreclose debate based on a number of points. Firstly they think that top-up fees are unfair for a number of reasonsThey claim that tuition fees widened the gap between social classes the evidence for which is provided by the independent guinea pig Audit Office, which belongs to the In their research report in the Student Income and Expenditure Survey 2002-2003 they conclude that The social class gap among those entering higher education is unacceptably wide and has widened.Tuition fees have been a strong disincentive for access to higher education a nd now with the top-up fees this situation will In fact, this is the finding of Professor Claire Callender of South Bank University who conducted a research for the Government. He concludes Top-up fees of 3000 will put even more poor students morose university.The poorest students are affected most of all by the debt This is evidential in the Student Income and Expenditure Survey which reports that in 2002-2003, the poorest students affected by the burden of debt were 43% more than the rich students. More evidences were provided by Barclay in a survey conducted in 2004 (Annual Survey of Expected Student Debt) which revealed that the projected average debt on graduation is 12,069 (up 10% on the previous year). Barclays surveys also predicted that debt on graduation will deuce-ace by 2010, to 33,708.Another point indicating social classes gap is the fact that poor students take longer hours of salaried Statistics of Students Income and Expenditure Survey of 2002-2003 report tha t 58% of students took paid fetch during term time while this was 47% in the survey of 1998-1999. This situation is particularly bad for students on longer courses, e.g. medical studentsAccording to their trace the Petition oblige titled Scrap Tuition Fees and Top-up Fees the repayment system is also In their own wordsThe post-graduation repayment system will impose what amounts to a very high borderline place of income tax (higher than the rate paid by a millionaire) on those least able to pay little graduates just out of college and those working in lower paid jobs in the public services and free sector (disproportionately women and from the ethnic minorities). The House of Commons Library concludes that graduates earning as low as 35,115 are already paying a marginal tax rate of 50%, as they pay off their student loans. They will be doing so for a great deal longer to pay off much greater debts if top-up fees are introduced as the Government proposes. The Library figures also reveal that graduates earning as little as 15,000 will pay a marginal tax rate of 42%, more than the current marginal rate for the very highest earners.Secondly, the Liberal Democrats claim that top-up fees will not solve the funding problem. While there is no question that universities need money, the important question is where this money should come from. The Governments argument in support of top-up fees is that it will create a more sustainable funding regime, the like justification of for tuition fees which did not sort out the funding problem for universities. Similar results are expect with top-up fees.Top-up fees will not solve the funding problem Everybody agrees that universities need more money. The question is, where should the money come from? The Government says that top-up fees are needed in order to create a more sustainable funding regime. But exactly the same argument was used to justify tuition fees. Instead, funding per student by the taxpayer was cut dur ing Labours first term in office and tuition fees merely plugged the gap, leaving universities no better off. The same is likely to happen with top-up fees.Thirdly the Liberal Democrats believe that the Governments synopsis is inefficient.The Government is switching from up-front fees to post-graduation repayment via the student loan system. The cost to the taxpayer of financing this debt will be substantial. The informative Notes published alongside the Higher Education Bill indicate that, in order to raise 1 billion for universities in top-up fees income, the cost to the taxpayer will be in the region of 445 million (Scrap the Tuition Fees article). at long last the liberal Democrats are of the opinion that education should be free and nobody should be denied access to acquirement because of their financial abilities. This cannot be achieved unless tuition is free.The Liberal Democrats are challenged by a valid question What would you do? They promise that they would abolish al l tuition fees. In other words they would cancel the present 1125 and make sure that no other charge will be considered.In addition they would assist the low-income students by reintroducing maintenance grants to meet living costs and restore the students right to housing and unemployment benefits during summer. The assistance will not be limited to students it will also be extended to universities by providing more resources that will change them to recruit and retain good staff and improve the quality of services in terms of buildings and libraries and so forth A more ambitious resolution is the followingDevelop a 21st century higher education system which would bring together universities, further education and e-learning, open up routes to technical and vocational as well as academic qualifications and make it easier for those who wish to study part-time (Scrap Tuition Fees articleHowever, how is this going to be achieved? The Liberal Democrats say that these commitments can be funded by their proposed 50% income tax for those who earn more than 100,000. Whether this would be sufficient or not is another question to be answered.Universities and Students Point of ViewUniversities UK, a body representing vice-chancellors, is of the opinion that the Education Bill (which is now a law) is necessary and fair. (Brown, 2003) Brown emphasises the need for increased funding for university teaching, which had been reduced over the last two decades resulting in universities facing difficulties to achieve their main goals. He asserts that we risk losing our international reputation for the quality and effectiveness of our higher education system.Another Universities UK billet asked to comment by the BBC News commented as followsLets look at what is actually being proposed in the UK. The megabucks here offers students no up-front fees, loan forgiveness at 25 years, no real rate of interest, a generous grant and bursary system and a cap on the fee itself. By these me ans, the UK proposal seeks to reduce the problems which others have found elsewhere. What is being proposed in the UK will ensure that the poorest students will be better off while studying under these arrangements than they are now and they are also effectively indemnified against low winnings after graduation.Therefore, we can conclude that universities support the Governments proposal and see it as the most appropriate solution. Brown in his articles dismissed the counter argument of the Conservatives and concluded that the Governments proposal is fair and offers a sustainable solutionUniversities are asking for a major increase in funding, partly from public funds and partly from individuals. Given the scale of the funding gap, Universities UK thinks its fair to ask those who benefit most from higher education graduates to contribute proportionally more to its costs. While the higher earnings of graduates mean that the majority of UK taxpayers who earn over 100,000 have be nefited from higher education, a significant proportion of this stem have not. We therefore consider this solution to be a relatively poorly targeted way of altitude the necessary money, compared with the form of progressive taxation offered by the Government proposals which targets only those who have been to university.On the other hand, students represented by National Union of Students, seem to be against the to-up fees system of rules and are pointing out the go down in applications for universities which they describe as extremely worrying. In the words of NUS president Kat Fletcher, The have in applications is extremely worrying, and suggests that top-up fees and the debt they represent are deterring potential students.According to Mandy Telford, National Union of Students presidentIf top-up fees come in, then more and more students will be forced to choose their course based on its cost and therefore put themselves at a disadvantage before they even graduate. Increased fees will mean some employers will look at the cost of a course rather than a graduates ability. Furthermore, if the Government does not provide a decent student funding package, then those students forced to work long hours in paid work will be unable to get involved in CV-enhancing extra-curricular activities. This will further widen the gulf between the haves and have-nots on campus and after graduation.It is obvious that the students are against the scheme and are worried about consequences they portrait whether they are actual or assumed ones.ConclusionsIt is definite that the scheme proposed by the Government is facing a lot of opposition mainly from obviously the Liberal Democrats, the UKs well organized National Student Unions, the Labour Partys vocal political left. This is so despite the fact that some parts of the Governments proposal seem fair and plausible.It would have been in the interest of all parties concerned to remove the issue from the political agenda and refer it to professionals to study and recommend feasible solutions.ReferencesJohnstone, D. Bruce (2004) Fear and Loathing of Tuition Fees An American Perspective on Higher Education Finance in the UK downloaded on 12 declination fromhttp//www.gse.buffalo.edu/org/inthigheredfinance/Publications/Fear%20and%20Loathing%20of%20Tuition%20Fees%20PDF.pdfLiberal Democrats (scraptuitionfees.com) Why do the Liberal Democrats oppose tuition fees and to-up fees? downloaded on 11 December 2006 from http//www.scraptuitionfees.com/pages/Why.phtmlWikipedia, the free encyclopaedia Top-up fees downloaded on 11 December 2006 from http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-up_feesCurtis, Polly Clarke comes out fighting over fees -Guardian Unlimited (November 26 2003) downloaded on 11 December 2006 from http//politics.guardian.co.uk/queensspeech2003/story/0,13994,1093724,00.html publisher Article Students Want Top-Up Fees Looked at as Applications Fall The Birmingham Post February 16, 2006.Newspaper Article Charles Clarkes affirmation to the Commons Guardian Unlimited (January 22 2003) downloaded on 11 December 2006 from http//education.guardian.co.uk/specialreports/tuitionfees/story/0,,880051,00.htmlNigel Brown (2003) Whats it worth? The case for variable graduate contributions A report for Universities UK Universities UKBBC News Viewpoints Tuition fees downloaded on 11 December 2006 from http//news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3583401.stmWebb, Steve Liberal Democrat MP (11 August 2003) Current Features Top-up Fees defecate Universal Concern downloaded on 11 December 2006 from http//www.libdems.org.uk/parliament/feature.html?id=5133navPage=features.htmlGuardian Unlimited (November 26 2003) stipendiary the price in education downloaded on 11 December 2006 from http//education.guardian.co.uk/students/tuitionfees/story/0,12757,1093673,00.htmlSing Gill, Parmjit MP (25 January 2005) breakup Debate University top-up and tuition fees downloaded on 11 December 2006 fro http//www .universitiesuk.ac.uk/parliament/showBriefing.asp?id=20