Lord Browne review: why not free education?
Posted on Tuesday 12 October, 2010
Filed Under Education
FROM my first day as a five-year-old at Avenue Road Infants’ School to my final postgraduate seminar at the London School of Economics, my education was free all the way. Not only that, but for the last five years of it, I was accorded state support at a level comparable to a low-wage job.
That is a large part of the explanation of how the son of a railwayman and a nurse from a two-up two-down eventually landed a well-paid career in journalism. But posh kids got more or less the same deal, save for a reduced level of grant to reflect their parents’ prosperity.
In the 1960s, the 1970s and into the monetarist 1980s, the idea that this way of doing things would ever change substantially would have been unthinkable. Free education was an essential aspect of the social democratic settlement.
Not even Thatcher had the political confidence to scrap student grants and introduce tuition fees. Only New Labour could be that right wing.
Even though he was later forced to execute a partial u-turn, Blair’s policies rank among the most socially retrogressive measures enacted by any government of the entire postwar period.
As many commentators noted at the time, almost all leading figures in New Labour were themselves beneficiaries of the old system. Now they merrily kicked away the ladder from those that came after them.
But thereafter the taboo was broken. Whatever happens now is by way of tightening up the small print.
Lord Browne’s review of higher education funding, published today, is essentially a call for a US-style education market, which has led to fees increasing at four times the rate of inflation of the last two decades, and ever-increasing polarisation between the Ivy League institutions and the community colleges.
More and more American students are forced to take cheapo-cheapo degrees delivered over the internet.
But this is not going to worry a cabinet laden with millionaires, who will simply write the cheque to cover the educational outlays of their own offspring.
The odd thing is that, thanks to the compounding effect of the trend rate of growth, Britain is today at least twice as rich as it was when I was sitting behind a desk at a school instead of a desk at a workplace.
There is no good reason whatsoever why higher education should not be funded entirely from general taxation. Indeed, that was the policy on which the Liberal Democrats stood last May, with a pledge to phase out fees.
Labour should go into the next general election promising nothing less.
<<Go back
Comments
44 Responses to “Lord Browne review: why not free education?”
Leave a Reply
Sorry, but I don’t quite see why I should have supported you through whatever degree course you took? Where’s the return for my money which I had to work hard to get, and even harder to keep, because the tax men was looking to me to pay for your education? All you do is scribble for a living without in any way adding to the wealth of the nation. In fact, now that you have reminded me, please can I have my money back?
Rightwingers do tend to become particular stupid on economic matters when this subject comes up, don’t they? Exhibit A is above.
If they wanted to go for higher numbers of university graduates in Britain, I don’t know why they didn’t go in for teh European model. As I understand it, it is ‘pile ‘em high, sell ‘em cheap’. You have large lecture audiences and no seminars, but at least you can sit the exam at the end of the course. Wouldn’t that have been cheaper?
Absolutely agree – we could nail the Lib Dems if Labour came out fighting against this one. The mendacity of the Lib Dems is astonishing Susan Press MA (Hons) Cantab – free 1980
Why Browne? What did he do to deserve a nice little earner telling the kids it’s going to cost an awful lot more to go to university? How do you get jobs like this? Was it Mandelson who gave it to him?
All we know about Browne is that he destroyed BP as a respected oil company. (OK forget the respected bit, but he took their reputation down even further.) Safety and technical expertise went out the window to make more room for accountants. Oh and yes, we know he was screwing his toy boy on the chairman’s desk in their London head office. Great, I guess he gets a job in the foreign office next.
Yes, we even used to sign on in the short holidays: the last beneficiaries of the war.
But the toffs are only shooting themselves in the foot, because the standards of the top universities will have to come down substantially if they have to cater solely to their offspring, and, crucially, the pace of innovation across the economy will suffer, reducing productivity growth and so the rate of surplus value extraction.
It is surely time for the working classes to opt out of capitalist state provision completely, take control of their own money and fund their own services. The days of subsidising the toffs and kids of the rich must come to an end.
Lets tell underperforming fund managers on overinflated salaries that the days of gambling our pension money is well and truely over.
Politically only a complete break with New Labour can give us credibility. As this article alludes to, New Labour opened up this can of worms and what we are now seeing was always an inevitability.
I agree. It’s madness. (David Duff – you should read the ETS Perfect Storm analysis, which will tell you why we need free university education).
And ultimately, it’s all just pushing money around. The unintended consequence of the Browne Review will be housing. How will primary school teachers or members of any other less well paid graduate profession afford a mortgage with £30-40k of existing debt? How will they afford rent for that matter? We’ll either have to spend fortunes on subsidised keyworker housing (so why not just pay for their degrees?) or suffer huge dearths in manpower for these kinds of profession.
In the old days, journalism was a trade. Lads started on Fleet Street at 16 (even during the 1950s). One didn’t need a degree, just the ability to stitch copy together in something resembling coherent English, something a decent school taught one long before that age.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_AMABsBNgw
“Cable says the Lib Dems were opposed to a rise in tuition fees. But in the current circumstances “we accept that that current policy is simply no longer feasible”. That’s why he will introduce legislation along the lines proposed by Browne.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/oct/12/higher-education-education
the lid demens ,must sureyl all be kielledQ!
‘Fellow Traveller’, above, is on the same bus as me! I think it was Fraser Nelson of The Spectator who wrote recently that he had asked several newspaper editors if having a degree was required to work in their newsrooms and to a man they said, no, just an ability to write was all that was required.
I’m sorry if my opening remarks to this thread were somewhat personal but there is a tendency, nay, a rigid orthodoxy, on the part of those in receipt of funds to refer to it as ‘government money’. It isn’t because there is no such thing as ‘government money’, there is only ‘our’ money, or, as I prefer to think of it, ‘my money’! The very heading to this post tells you all you need to know about this type of mindset when it refers to “free education” – it ain’t free, some other poor bugger has to pay for it!
Our genial host, and why shouldn’t he be genial given that he’s done rather nicely on ‘my money’, tells us a touching tale of his early life in a two-up-two-down with mum and dad. He did better than me in that respect, too. Both me and my single mum were taxed to pay for his university ‘education’, and given that my mum only just managed to meet the weekly bills I ask again, in what way has the country benefited from David Osler gaining a degree? I mean, we’re entitled to know.
Well, this is true, FT.
But a degree in politics has helped make the copy I stitch together that bit more coherent.
Sometimes, anyway.
By the way the legendary 19th Brumaire blog is back!
http://19thbrumaire.blogspot.com/
Well Mr Duff, I do help make things. Newspapers are the same as widgets in that respect. The one I work for sells 50% of its circulation abroad, so it is an export commodity too. Will that do ya?
David Duff. I assume you went to school which was free so using your logic I paid for your education. I thought the politics of envy was supposed to be the vice of the left. I didn’t go to uni myself but I don’t resent those who did. Horses for courses I say.
Maybe Duff should tell all those businessmen who read Dave’s business journalism that his job is pointless and not bringing anything to the economy.
Maybe we should also consider how much tax Dave will pay into the government coffers, and how much he would pay if he hadn’t got a degree?
Dur.
boilermaker. I left school in 1966 when that lot won that cup. I do not recall the mention of university for the likes of us. I just had to work for a living without the privilage of handouts. I do support further education if it is for the benefit of society and not just the selfish interest of the individual. Those who earn mega bucks from the education system should cough up a few extra quid towards the society that paid to give them the opportunity. Kind of like socialism.
Michael Osler, I have absolutely no envy for anyone who went to university. In the particular field in which I am interested, I frequently thank my stars that I avoided the indoctrination which is regularly pumped forth by the ‘professorship’ into empty and innocent minds.
David Osler, you could have followed the path trod by many in your newsroom and simply left school and talked your way into a menial job in the newspaper and then worked your way up. You can write extremely well so why the hell do you need a degree in Politics, of all the most utterly useless subjects? It obviously did nothing for you except to confirm your adolescent creed and it is only now, after some middle-age, real-life experience, that you have found yourself moving from extreme Left to not-quite-so-extreme Left, a undeviating journey in which you will almost certainly reach the final, irrevocable destination – crotchety old Toryism – unless death rescues you in the nick of time!
Jimmy you tiresome windbag, I was responding specifically to Duff’s idiotic “All you do is scribble for a living without in any way adding to the wealth of the nation”.
I’ve given him two examples of how Dave’s degree has added economic value, indeed probably repaid several times the ‘handouts’ he got. I haven’t even mentioned any non-monetary value.
I agree that those who make mega-bucks should pay for education, which is the purpose of a progressive tax system. It includes those who make mega-bucks from the workforce and who should pay more, even if they themselves didn’t go to university. I think that is an uncontroversial left point of view.
“Cable says the Lib Dems were opposed to a rise in tuition fees. But in the current circumstances “we accept that that current policy is simply no longer feasible”. That’s why he will introduce legislation along the lines proposed by Browne.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_AMABsBNgw
the lid demens ,must sureyl all be kielledQ!
bilermaker. I thought working and paying tax was adding wealth to the nation you old dribbling biler. The trouble with the left is they think taxpayers should have no say in where their money goes.
blerg. What they said before the election and even yesterday will be forgotten soon. They have the fall back in saying Labour screwed up the economy and enough people believe them. Anyone that thought Cable was anything less than a Tory has his erse up his posterior.
‘Those who earn mega bucks from the education system should cough up a few extra quid towards the society that paid to give them the opportunity. Kind of like socialism.
Oh Jimmy, I keep plodding away with my stick. Though actually if you left school in 66 you are probably just a bit older than me. You should know better then maybe. You have not the excuse of naive youth at the ‘teat’ of the Murdoch press. God what an image. Sorry.
I left school at 15. Wanting to carry on and go to Uni. No chance in a working Miners family. (Spare me and others the cloth cap jokes, old love) I imagine with both of us however the education did not stop then. Though I have to say in your case it does seem to have taken some quirky turns. Apologising for, defending and/or supporting Tory/Lite New Labour.
Cameron and Clegg could not have happened without Blair and Brown.
Christ it is like some double act Music Hall Nightmare.
If anyone here cannot see the point in a universal investment in
all of our futures. Our youth. You have no tomorrow. What is more your yesterday’s were probably sad, bitter and twisted. Then again you could look up more definition’s of Socialism today. Maybe you did till you found the one that fits your bank balance.
Wrong kind of search then comrades. Try the heart next time.
David, you are my kind of Socialist. Brilliant.
David Duff. I wish David Osler well and hope he does not get a disabling Tory infection. Boilermaker and Dean will probably turn to the dark side. Hope you oldies all sign up for the Flu Jab. SueR HAS a surgery protecting the Thames Barrier.
Noticeable that there is no voluntary payback of the grants that Blair, Brown, Cameron and Clegg received for their university degrees. Same old ‘do as I say, not as I do’ from the political class.
Maybe we have a 68 coming up and the students will lead us all into the streets. Could we see our youth politicised? It’s about time.
Also why cannot the increase in student fees be taken from the banks as a windfall tax on increased profits due to government help. If they can afford the big bonuses they can afford to pay for more graduates.
Notice David Duff dodging Michael Osler’s perfectly reasonable enquiry as to whether his logic also applies to school education.
“Sorry, but I don’t quite see why I should have supported you through whatever degree course you took? Where’s the return for my money which I had to work hard to get, and even harder to keep, because the tax men was looking to me to pay for your education? All you do is scribble for a living without in any way adding to the wealth of the nation. In fact, now that you have reminded me, please can I have my money back?”
And “why should I” pay for the fire brigade to come and put out the fire and save the people down the road from the burning house?
Because that’s what a civilised society does. Your question reflects the redundant argument of the Tory mind: you already pay for lots of things you don’t instantly reap personal gain from, get over it.
CGW, not so much ‘dodged’ as completely forgotten, so carried away was I with my own wit and erudition!
There is an obvious economic need for everyone to have a basic education – and I do mean ‘basic’. Of course, the manner in which it is dispensed is the worst possible arrangement and its current malaise was all too predictable. However, there is no need whatsoever for taxation to pay for the plethora of useless subjects currently on offer at ludicrously expensive ‘universities’, particularly those who were formerly, and properly, called Polytechnics. A degree in Golf Course Management, or, dare I suggest, ‘Politics’, should be paid for by those likely to benefit from them.
Not the least of the benefits to result from the proposed financial arrangements is that many ‘Universities’ will simply go broke, or at least, shrink back to their former miniscule size. Also, if the ‘punters’, oops, sorry, the students, actually have to pay the fees they, or at least, their mums and dads, will think twice before they reach for their cheque books.
Dare I add, that even our genial host might have demurred at a £20-30k debt if all he was going to get at the end of it was a degree in ‘Politics’!
Interestingly, it’s actually happened, a fire brigade refused to put out the fire of someone because they had not paid their local taxes in one of the backwoods states in America. i was reading about it on CNN a couple of days ago. As you can imagine, opinion was divided. In this case the only fatalities were a dog and three cats, but what if there had been humans trapped inside? or, even worse a child? We’re just seeing the return of inequality, simple as that. The reason for the Labour Party in the first place was to level out inequality, and with the growth of inequality, the Labour Party will either a)become combative or b)shrivel up and die. Seems to me that this is a problem for Social Democracy all over the world. Are there Social Democratic parties in the neo-colonial states?
(What teh hell does Jimmy Glasgow mean about the Thames Barrier?)
I wouldn’t worry about what Jimmy means about anything. I’m not sure even he knows.
“because there is no such thing as ‘government money’, there is only ‘our’ money, or, as I prefer to think of it, ‘my money’! ”
But you don’t pay the entire tax bill. Because money is undifferentiated quantity you can rhetorically say “this is my money” for every piece of government spending, and thus feel universally entitled and resentful.
Let’s just agree now that your tax money went on buying a challenger tank, and never whine about public spending again.
David Duff: If David Osler’s job “scribbling” for a living was so useless, why does the glorious market economy of Britain pay for it? Either the market knows what it’s doing, in which case any jobs that exist are economically beneficial, or it doesn’t, in which case stop trolling socialist discussions.
Rushed for time but …
ZZZ, I know perfectly well that I don’t pay the entire tax bill, although it sometimes feels like it, it is just my way of reminding myself that it is *my money* which prompts the question, given a choice would *I* spend it on that particular item. Try it, it concentrates the mind wonderfully – like a hanging in the morning!
Scurvy, I don’t think I suggested that scribbling was useless, only that a degree in politics was. Actually, I am delighted our host scribbles otherwise we would be deprived of his excellent blog.
I’m outta here until later tomorrow – you will all be pleased to know!
Thames Barrier. Stopping people get in! Thick English no sense of humour. No wonder you voted in the Tories.
I wonder if David Duff’s miserable life has ever been saved by the NHS, Fire Brigade or police force. If so, I regard that as a singularly unproductive use of public resources. I want my money back!
We can indeed only hope that, if he gets knocked while crossing the road, the ambulance service remember that he objects to publicly funded healthcare and grants him his wish not to be involved with it.
Mr Duff – yet again with you – we are in the realm of blunt assertion backed up by a complete lack of evidence. For you, the economic value of universal school education may be “obvious” – but, for myself, even this is based on the evidence rather than my intuitions. So, you see, even on those points where we agree, it is the question of how we got there (in your case, assumption, in my case, evidence) which is the important thing.
But I was glad to hear you say the following: “However, there is no need whatsoever for taxation to pay for the plethora of useless subjects currently on offer at ludicrously expensive ‘universities’”
It’s great to see that you actually believe in some sort of a planned economy. After all, if an economy was unplanned, how would one determine when applying to university (and funding them) which courses would be “useful” and which ones “useless”?
boilermaker. That is a rather sad thing for you to say. Mr Duff whether or not he likes to pay for public services does have to pay tax and is entitled to the services. After all most clever lefties coin in the dosh from the capitalist system they hate. Hypocrisy is all around.
I wish to refudiate Jimmy Glesga accusation that I voted Tory. I have never voted Tory in my life, and never will. The Thames Barrier is for flood protection and it is claimed that it has been raised 9 times since being installed. it is nothing to do with keeping out unwanted immigrants. UNFUNNY FOOL.
You do have to wonder exactly how we got here. Was it conspiracy, or was it cock-up? It’s usually the latter.
1930s – only the top 2-3% could get a free university grant – and many working families with bright kids were just too poor even to get that far. My mother, a very clever girl, and all her siblings had to leave school at 16 to bring some money in. My father-in-law’s folks had just enough dosh to get him through sixth form, and he ended up a senior academic.
But only a small elite got to uni. There was enough money for free tuition AND grants for the poor.
An important difference between the UK and other countries was that “In England and Wales the majority of young full-time university students attend universities situated a long distance from their family homes; this is not true for universities in most European countries, such as Italy or Spain”. This was to have a major cost impact as the number of universities grew, and as teacher training institutions and polytechnics took more and more students who weren’t living at home.
1950s-70s – the Golden Age (which of course never existed). Enough prosperity for a clever working class kid to stay on at grammar school and do the UCCA round as was. A few more universities (the redbricks, Warwick, Essex, Sussex etc) but still only 5% or so went to uni, so free tuition for all, and maximum grants for, say, the son of a primary teacher. Maybe a few more % at Poly or Teacher Training – still enough cash to go round. 10% of school-leavers now?
Early 1990s – the cloud no bigger than a man’s hand, as the Tories discover that new universities are incredibly easy to create – new headed notepaper, a few signs outside the buildings, and Leeds Poly becomes the Metropolitan University of Leeds, while the Breedon Bar in Cotteridge becomes the University of Central England. At the same time – and this is the killer – the Polys, which used to mainly cater for local students, become much more like universities in that they start competing nationally for students.
The 1980s and 90s also saw major expansion in University numbers – for example Leeds in the 70s was I think the biggest UK university with 9,000 students. Now 24,000. All these students were getting fees paid and most had grants pre-1997.
“As the university population rose during the 1980s the sums paid to universities became linked to their performance and efficiency, and by the mid 1990s funding per student had dropped by 40% since the mid-1970s, while numbers of full-time students had reached around 2,000,000 (around a third of the age group), up from around 1,300,000.” The fiscal strain of the massive expansion is beginning to tell.
30% of school leavers ?
1997 onwards – Labour go somewhat insane, proclaiming that 50% of school leavers should be at uni – i.e. anyone over average intelligence. Every teacher training college in the land becomes a university (no longer a live-at-home student body), and the school leaving age is raised to 18. Ironically, the main beneficiaries are the middle classes, who can now get their more average children through Uni. You find former Polytechnics which are now much more middle class than a university was 25 years previously.
As above, the financial strain of this idiotic ‘all must have degrees’ policy finally catches up. They HAVE to introduce loans and tuition fees, otherwise the 50% non-uni candidates are subsidising the top 50%.
And that’s how we got where we are. Utter madness, but that’s what happened. The question is, what of the future? Will any working class youth fancy three years at Uni with a 35K debt at the end of it, and no prospect of buying their own house until they’re 45 – if then ? Will the university bubble burst ?
Whoever anyone voted for in May. They voted for Rupert ‘Kim Il Sung’ Murdoch. I did not vote.
Can I please add that to my CV. God know’s the job it will help me get.
If you voted Lib Dem thinking it was not Tory.
Try and sleep well
Don’t agree, Dave. For one thing, if Universities were free, accessible and easy there’d be no incentive to do anything else…
The last post reminds me of something.
Anyone else here ‘of a certain age’ who remembers a debate raging in the late 70′s. Even in the dire economic circumstances.
‘How will the working population cope with so much leisure time?’.
It was a serious question though obviously in hindsight a naive assumption.
Before anyone could seriously imagine they would actually go and put something in the water. Just to ensure we work longer and harder. To keep the minority who control us in the lifestyle they are accustomed to. Creating as ‘we’ do unneeded obscene wealth few of us have access to.
I also remember when Education was about ‘Learning’ not just ‘Earning’
Smash the Market. Eat the Rich.