Pros and Cons - Debbie Newman, Ben Woolgar 2014
University education, free for all
Section F. Culture, education and sport
University education is very expensive and there are a number of models for funding it. Some countries such as Germany, France and Sweden fund it fully through taxation and it is free to the students. Other countries such as the USA, Australia and England expect students to pay some or all of the fees. There may be loans available so that the students do not have to pay the fees until they are earning, and there may be exemptions for the poorest students. Another option is a graduate tax to raise money for higher education funding. It is not essential for the Opposition team to put forward a model of how they would make students pay, but they may choose to, to clarify the terms of the debate.
Pros
[1] As developed countries become more technologically advanced and richer, there is a need for a fuller education for young people, and there are the resources to pay for it. Where there is the political will, university education can still be free — even if that might involve raising taxes by 1 per cent or 2 per cent. We should campaign for free university education for all as part of the education the state provides to each citizen as a right.
[2] Individuals do not exist in a vacuum — we are all part of one organic society. Just as students are dependent on the work of others (e.g. parents, teachers, cleaners) for their educational opportunities, so society is dependent on well-educated graduates (e.g. academics, scientists, economists, bankers, doctors) to prosper and flourish. Society at large benefits from the skills and wealth generation of graduates, and so society at large (i.e. the state) should pay. It is in the nature of taxation that people pay for services that they do not use, and if graduates earn more, then they will contribute more through their taxes.
[3] Charging tuition fees discriminates against the poor and perpetuates elitism in the university system. Those from poorer backgrounds are particularly unwilling to take on debt in order to gain a university education, so those young people who happen to have rich parents will, on average, get a better education. University education should be a key engine in social mobility and equality by allowing everyone to make the most of their academic abilities.
[4] A free system removes barriers to entry and the disincentive of debt and therefore leads to a greater percentage of society attending university, which benefits society. Industry, commerce, science and the culture of a country all need the benefit of graduates, and society should be prepared to invest in having a well- educated population.
[5] It is patronising and elitist to say that some people who go to university are not really up to it. It is up to the students and the universities to decide whether these people have the ability to do a degree. Employers continue to prefer graduates over non-graduates, and so in the interest of equality, a free university education should be available for all. University education is a right, not a privilege.
[6] Some people will always be lazy and prefer socialising to studying. Tuition fees will not change this as the student will not feel the effect of them until after their degree. Students may, however, feel under extra pressure to get paid work throughout their time at university to reduce their debts, and this acts as a distraction to the diligent.
Cons
[1] There is always only a finite amount of money available that can be spent on education by the government. It is right that the focus should be on the years of compulsory schooling (e.g. 5—18 or 7—16) as this is the core period of education to which everybody is entitled. Higher education is not part of the core education that the state must provide free of charge for all. University education, like nursery education, is a bonus, a privilege that people opt for rather than a right. It is therefore acceptable to raise money for higher education by charging fees.
[2] It is right to follow the principle that the consumer pays. It is the students themselves who benefit most directly from their university education — earning as much as 50 per cent more, on average, than a non-graduate in later life. It is therefore they themselves who should pay for their university fees. Why should cleaners or bus drivers who never went to university themselves pay for those who do? A majority of university students come from more affluent backgrounds, while most taxpayers are poorer; clearly it is inequitable to make them pay.
[3] The important consideration is equality of access and opportunity — a system that discriminated against the poor would be elitist and unacceptable. Such equality can be guaranteed by a loan system where those who cannot afford fees will not have to pay them until they are earning enough to pay them back, or by having bursaries for the poorest in society. There is no need to have university as a universal benefit in order just to promote access.
[4] There is no conclusive evidence that charging tuition fees leads to a drop in student numbers. With awareness of the different ways of paying and the benefits of a university education, most people choose it as worth paying for.
[5] It would not necessarily be a bad thing if fewer people applied to university. Not everyone is suited to an academic degree, and it is questionable whether so many people should be encouraged to go to university. Politicians often boast of the increasing numbers of people going to university, but this, in fact, means that standards drop, resources are stretched to breaking point, and many young people find themselves spending three more years studying for little long-term gain when they could have been working. Introducing tuition fees teaches people to value a university education as a privilege rather than a right — if this means a drop in numbers and a raising of standards, then that is no bad thing.
[6] Tuition fees ensure that students make the most of the opportunity. When it is free, some students skip lectures, do the minimum work and see the experience as the chance to party. If they are paying, they are more likely to value the experience. Additionally, if they are customers, then they have more chance of guaranteeing that the university is providing them with the best education.
Possible motions
This House believes in free university education.
This House would charge university tuition fees.
This House believes in a ’graduate tax’.
Related topics
Capitalism v. socialism
Privatisation
Welfare state
Private schools
Nursery education, free provision of by the state