Cutting Tuition Fees Misses The Point. We Need To Overhaul The Whole System
The Augar review of post-18 education and funding in England presents many promising proposals, such as reinstating maintenance grants for economically disadvantaged students and expanding options for adult learners. Additionally, the expansion of further education colleges is a step in the right direction. However, the review fails to address the fundamental contradictions within our marketized education system. Consequently, it makes significant errors in judgment.
The report acknowledges the problems that underinvestment has caused to further education, but its recommendation for increased spending is unbalanced and, in effect, causes a transfer of funds from higher education. Universities would face an 11% reduction in real terms funding in the coming three years, resulting in billions of pounds of losses. Such cutbacks would negatively affect students, staff, and the UK’s academic capacity.
Furthermore, although the report commends the value of education beyond mere economic benefits, reducing student fees only for high-value subjects may damage arts and humanities. Such a decision could negatively impact these crucial areas, including the public sector and creative industries, which create significant social and economic benefits beyond what government income data captures. Arts and humanities are as important as science and technology, as both are crucial to democracy.
The Augar review acknowledges the issues surrounding student debt. However, instead of addressing the root cause, which is the tuition fee system, it suggests extending the payment timeframe from 30 to 40 years. This change means that many graduate students may still be paying off their loans into their 60s, a situation which may result in many middle-aged professionals facing significant financial burdens, such as being unable to afford a home or start a family.
Moreover, the report discusses the financial standing of universities’ sector and recognizes their significant contribution to the local economy. However, it concludes that the cost of saving a failing institution would be excessively expensive and morally hazardous. The reality is that in a marketized education system, this issue cannot be overlooked. If universities and colleges have strategic significance, the government must take action to save them from failing. Failure to do so would negatively impact students and reduce academic capacity.
A broader discussion of the purpose of further and higher education is necessary, and we need support from taxes rather than putting the burden on the individual. Our society benefits significantly from both forms of education, not just from the state’s return on investment. If we accept their importance to our society, we should fund them centrally through taxes. Corporations should contribute to funding such institutions since they profit from the productivity generated by universities and colleges.
Playing a zero-sum game in which investment in further education causes reduced funding in higher education leads to less cohesion, more cutbacks and a worse deal for students. Both sectors require investment, and the Augar review fails to address the significant underlying issues within the education system. However, we must continue to campaign against the marketization of education.
