Aug
20
This is a guest post from Aaron Porter, current President of the National Union of Students (NUS), written especially for andyhalls.net.
One of the most talked about topics amongst students, and indeed politics, right now is graduate tax and finding a ‘fair’ way for students to fund their degrees.
Aaron has spoken openly on tuition fees, and graduate tax, during his involvement with the NUS; and since being elected President has put pressuring politicans into revealing their stance on fees at the top of his agenda.
The idea of a graduate contribution or tax has been much discussed in recent weeks, and certainly seems to be building some traction – a long way on from when the NUS first made the proposal some three years ago. However, as this debate has developed, there has been some inevitable confusion about what exactly it is that constitutes a graduate tax, and how it differs from some of the other alternatives.
The principle behind any graduate tax is simple – you should be able to decide to study what you want to study, where you want to study it, without worrying about the different costs involved. You should then be able to choose to work, where you want to work, without worrying about having to pay back debts as quickly as possible. If you are subsequently able to contribute more towards your education it is fair that you do so, while those that are not able to should not.
Under the current system almost all students pay back the same ‘sticker price’ (currently £3225 a year), whereas a graduate tax would tax a percentage of their income. The current system thus leaves a graduate who chooses to use their degree to become a care worker or a primary school teacher paying the same as someone who goes on to take a top job in the City.
This is fundamentally regressive – as Vince Cable put it the other week, the current fixed sum acts as a higher education poll tax.
But if the current system is regressive, many of the proposed changes look even worse. Many are currently arguing for a rise in the tuition fee cap, eventually to a level which would enable the emergence of a market, in which certain universities or university courses would cost considerably more than others. This would be a disaster scenario – driving those most worried about debt away from the elite institutions and prestigious course, and introducing dangerous competition into a sector which is entirely unsuitable for marketisation.
We must also be wary of those who are seeking to introduce higher tuition fees, but recognise the massive public resistance to this – and so are seeking to re-brand tuition fees through the language of a graduate contribution.
We are clear that a graduate tax is only a graduate tax when payments are determined by earnings following graduation, rather than where or what you studied – anything less is simply tuition fees by a different name.
Over the coming months as Lord Browne continues his review into higher education funding and student finance, the debate will rage about the best way to fund universities and we must be clear about what we mean when we are discussing the various systems.
We will continue to fight strongly for a model that is based on graduate contributions, which would enable us to properly fund our higher education sector in a way that is progressive, sustainable and fundamentally, fair.
———————
Aaron Porter is the President of the National Union of Students. He studied English Literature at the University of Leicester and served as a sabbatical officer at the students’ union. Click here to follow his movements on Twitter.
