Abortion, a decision for the woman or a matter of politics.

Who should pay?

Presently, a student entering higher education must pay an up-front £1,125 a year in tuition fees for their course and leave university with an average debt of £13,000 - £15,000. However, our government plans to increase the tuition fees to £3,000 a year, which would cause students to leave university at the age of 21 with an average debt of £21,000. This has infuriated the student community and many other areas of the UK. At present the universities of the UK have a world-class reputation. However, this is threatened by debt that runs into millions of pounds. Everyone agrees that more money is needed, but the question is: from where/whom should it come?

The government’s proposal is that the student should contribute more to their education since they are the people who will benefit most from a university education, with better job prospects and potentially a higher average salary than non-graduates will receive. In fact the £3,000 a year fee is not an up-front payment, graduates will pay it back gradually once they start earning over £15,000 per annum. However, it is believed that the fear of debt will put many poorer students off applying to university and therefore leave higher education as the domain of the “middle-classes”. On the other hand there is evidence against this theory. In 1998 Australia increased tuition fees and this has made little/no change on the demographic of students applying to universities there.

Sheldonian Theatre Many people argue that the state should pay more since the whole of society benefits from a graduate population and this is certainly true, as everyone needs doctors, lawyers and scientists. The government would also like 50% of people under 20 to go into higher education; and paying for this policy is what is driving the need for more money. However do we really need thousands of graduates with a 2:1 in golf course management or underwear design? Wouldn’t the government be better off pushing those less suited to university into vocational occupations such as plumbers and electricians of which we are now experiencing a shortage?

Personally, I believe that the state should pay more since it is the state that benefits from well-educated graduates. However, I also believe that the individual should contribute as it is they who benefit most. People take out loans to invest in cars and houses, why not invest in their own future?

How is it done in your country?