Education is not worth paying for

Published originally in the Cambridge Universities Labour Club Blog (14/03/11)http://www.cambridgeuniversitylabour.co.uk/Cambridge_Universities_Labour_Club/Blog/Entries/2011/3/14_Education_is_not_worth_paying_for.xml



      The annual Fitzwilliam college Brewster debate presented the motion ‘This house believes education is worth paying for,’ a highly relevant issue at the moment and obviously a highly contentious one.  I argued in opposition of the motion:

      It’s very difficult to argue that no one should pay for education at all; that education is valueless and shouldn’t be in any way funded. What IS up for debate is whether it is worth us, as citizens, paying for the education we receive. The introduction of tuition fees by the Labour Government in 1998 meant that, albeit with interest-free loans and other financial support, the individual had to at least contribute to the funding of their higher-education. Now, the system being introduced by the Conservative/Lib-Dem government, which allows different Universities to charge different prices to students and for different degrees, creates a market for education which will do more harm to society than good.

Nick Clegg with his infamous fees 'pledge'

      In autumn of next year, Universities will be allowed to charges students up to £9000 a year of the £13000 a degree ‘costs’. Not all universities will do this and not all students will be able to pay this. Universities like Cambridge, Oxford and Bristol have already said they will have to charge the full £9000 to remain competitive nationally and internationally. Other Universities with a lesser reputation will probably charge much less to gain an advantage in this new ‘market’. Universities will also be allowed to charge different prices for different courses. What this system creates is a market for education, as exists elsewhere in the world, where those fortunate enough to be born into wealthy families are educated in the top-tier of the country’s universities and the rest avoid university or settle for a lower-tiered university or alternative education. We will have a situation in this country where people don’t study because they can’t afford it, or even one where people have to choose their subject based on the cost of the degree. This is a huge kick in the teeth to social mobility; inequality across the country will increase and some children will be born with the option of being educated like others already defunct. We will also see, in ten years’ time, a skills shortage in the country because potential employees for those jobs picked a cheaper course a decade previously.
      People contend this point about rising tuition fees by pointing out that universities have to meet ‘access’ targets and follow the watchdog ‘Office For Fair Access’ (OFFA)’s regulations. Nevertheless, the precedent for charging more is set and the token gestures to support poorer students will inevitably dwindle over time. Loans will be available to cover the full cost to the individual of a degree and the wage threshold for paying back the debt has been raised. However, there is a realistic prospect for many students that they may never being able to pay the loan back in full and they will have to think twice about entering higher education. Some argue that too many people with degrees nowadays devalue the worth of higher education and there are too many “pointless” courses which may now be scrapped. The problem with this is of course that no one has the right to decide that what someone is learning is ‘useless,’ in the same way the NHS cannot start picking and choosing who receives healthcare.
       Protocol 1, Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights states that ‘No person shall be denied the right to education.’ Charging people for an education, whether it be at secondary school level or, more pertinently, in higher education, is an obstacle to this right. Any barrier to the exercise of a human right can only be a bad thing.
       In addition to this, the United Nation’s ‘International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights’ includes “an obligation to develop equitable access to higher education, in particular by the progressive introduction of free higher education.”
       The charity ‘Save our Children’ report that 1.6 million children in the U.K. live in ‘severe poverty.’ It is no surprise that the biggest concentration of child poverty is in areas where the state schooling is the worst. These children are essentially born with a very low chance of succeeding in life. Paying for education is just another obstacle to a prosperous life for them. If our government has the aspirations it claims; to reduce youth unemployment and grow out of recession, then the objective of giving as many young people education has to come before any of efficiency, profitability and even international competitiveness in our education institutions.
       Today, someone who was privately educated is indisputably better off in terms of gaining a university place, a job and a higher salary. However, this is not how it should be.
       When the option of a private education exists and it is a better-quality alternative than the local state school, then parents that can afford it will inevitably invest in their child’s future by sending them there. You cannot criticize the people that ‘play the game’ and take advantage of the options available to them but, without private schools, and if state schools were brought up to the standard of south-east England, there wouldn’t be the widening gap between rich and poor created by the option for richer people to get a better education. Better investment in state schools would mean that people don’t need to go to private schools and thus make it a more level playing ground where children from rich families aren’t given an unfair advantage.
       The case is the same for university fees: if the universities are allowed to do push up fees and gain an advantage from doing so then wouldn’t they? However, the role of the state is to prevent there being this option. A market for a fundamental human right can only be a bad thing, in the same way it would be health or the provision of police and firemen.
      As we saw with the recent banking system crash, free markets fail when they are unregulated. They unfairly allocate resources and individuals act in their own self-interest. We, as a country, cannot afford to leave such important institutions as education, or, for that matter, banking, to the forces of the economic market. Too many people lose out and they lose out on something which they deserve by right.

      Education is not worth paying for because we shouldn’t have to. A society that offers equal opportunities to all does not allow the students born to richer parents to gain more from education than those born to poorer parents. Education should be an opportunity for the individual to find pleasure in learning and challenge their beliefs and not have the opportunity compromised, or conversely guaranteed, by factors completely beyond their control at birth.

       I am not in favour of a complete abolition of fees and the state paying entirely for education all the way through. However, as soon as individuals start paying different prices for a good, those who have more money will inevitably get more of the good. This cannot be allowed with respects to a fundamental human right such as education and so: Education is not worth paying for.