Australia invented the “income contingent contribution” concept, a much better way to see the student contribution.
When the Dearing Committee first debated the principle in 1996, the lifetime earnings advantage due to a degree was £400,000. That made free higher education a huge subsidy to the middle classes, and limited expansion. So the principle was right but the practice is wrong. It should not be a fee or a debt, but a tax – progressive, so that the more you earn the more you contribute to enable others to benefit as you did.
Some of us on the Dearing Committee urged the “graduate tax”, but ran out of time to consider it. The committee’s report recommended it for future consideration and it got it in 2004, when there were advocates in both the Department for Education and Skills and the Treasury, but Tony Blair did not want a “tax”. The financial accounting of “loans” at government level also got in the way of a rational and fair approach. And we still do not have a good and fair solution, and evidently it doesn’t even provide the necessary funding. Time to consider the “graduate tax” again?
Register to continue
Get a month's unlimited access to THE content online. Just register and complete your career summary.
Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:
- Sign up for the editor's highlights
- Receive World University Rankings news first
- Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
- Participate in reader discussions and post comments
Or subscribe for unlimited access to:
- Unlimited access to news, views, insights & reviews
- Digital editions
- Digital access to THE’s university and college rankings analysis
Already registered or a current subscriber?Sign in now