So is there a significant funding gap for Higher Education or not?
Well, now we know that there is as the SNP has put forward proposals to not just charge English students higher fees but also EU students.
The policy is a far cry from the ‘equal partner in Europe’ calls from yesteryear, when the SNP’s main objective was clearly independence.
Part of the attraction of the European project for me is the effort to drive out inequality by removing the myopic, overly-Nationalist view of individual policies. I can study in Sweden for free just as easily as a Swede can study ‘gratis’ in Skottland. We’re all Robert Schuman’s bairns after all.
So, this legally dubious move of making Europe distinctly unequal smacks less of principle and more of the harsh realities of running a Government during difficult times. Stuck between the unpalatable options of introducing fees or raising more revenue, the SNP has lurched for a third unworkable option but it won’t wash and that fierce sun continues to beat down on those warm rocks.
Scotland won’t progress by ducking the difficult decisions. Labour is turning a blind eye to the funding gap for universities and the SNP is looking outside our borders for a solution. The Greens have quite calmly made the straightforward suggestion that policies such as these need to be paid for with extra revenue, a policy that looks more reasonable and more honest as time draws on.
The release of the official manifestos are still some way off but it looks like we’ll need to give some of them a right good going over if they are going to pass the sniff test.
#1 by Indy on March 17, 2011 - 10:14 am
Erm. These are difficult times. There are harsh realities to be dealt with. It would be nice if we could afford to pay the fees for all students studying in Scotland, not just the domiciled ones, but at the moment we can’t.
#2 by Jeff on March 17, 2011 - 10:43 am
Indy, do you expect this proposal to be legal under EU law, let alone in accordance with the spirit of the body?
#3 by Douglas McLellan on March 17, 2011 - 10:44 am
As a long term proponent of a graduate contribution I am increasingly amused by the twisting and turning that four of the five parties in the Parliament are having to do to both balance the books and maintain things like free tuition.
There are some underlying assumptions that I am a little confused at. The belief that a full-time post school higher education is the only education that guarantees a ‘measure’ of success (define that measure?) is one that is strange to me. Furthermore, that a higher education is the primary route to the panacea that social mobility seems to be. As an OU graduate I have to say that full-time, or even classroom based part-time, study is not all that it is cracked up to be. Also, the structure of the employment market is so very different that it was 20-50 years ago and the premise that degree=social mobility is dodgy at best.
Whilst the Greens are open and honest about their desire to raise taxes to pay for lots of things (as well as cancel other expensive items) there has to be a limit somewhere. Their motion on the cuts to courses at Glasgow Uni was interesting as, apart from condemning the short consultation period which I agree with, it bordered on interference in an independent institution.
#4 by Colin on March 17, 2011 - 10:52 am
Why is it more reasonable to increase revenue (I assume by taxes) than to fund these kind of policies by other means?
Also, how do the Greens intend to increase revenue? By what mechanism?
As for EU law, this will most likely be illegal – but I’m sure the government will have looked into that are will be looking into loopholes and ways around EU law. However, what I know of EU law (which isn’t as much as other areas of law in Scotland) makes me think that these loopholes will be hard to find.
However, if they do implement it they would probably be able to get away with it for several years before the commission does anything.
#5 by Jeff on March 17, 2011 - 10:58 am
“Why is it more reasonable to increase revenue (I assume by taxes) than to fund these kind of policies by other means?â€
The simple premise of my argument is that, if there is perfectly reasonable capacity within the existing block grant to keep tuition free, why is the Government faffing around with legal loopholes and breaking the spirit of the EU by trying to charge non-Scots large fees?
When this plan falls through (and it will), where does that leave the SNP and Labour claims that there is plenty of space in existing budgets to absorb the cost of free education? At least the Lib Dems are open enough to admit that free travel for elderly may have to be scrapped.
I’m sorry to bang on about it but it just completely undermines the point of having an election if there’s a lack of honesty upfront, as we saw to a large extent with Westminster 2010.
#6 by Doug Daniel on March 17, 2011 - 11:19 am
“Also, how do the Greens intend to increase revenue? By what mechanism?”
Yeah, this is the question I keep asking myself. We found out last year SVR has never been usable, and although the impending Scotland Bill will have income tax varying powers, this isn’t an option for the next parliament. The SNP tried to tax companies more in the current budget, but was blocked by the three London parties. There’s always small business rates, but that would surely be an unwise increase.
So where are these taxes that the Greens intend to raise? I’ll happily pay them if I need to so university funding is protected, but I don’t understand where they’re coming from.
#7 by Indy on March 17, 2011 - 10:58 am
I am not an expert in EU law and – I venture to say – neither are you.
My understanding is that Mike Russell is looking at the charging system which operates in Ireland which would allow Scotland to recoup some – certainly not all – of the fees paid for EU students. Mike Russell yesterday said that the cost of subsidising EU student feed was £75 million. The amount that he estimates could be raised by an Irish-style charging system would be up to £22 million. So I really don’t think you should overplay this one. We are talking about reducing the subsidy not ending it.
#8 by Jeff on March 17, 2011 - 11:01 am
I’m not an expert on a lot of things, it doesn’t stop me having an opinion on such matters.
#9 by Indy on March 17, 2011 - 11:33 am
Is it an informed opinion however? You suggested to Douglas that the SNP is planning to “break the spirit of the EU by trying to charge non-Scots large fees?
That is simply untrue. Read the Official Report as I did after reading your comments:
“There is no proposal to introduce fees [for EU students] because we are not able to do so—I have made that absolutely clear. However, there is an issue about whether it is possible to institute a service charge, which is what I have explored. That is what my statement said, and that is what we will try to do.
Scottish students going elsewhere have to pay the going rate. We try to support them as much as we can through loans, but that is the reality. My responsibility and the responsibility of members in this chamber is to ensure that Scottish students accessing Scottish institutions are treated in the way that we think will best benefit the short, medium and long-term future of Scotland and those individuals. That is what I have laid out today.”
#10 by Malc on March 17, 2011 - 11:20 am
I guess, more pertinently to Jeff’s question, is the suggestion that it isn’t fair to charge our European cousins more to cover the shortfall of making it free for Scottish students.
By question is this: Why is it only now that someone is saying it isn’t fair? Was it fair when it was only going to be English students plugging the funding gap?
#11 by Jeff on March 17, 2011 - 11:28 am
I reckon that was more fair Malc. From a European perspective, it is up to member states how they conduct their own affairs within themselves and from a Scottish perspective, it is only right that Scotland protects itself from ‘fees refugees’ south of the border who may well try to take advantage of the cheaper option north of the border, flood the places and deprive Scottish students of a chance at university.
#12 by Malc on March 17, 2011 - 11:40 am
No, I recognise the LEGAL side of it – but are we really saying its only not fair now that we’re thinking about charging other Europeans? Presumably the “fees refugees” concept holds for universities outside the UK as well – as in, if they were to get “Scottish student rates” they’d still be cheaper than what they would pay at home.
Granted, the numbers of students would probably be less… but I think its inconsistent on that basis to say its not fair to charge Europeans more so Scots get free tuition, but that its fine to charge English students for the same reason.
#13 by Jeff on March 17, 2011 - 11:44 am
I suppose I’ve not looked beyond the legal aspect (in that it doesn’t matter how fair it is if that’s the rules) but it’s a fair point.
I guess the answer is to harmonise the level of fees across Europe. Now we’re talking!
#14 by Doug Daniel on March 17, 2011 - 11:44 am
Doesn’t that apply to other European countries though? There are countries that charge fees to EU students, so what’s to stop students from these countries flooding our universities and depriving Scottish students?
#15 by Malc on March 17, 2011 - 12:04 pm
Yeah, that was kind of my point (though you’ve made it better than I did!).
#16 by Mike on March 17, 2011 - 2:30 pm
So, all things have to have the same charge across Europe?
The argument just doesn’t stand up. A governments first responsibility is to provide for its own citizens and it seems a completely reasonable proposal.
I studied abroad and was charged and worked my way through a second degree.
Jeff, this idea that ‘The policy is a far cry from the ‘equal partner in Europe’ calls from yesteryear, when the SNP’s main objective was clearly independence’ just doesn’t make sense.
What connection is there between charges for higher education and sovereignty within Europe as a nation like any other?
#17 by Colin on March 17, 2011 - 2:52 pm
All government services provided to nationals must be provided at the same rate for all EU citizens. This comes from article 18 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It doesn’t mean that all rates across Europe have to be the same, it means that there can be no discrimination on grounds of nationality within a member state.
For example, if I went to Germany then I must be able to receive the same benefits as a German national in Germany. Likewise, if a German came here, they must receive the same benefits as a Scot/British citizen. So, the Germans could charge €9,000 fees, and I would be expected to pay those same fees. They couldn’t give themselves no fees then expect other nationals to pay these fees.
#18 by Malc on March 17, 2011 - 2:54 pm
That’s not what I’m saying at all. All I’m saying is that its a bit inconsistent to only now be crying foul because we’re charging Europeans more when we’d already decided it was okay to do the same for English students. Either both cases are unfair – or neither are. That was my point.
#19 by Shuna on March 17, 2011 - 11:52 am
Not often I say this – but I agree with Malc.
If we are members of the EU and certainly our SNP administration wants to be independant in Europe then we have to accept that the means freedom of movement with in the EU for workers and students – from all countries in the EU. If we are treating the English differently then why not other Europeans?
I also agree with Douglas:
We put so much preasure on our young people to attain academic success – but success should not be measured by the letters after your name (says she with BSc (Open), BD (Hons) after hers – both earned as a mature student).
But if we are serious about wanting the opportunity for those who want to go to university – then if the cost of providing so many university places is so costly why does the idea of a three year honours degree not get more consideration? (I know there is a debate about this)
But as both a graduate and supporter of the Open University and as a recent graduate of full time study I think this should be given more serious consideration. I completed my honours degree in three years (I was given 60 CAS points as recognition of previous study – an arrangement that applies to BD students at Aberdeen Uni) but it meant in my third year and only honours year I was studying 180 CAS points as well as dealing with a 100 mile round trip to Uni everyday and raising a family etc etc – I still graduated with a good 2:1 and was not burnt out or over stressed. And if I am honest in year 2 could have coped with a heavier work load.
I know I am quite a motivated person and had the drive to keep going and that I was a mature student and not a young 17 year old trying to find their independanc. And I also know that student life is about more than just studying but working and raising a family is a hell of a lot more demanding and stressful! And there are plenty of young people coping with that – and getting little recognotion for their efforts.
I found coping with my OU studies much more demanding and difficult to fit in around work and life in general. But it was a great way to gain a degree.
#20 by Malc on March 17, 2011 - 12:04 pm
Oh dear… I seem to have become Nick Clegg. Everyone agrees with me now… but just wait until you give me any kind of power! Mwa-ha-ha.
#21 by Douglas McLellan on March 17, 2011 - 12:24 pm
I just had a wee panic about what I had said before a realised what happened there.
Do you think the mods could tidy that up?
#22 by Malc on March 17, 2011 - 12:34 pm
Done (I think!). Have only changed the formatting, since I think only the first paragraph of the block quote was yours Douglas. If I’ve misrepresented, do let me know.
#23 by Douglas McLellan on March 17, 2011 - 12:36 pm
Good stuff Malc
#24 by Daniel J on March 17, 2011 - 2:14 pm
I’m pootling through a 4 year MA at Aberdeen. I’m pretty damn sure I could do more courses each term. Although I’m against shortening our degree length as I think the flexibility that is offered is great and helps people to find what they really want to study.
I’ll admit to being underwhelmed by the academic/teaching side of University, as are many of the people I know. In the sense that studying an Arts/SocScience we have so few contact hours and so few of real worth. Much as we can have interesting discussion in the 2 hours of tutorials (8-15 people) I just don’t feel like I gain that much from it.
University is supposed to be about independent learning but I can’t help but feel a bit short changed (Which you’d imagine was difficult when there are no tuition fees!).
#25 by Shuna on March 17, 2011 - 12:57 pm
sorry – prob my fault in trying to trim down the quote.
#26 by Colin on March 17, 2011 - 2:47 pm
You’re completely correct Daniel. I completed my MA in philosophy at Edinburgh and am now studying law at the same university. Whilst I don’t doubt the quality of the teaching staff and Edinburgh’s world-class reputation, I also felt short changed by the lack of teaching time and what I gained from that time.
As for law, the amount of hours I spend in classes is at least 4 or 5 times greater.
Also, as an anecdote for those talking about fees refugees my philosophy class consisted of me and two other Scots in a class of 52. Most of the other students had strong S.E. of England accents. Contrast this with my law class where I would wager that between 80-90% of the folk are Scottish (probably because only Scots want to study Scots law). Not that I’m complaining, but when people tend to make friends from their peer group I found it a lot harder to interact with my classmates during my philosophy masters than I currently do. My time studying law has not only been more challenging and difficult (as much as I love philosophy), but has also been a lot more socially rewarding. All in all, I’m having a much happier time at university right now.
I’m not saying that we should restrict those from other countries coming to our universities, but the fact that they are Scottish institutions with a Scottish history and a Scottish culture is what makes them special and we shouldn’t – nor would we want to – lose that. We should certainly try to preserve this fact and with massive numbers of fees refugees it would be difficult. Remember as well, that many Europeans – especially those of student age – are able to speak English, whilst many Brits aren’t quite as proficient in foreign languages. I can see the tide being very one-way in the years to come.
#27 by dcomerf on March 17, 2011 - 5:02 pm
This is a good proposal. The arguments against it, argue for a situation in which ‘race-to-the-bottom’ policies (in which all benefits are cut) are optimal. By offering free education to its own citizens whilst being protected from the funding implications of such a policy being offered universally, Scotland can provide an example to the rest of Europe of the benefits of free education.
My suggestion to improve this policy would be to make the benefit payable no matter what university you attended internationally (i.e. it’d be a benefit for Scottish students). This really would provide an example to other countries and, if they followed suit, then Scottish universities would benefit from the increased student numbers.
#28 by Douglas McLellan on March 17, 2011 - 6:33 pm
Whilst I think that the issue Jeff raised is an interesting and important one and the whole issue of tuition fees is a very important one, it is also clear from the comments that perhaps a wider and more mature debate on the scope, nature and purpose of higher education also needs to be had in Scotland. How many universities to we have? Why do we need so many? Why are they teaching the courses they are? Does the state have a role in influencing all the courses a University teaches (is anthropology so really important at Glasgow Uni)? Perhaps once that debate has taken place then the issue of how much it costs and who pays can be taken with a clear perspective.
#29 by Cameron on March 18, 2011 - 9:19 am
My sister does anthropology at Glasgow Uni, apparently they’d all but gotten rid of it already anyway relegating it to effectively being a module alongside sociology anyway.
#30 by Shuna on March 18, 2011 - 12:36 pm
I was at Robert Gordon University last night for a parents evening for potential students (I could have both my children there next year). A modern university with a history is how they describe themselves – but they are the top Uni in Scotland for graduate employment – that is graduates in proper graduate level jobs (not stacking shelves!) All their courses are geared towards employability – even social sciences is ‘applied social sciences.’
I noticed this week that Aberdeen Uni are building in compulsory units that will increase employability into their undergrad course. This has got to be the way forward. I attended Aberdeen and graduated with BD – if it had not been part of my training for the ministry it would have qualified me for nothing other than more study.
#31 by Doug Daniel on March 19, 2011 - 9:33 am
Just remember that the figures they quote about graduates is not just employment – it includes people who have continued studying as well.
I went to both Aberdeen uni (Computing Science) and RGU (Electronic & Telecommunications Engineering). I would choose Aberdeen over RGU every time. I remember having representatives from both coming to school in my last year to try to sell their universities to us. I had intended to go to RGU to do computing, and found it ridiculous that the Aberdeen rep was using the campus as a reason to go to Aberdeen. However, the Aberdeen computing science department head won me over when I paid a visit, and having been to both, I can actually see why the Aberdeen rep was using the campus as a selling point – I don’t know why, but it just seems much more grand, and was a far more enjoyable place to attend.
RGU’s focus is on producing people to fill places in graduate employment schemes. Aberdeen’s focus is on providing a well rounded education. That’s how I see it anyway. I wonder if perhaps one of the problems with our universities is the rise of the “glorified polytechnic” universities? Maybe it’s time to split things up a little?
The modern universities – RGU, Napier, Abertay, Glasgow Caley, Queen Margaret, West of Scotland and Highlands & Islands – are all generally based on a three-school structre: school of business, school of science & engineering/technology, and a school of health & social sciences. These types of courses would seem to be easier to sell to employers than some of the more academic traditional courses found at the older universities.
Could the answer to university funding be found in scaling back the number of our universities to our more historical ones – Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh, Heriot-Watt, Stirling, St Andrews, Glasgow and Strathclyde – and keeping these fully funded from the public purse, and making those with more vocational courses get their funding from businesses? After all, the whole point of vocational courses is the idea that you’re being given an education which is directly applicable to the jobs that are likely to follow on – to the extent that they are perhaps more like training centres than education institutes. Surely businesses – especially those whose graduate employment schemes have formal ties with these universities – would be willing to fund these training centres?
This would perhaps put us on the path to answering one of the most important questions in regards to university funding; namely, is the point of university to get a job, or to get an education?
#32 by oldchap on March 18, 2011 - 2:26 pm
As a former student (twice) of RGU I’m a little biased but I do think they have a good approach; strong industry links, a focus on applied teaching and applied research – definitely the direction higher education should be going in. It’s not surprising that they often manage to be the best uni in the whole UK for graduate employment.
On the wider thread – I think I’ve said it before but the big problem is that we shouldn’t be expecting so many students to be going to university. With fewer students, free education would be more affordable for the country and many students who end up dropping out would have started doing something more suited to them too.