How should we fund education? Fees debate a symptom of delusion
It may not be as toxic as abortion, but occasionally it comes a close enough second. In most countries, the left argues that the State should provide free education. Students and their families usually support that aspiration, though their view may change when the students graduate and become taxpayers. The right, putting economic imperatives before universal opportunity, argues that benefits accrued from a third-level education are enjoyed privately so the cost should be met privately. In our mixed-up, human way we try to take the best, or the least challenging, elements of each philosophy and end up with something pretty much like we have today. It may not quite be a horse designed by a committee — a camel — but it is hardly fit for purpose either. And all the while the sector cries out for more resources just to stand still. For more than a decade institutions have warned they cannot meet today’s needs, either in standards or capacity, without a significant increase in funding. Unsurprisingly, politicians kick the can ever further down the road.
Last week in Britain the issue made headlines again when Andrew Adonis, a former education minister, said tuition fees — they start at €10,000 a year — should be scrapped. He warned that they load £50,000 (€56,500) or more in debt on to graduates before they earn a penny. He accused his government of running a Ponzi scheme exploited by academics to increase pay. He warned that “debt levels for new graduates are so high that the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) estimates three-quarters of graduates will never pay it all back”. Adonis’s U-turn comes after a IFS report which revealed that students from the poorest households accrue debts of £57,000 (€64,500) by graduation and 77% would fail to pay off their debts even 30 years after leaving university. In a world where debt is almost our lifeblood this is a corralling too far.
