Student funding: 'Graduate tax' or make companies pay?

The entire education system needs review. Educational vouchers assigned at birth and learning webs are a far more efficient alternative to the current system.

OK - so what if the graduate dosent get a job - or gets a job abroad. Who picks up the cost of their education then?

Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right. Why are debates about education dominated by the economically illiterate?

There's already a mechanism by which graduates contribute more according to how much they earn - it's called income tax.

If funding is determined on the basis Cable appears to suggest, universities will scramble to shut down their science departments in favour of creating more lawyers. Is that what we need?

As for the UCU's proposal to make companies pay instead, this is the classic fallacy that supposes you can increase the costs of doing business without that cost being borne by some combination of customers, employees and shareholders. So non-graduates would have to share the burden, which hardly seems fair.

I agree with you MrFiat - we need a long hard think about the purpose of higher education and how to fund it. Not pretending to have the answers, I just wish the answers currently on the table weren't all bonkers!

Excellent point phil101

This discussion presupposes that higher education (beyond secondary school) is a right, rather than a privilege or, increasingly, a commodity. Purchasing an advanced education is an investment in one's future.

What about more emphasis on merit-based scholarships? Taking on educational loan debt should be a well-considered decision. Studying poetry may be a lovely way to while away a few years, but at public expense? Better to send those who are well-prepared through training that's more in demand to solve today's problems- solid technical skills, engineering. Rather than doubly taxing those who land jobs in more lucrative professions, consider loan forgiveness options for those who take jobs in teaching and social services.

If students move overseas to work, they still have to pay the loan back.

I wasn't even allowed to get a government loan as a mature student on an MA teaching English course for the (2009-10 academic year). I think that U.K./Euro Zone students get it easy compared to their international counterparts, who pay over twice as much for the same course when they come here!

Remember that the loan is a LOAN, not a free lunch. I think though that if graduates go straight onto the dole, then they should not be entitled to the benefits (or should be rebranded, 'layabout handouts') they may have been entitled to, and if such benefits equal the £15,000 limit (which may be easy considering tabloid reports), then the loan should be paid from that. Also, even is they get a minimum wage job, they should still pay.

I had to fund my course through a Career Development Loan (CDL), with an interest rate of 9%. I'll have to pay the bank back no matter how much I end up earning.

Sorry about the typos. Had a hectic study day.

Interesting proposal by AutreVie. But how would this work in practice?

Imposing graduate tax is itself unfair, since UK has a means testing income and vat tax system already in place .

UK has been and is well known for providing premium education....however in recent years the breadth of education on offer has been over the top: for example...how many media studies students do we need?

'Uni' has become the term for going to university to spend some time away from home, instead of serious university attendance to grow independent and learn new skills. For some, the student loan became a means to drink hard - sorry to spell this out...

The system needs overhaul in technical terms...to be looked at for providing a trained population for UK's future needs and growth. The education funds need to be channeled towards those areas which will create lifelong stable jobs: jobs in emerging energy, medicine, healthcare, engineering, legal, science -at all levels in these areas.

So, lets spend the taxes wisely in grants to well selected students in controlled numbers in universities providing training in technical areas for UK's growth and encourage vocational training for those who cannot do the traditional subjects and for more hands-on orientated doers. They will pay back the country by dedicated work in future and contribute taxes!

The Industrial Doctorate programme is an example ---lets move this type of thought to graduate level training..

Exactly, Rich, you already pay more if you earn more via income tax.

The number of university places should be reduced to a point where the system is affordable and entry should be on merit.

The people who don't use their (possibly useless) degree should have to repay costs and those who do will naturally repay their tuition costs.

So we'll need a competitive entrance system. The "because I'm worth it" generation won't like that......

Rich Harris is right; income tax repays the tuition cost. If a graduate earns 10% more than a non graduate, at £30000/year he/she will repay the present level of tuition fees in 8 years.

Higher education should not be looked on as a right but at the same time the country needs highly educated people with sensible and wealth creating degrees such as scientific, engineering, medical etc.

The solution is to close all the subsidised mickey mouse degree courses and spend the saving on non chargeable fees for bright students studying useful courses.The matter of students going abroad before repaying through income tax is no worse than the present studen loan system where they can still skip off abroad.

anyway, fine to have a (graduate) tax to pay for tertiary education as long as all the content of every degree course in the UK is made openly available to all.

It wouldn't be democratic to tax us all and then deny us access for what we are paying.