Virtually all taxpayer funding will be removed from the majority of degrees and students will have to borrow tens of thousands of pounds to cover the doubled cost of courses.
Seems sensible enough really.
The major beneficiaries of a degree are the people who hold that degree in the higher lifetime earnings they gain from having that degree. So it should be they that pay the costs of gaining that degree.
There\’s no real way to have private funding of the loans though: yer average 18 year old isn\’t the greatest credit risk for £50k now, are they? So government provision of the loans seems fine.
The greater societal benefit of having lots of graduates: I\’m entirely unconvinced about that. Yes, I\’d say there is a public good to having a largely numerate and literate society, thus meaning tax subsidy to that part of the education system that provides that (and if only we did have a part of the education system that does provide that) but having 40, 50% of the age cohort with degrees?
Given that the vast majority of them go on into careers which were not traditionally thought of as requiring a degree I don\’t really see it I\’m afraid.
In fact, I rather hope that the unwrapping of the current subsidy, the making plain what are the true costs, will mean fewer taking a degree in the first place.
But the basic concept being proposed seems just fine to me. Here\’s what a degree costs, we\’ll help finance it but you\’ll have to pay for it: just fine by me.