
“The evidence suggests I was completely wrong about UK tuition fees” - jseliger
https://www.theguardian.com/science/the-lay-scientist/2016/jan/28/the-evidence-suggests-i-was-completely-wrong-about-tuition-fees
======
cornholio
"In the last decade, in spite of rising tuition fees, students are more likely
to apply for university, poorer students are more likely to apply for
university, and the inequality gap – while still a problem – has closed."

That's just ridiculous. What we are actually seeing is a very strong sheepskin
effect where not having a university degree pretty much guarantees you a
menial, low paying job. The poor push for a degree but that does not "the
inequality gap has closed", because there is still strong inequality among
degrees themselves.

People go to university not to learn (that's just a side effect, in some
schools, for some students) but to signal to society and to a future employer
they are the type of person willing to commit themselves to a career in the
field, by irreversibly burning money and years of their lives doing busywork.
So clearly, a more expensive or exclusive school is a better signal. Everybody
goes to university nowadays but that does not mean degrees are equivalent.

I agree throwing public money at this mess is not a solution, we have to
devise more efficient ways for people to signal their competence and
willingness to learn.

~~~
petewailes
"having a university degree pretty much guarantees you a menial, low paying
job"

Evidence?

~~~
dTal
Read it again; I think you missed the "not".

~~~
petewailes
I missed putting the not in the quote. My bad. I'm still sticking with it
though - I don't think having or not having one makes much difference either
way.

------
quqqo
A definite mix up of correlation & causation.

There's no definition on disadvantaged / advantaged areas. Might be that the
given figures: 72% 63%, 39% and 36%, just reflect the relative populations.
Combined with the ongoing trend of people getting more educated, this might
account for all of these figures.

Also the article simply dismisses the size of tuitions. A tuition of say <
10000 £ / a year probably won't be a strong inequalizer. But the whole notion
that Ivy league tuitions vs. no tuitions wouldn't effect the possibilities of
people is foolish.

The second point / infograph was more interesting though, and might bare more
fruit for thought. Resources probably would be better allocated to pre uni.
times.

------
MatthewWilkes
I'm relatively convinced that tuition fees don't promote inequality, based on
stats I've seen over the last 10 years or so. Also, as a student, some of the
richest people I knew didn't pay tuition fees due to creative accounting of
their parents' personal finances.

That said, £27,000 for a bachelor's degree represents terrible value for money
in most cases. The UK's old targets of getting everyone into higher education
have had a terribly negative effect on universities; they now chase student
numbers and have a 'grow or die' mindset.

The improvement of apprentice systems over the last few years is a step in the
right direction, but I fear the damage has been done. Students don't want a
challenging experience for £27k, they want the piece of paper they've paid
for. For best value for money, I personally would rather take out a student
loan without attending an institution and undertake self-guided learning at a
slightly later age.

~~~
spacecowboy_lon
The increase in faux apprentices in the last few years is down to Mc Job
employers(coffe shops and supermarkets) gaming the system and using
apprentices as cheap unskilled labor.

Hell they haven't manged to increase the number of trade apprentices chipy
sparkies etc

~~~
dazc
> Hell they haven't manged to increase the number of trade apprentices chipy
> sparkies etc

I think the problem here is that small firms and one man bands, who used to be
the backbone of the apprenticeship system, are no longer willing to take the
risk of investing in someone only to see them get snapped up by a bigger firm
once they have served their time?

There needs to be some kind of system in place that either prevents this
happening or that compensates the firm who made the initial investment.

------
spxdcz
I'm not convinced the "evidence" is suggesting anything without further data,
and this article is glossing over "correlation != causation". Without a
baseline (a situation where, over the same years, tuition fees weren't
introduced/raised), how do we know what the equivalent situation would be?
Perhaps there would have been even more people from poorer backgrounds
applying.

~~~
Pitarou
It _is_ evidence. No need to put it in scare quotes. We can debate the correct
interpretation and applicability, but it's certainly evidence of a sort.

It's impossible to run the kinds of controlled large scale socio-economic
experiments you describe. If we ignore the evidence that doesn't meet your
high standards, we'll have no real world data.

~~~
MrTonyD
Recently it was discovered that working 20 hours a week while going to school
results in worse grades - after decades of believing the exact opposite. When
they did better studies - comparing like students (same school, same
background, and other characteristics), they discovered that all the prior
studies were just showing the success of students who really should have been
even more successful. So I prefer to think of most studies such as this as a
datapoint, rather than any type of evidence.

~~~
icebraining
A datapoint is evidence, just not proof.

~~~
MrTonyD
You might want to look up the definition of evidence. My reading of three
definitions just doesn't quite match your definition. But no big deal. I think
we agree, and this has become about word interpretation.

------
rbehrends
That a reasonable amount of tuition combined with manageable payment options
does not deter low-income students (at least not statistically) is not new
[1].

That said, the potential deterrent effect is not the only thing to be
considered. We also have to look at fairness.

Normally, a fixed [2] benefit paid out of flat or progressive taxes is itself
progressive (because it provides proportionately more financial relief to low-
income recipients).

However, in the case of free tuition, middle- and high-income households are
more likely to be recipients; this makes it potentially regressive and is one
of the major arguments for not having free tuition; you might end up with low
income households paying tuition disproportionately for high income
households.

Yet the UK's system (paying back tuition as an additional tax on your income,
but only if you earn enough) does not really fix it; while it addresses the
low/middle income disparity, it creates a regressive bump in the middle of the
income scale; the cost hurts middle class students the most. Once you hit a
point where you will pay your entire tuition, it's a fixed cost that is borne
by everybody and then it becomes regressive.

Creating a flat or progressive hypothecated tax for college graduates might
address the issue of social fairness, but at this point it's not clear whether
it's worth the complexity or whether just financing tuition (and also other
forms of tertiary education) out of a sufficiently progressive income tax
might not be easier. After all, governments do a lot of things that are likely
to benefit richer people more and we don't create convoluted hypothecated
taxes for all of them.

The article is of course right that the problems that cause unequal access to
college occur a long time before you worry about tuition, but this is really
not an either-or situation. Free or affordable tuition isn't all that
expensive (by the standards of the budgets of Western countries), not to
mention that investing in human capital is generally a good idea. And,
obviously, providing options for tertiary education and careers other than
college is also a primary concern.

[1] That said, I'm pretty sure that on an individual level, there are still
plenty of cases where it _does_ deter potential students – I know some myself
– and there are other detrimental effects, such as the financial burden on
dropouts.

[2] Tuition varies by university, of course, but on balance it's close enough
to a fixed expense to call it that.

~~~
surfmike
Completely agree that subsidizing university tuition is a regressive policy -
taxing all of society to benefit the 33% of the population or so who go to
college.

However, upfront fees of course are a big deterrent to poorer students, and
that's not the only way to charge for tuition.

I like Milton Friedman's proposal to tax a certain percentage of future
earnings of students in exchange for paying for their fees. Australia has a
similar income-contigent repayment system which has been very successful.

I think it's fair that college graduates pay for the bulk of (all of?) their
education, but I think it would be much better for college graduates (and
society) if those fees were collected later in life and didn't cause crippling
debt.

------
gabemart
> In England, 18 year olds living in disadvantaged areas were a staggering 72%
> more likely to apply for higher education in 2015 than in 2006. In Scotland,
> Wales and Northern Ireland the figures were 63%, 39% and 36% - lower, but
> still a huge increase.

As other commenters have pointed out, students from Scotland who are studying
for their first undergraduate degree at a Scottish university don't pay any
tuition fees.

------
Toenex
Does anyone know what percentage of these loans are being repaid? I recall
that a couple of years ago the press were quoting figures like 85% will never
be repaid.

------
gambiting
How about looking at countries which actually have no tuition fees and
learning by example, instead of guessing what might or might not happen?
Scotland is the most obvious example, but if you want a larger one, Poland
does not have any fees for higher education eiter. I know a few people who
started from really poor families and went on to become doctors and engineers,
mostly because education didn't cost them anything.

~~~
golergka
Russia: reasonably accessible tuition fees with free education easily
available based on entrance exam scores. Compulsory military service as a main
motivation for degrees for males.

High graduation rate, but _horrible_ education quality exactly because of
these factors. Judging by my personal experience, a CS graduate from any not
first-rate (and there's about 5 of truly first-rate places left) Russian
uni/college is, on average, significantly worse than a self-taught programmer.

Also, incredibly high corruption: professors extorting bribes at exams (not
just accepting bribes from low-perfoming students, but actually extorting
bribes from students who would able pass tests otherwise) isn't something far
out of the ordinary.

~~~
xentronium
Also lots of jobs require higher education when they shouldn't as a result of
this "education overabundance".

~~~
golergka
They don't actually turn you away if you don't have a degree, they just write
is as a requirement in job description. But like a lit of other
"requirements", it's never strictly enforced.

------
adventured
Interesting premise given Britain now has the most expensive public university
system on the planet:

"While student fees can be higher at many ivy league and other top colleges,
the £9,000 annual charge for attending an English institution pushed the
British average above the US’s public colleges for the first time, the
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development said. OECD data showed
that fees for a bachelor or equivalent degree on average in public
institutions was $9,019 a year in the UK compared with $8,202 in the US. Fees
at private institutions – attended by 40 per cent of students -- in the US are
on average $21,189 a year."

[http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/62a1d4e0-9213-11e5-bd82-c1fb8...](http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/62a1d4e0-9213-11e5-bd82-c1fb87bef7af.html)

[http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/nov/24/uk-has-
high...](http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/nov/24/uk-has-highest-
undergraduate-tuition-fees-in-industrialised-world-survey-finds)

------
surfmike
I was curious, looked up the numbers for the US vs UK:

UK annual tuition: $9,000 - $13,440 (the max for public) [1]

US avg annual tuition, public: $9,410 [2]

US avg annual tuition, private: $32,405 [2]

It's possible fees might not matter too much up to a certain range...
investing in yourself could be justified economically up to a certain amount,
after which the fees could be too much to justify (unless you have wealthy
family to help out).

[1] [http://www.topuniversities.com/student-info/student-
finance/...](http://www.topuniversities.com/student-info/student-finance/how-
much-does-it-cost-study-uk) [2] [http://trends.collegeboard.org/college-
pricing/figures-table...](http://trends.collegeboard.org/college-
pricing/figures-tables/average-published-undergraduate-charges-sector-2015-16)

~~~
jld89
Compare that to France where it's $500 annual tuition (health insurance
included).

~~~
maxerickson
I think supporting young people, up to a point, is a great idea, but comparing
the numbers there is meaningless. France has chosen a higher amount of
support, but that means that society at large is bearing the costs, not that
France is educating students for $500 a year.

~~~
jld89
Well comparing expenditures in education in both countries France spends
_less_ than the UK. So both societies are bearing similar costs with differing
benefits.

Education expenditures in France: 5.9% of GDP UK: 6%

Source: CIA World Factbook.

~~~
maxerickson
Meaningless was a poor choice of word. The $500 a year will obviously impact
the decisions made by students. But I think it is useful to compare the total
costs, not just the costs observable by the student.

The outcomes in the US certainly aren't impressive, college degrees are
becoming basic credentials, with little consideration of their utility. Not
all academic pursuit needs to be measured against the economic utility it
provides, but at a systemic level you probably want it to be at least roughly
balanced against that utility.

~~~
jld89
I agree and that's why I cited total education expenditure. Not how much a
student pays. So the total cost of education in France is 5.9% of GDP.

Yes, of course it should be at least roughly balanced against that utility.
But that's an entirely different debate, than one about equality of
opportunity in education by cost paid by the student.

------
lyschoening
The argument here is that highschools are underfunded, therefore any money
that would have to be spent on scrapping university tuition should be spent on
highschools instead. This would be a sound idea if the government weren't
conservative and hadn't elevated austerity to a quasi-religion.

------
adaml_623
No real mention of Scotland here which is interesting because it doesn't have
tuition fees (I think). So surely it would stand as an example that either
supports or disproves the theory in the article.

~~~
arethuza
No tuition fees for Scottish students attending Scottish universities.

~~~
DrJokepu
The be precise, Scottish and non-British European (EU/EEA/CH) students.

~~~
k-mcgrady
Also, I'm not sure if they've closed it or not but there was a loop hole a few
years ago that allowed students in Northern Ireland to go to Scottish
Universities without paying fees due to dual Irish/British citizenship.

------
lunchladydoris
I see a lot of talk in the piece about applications to university but no data
on attendance or graduation. I'd be more interested in those numbers. Does it
really matter how many people apply?

~~~
peteretep

        > Does it really matter how many people apply?
    

When a key argument against tuition fees has been "it'll discourage poorer
students from applying", yes it does.

~~~
pigpaws
Then the question is skewed. Technically, it costs NOTHING to "APPLY" to a
school, whereas it costs tens of thousands to COMPLETE school.

In the US, the ROI on a degree is sad. with hard numbers to back it up -
especially from a 'private' school. $100k debt to get a $45k/yr job - and
thats if you can find one in your field of study.

It doesn't seem (to me) that people think about the ROI on these things. At
this point it makes more sense to pay < $10k to become a plumber or
electrician - things people will need no matter the economic situation, with
an ROI through the stratosphere.

------
aprdm
I am leaving UK mainly because of tuition fees. It's really expensive for
overseas, I am just a regular software engineer and someone from my family
wants to finish the studies.

£24k p.a...

------
jld89
This article is such bullcrap. The writer needs to see the situation in France
and Germany (better but not without problems).

