Streeting gives NUS the right idea
Wes Streeting giving higher education funding a ponder
I’m beginning to grow quite fond of the NUS president Wes Streeting. Generally, I can’t abide student politicians (I can’t abide normal politicians either), but Wes strikes me as a relatively sensible bloke, with a pragmatic approach to NUS policy. I saw him speak at a Future of Higher Education debate in Sheffield and he fought his corner well, giving a few jabs to Bill Rammell MP, while generally being quite eloquent.
His recent pronouncement on lectures being outdated was bang on. I sat through dozens of pointless lectures in first year, surrounded by around 200 people in a similarly catatonic state. Quite simply, lectures are not designed for 200 people at a time. Universities need to embrace technology – particularly podcasts – to make sure increased numbers don’t decrease quality.
However, it’s Wes’s sensible approach to ‘top-up fees’ that has really made me fall in love with him. Oh, yes.
Wes has made the NUS finally drop its dogmatic, pointless opposition to any student contributions to higher education. The fact is, completely free higher education is no longer possible. It’s not going to happen. More people now go to university and fees are the only way that Britain can keep her universities half-decent. The best that the NUS can do is thus try and slow any increase in costs and stop the introduction of a market in fees – exactly what it is now doing.
This is a step in the right direction and means the NUS can once again become a relevant lobbying force for students, now that it has achievable, realistic aims. Indeed, the NUS has formulated a quite compelling and fair way to increase the universities’ income: a type of graduate tax.
The plan involves a sliding scale of tax, from 0.3 to 2.5 per cent depending on your income, and you pay it for 20 years. In some ways, this is very similar to the funding situation now, where the debt takes so long to pay off, it almost takes the form of a tax. Where the NUS plan really differs is that the money would go directly into a ‘people’s trust for higher education’, allowing the money to be pumped back into universities, unlike now where the cash floats off to be spent on tanks or duck houses. Or something.
It’s not perfect. Critics say it’s simply a rejigged version of the current system, but it’s a start and a sensible, viable option that has to be taken seriously by the government. The NUS can no longer be simply pushed aside when it comes to the fees debate. And we’ve got Wes to thank for that.
Related posts: