Ideally higher education should be free to all those who would benefit from it.

In the real world some funding might be necessary from the people who benfit.

This should be in the form of an interest free loan that kicks in when your salary is in excess of some amount.

This seems to me to be the fairest method of both maximising access and providing some funds if that is necessary.

I have always been of the view a free education was only meaningful if it went as far as higher education but I have to say that I find Julian's arguments compelling. His paper in fact backs up the conclusion that I had been coming to myself from anecdotal evidence.

I volunteer with an organisation, Friends United Network, that asks volunteers like me to befriend vulnerable and underprivileged kids from single parent families. 18 months ago I was matched with a bright and chatty 13 year old boy, who acts as primary carer to his Mum, who has been on invalidity benefit since he can remember.

When we first started doing things together he was firmly of the belief that he would leave school at 16 and could not even imagine that he would ever have the opportunity to have 'a good job' - in any case his Mum had told him that she would be expecting rent from him once he was 16. In a world where 50% of kids are targeted to go to University he is certainly capable, if encouraged, of reaching the correct academic attainment. However, he is in danger of remaining in an underclass through his inability to conceive that someone like him could go to University. Needless to say, nobody in his family has ever gone to University.

When I compare his situation to my own, as far as statistics and targets are concerned we had much in common. I grew up in a frequently chaotic single parent family, was on free school meals at the age of 12 and back in the days of mean tested grants I received a full grant for living expenses and, yes, was the first in my family to go to University.

But actually my friend and I are worlds apart in terms of the aspirations of ourselves and our parents. I cannot remember a time when it wasn't expected that I would go to University and nothing would have put off my mother and myself from ensuring that I made it. My mother was very clear, that if nothing else, my degree was my insurance policy; it would give me the financial independence that she lacked. It is the aspirations, not the financial cost of the education, that made the difference.

It is possible that at thirteen my friend's aspirations may not have been set in stone, in fact in our conversations now, he understands that doing well in his SATs, his GCSEs and going to University is one of the best ways to ensure he can afford one of those cars that he spends half his life talking about. However, not every underprivileged child gets the weekly one to one attention via Friends United Network and it is my belief that resources should be focused not just on the talented and gifted at an early age but on the average but seemly invisible kids that don't have someone at home encouraging them to aspire to go to University.

The financial benefits that I have had far outweigh what it would have cost me, if I had been required to pay and therefore I believe it is fair to ask me to pay for it.

I do not believe it is fair to allow able children to be forgotten by the system due to the lack of aspiration of those around them.

My own view is that HE access depends less on income than on
perceived return vs income - i.e. the yield from taking 3 years
of higher education experience. Estimates of the internal rate of
return to a first year degree vary, but a figure of about 12% isn't
wildly out of line over an employment life. What any policy *other*
that free access needs to do in order to work is to:

(a) demonstrate this return clearly and indisputably (many young
people simply don't believe it, or can imagine the lifelong return
from the vantage point of 17 years of age)

(b) provide access to low interest loans which clearly make the 12%
attractive

The problem with successive governments is that they have worried
more about (b) than about (a). Indeed, they've muddied the picture
by adding uncertainty over tax incidence on higher incomes, and
taken an old statist approach to demand side planning in the labour
market through HE. The result is that a host of initiatives have
actually hidden or distorted perception of the real benefit/cost
situation.

What we need is:

(a) an initiaive to replace the likes of Aim Higher (with its
general but rather lame encouragement to take up HE places)
that focuses on lifetime decisions at 16, with a focus on how
options chosen will relate to lifetime prospects, income,
job satisfaction etc. In short we need one-on-one IAG with some
thought to the benefit of HE (financial and otherwise) clearly
delivered to students.

(b) an underwritten 'performance bond' for students as part of
the deal on entering HE. If, on graduating, the computed return
to their investment in HE is less than X%, the government would
refund Y% of tuition fee. With a bit more work on detail, this
sort of incentive arrangement (and with a tie-in with planning
through HEFCE) could help reassure students. (Of course, you'd
need to balance that with support for those who chose to take lower
return jobs, but initiatives on that are in place through the tax
system and through initiatives like key worker schemes).

(c) a change in funding from HEFCE from funding for 'in-and-out'
completion to what in the US is regarded as 'swirling' - an
expectation that students will duck in and out of learning, move
between institutions etc. The unit of funding should be the course,
not the student - so that students can commit to less than the
full credit load for a first degree. 'Lifecourse' research shows the
extent to which anticipated inflexibility puts off students. Indeed
HEFCE's own research on this has been misinterpreted. It is not
that students don't appreciate flexibility, but that they are -
like all of us - conditioned to thing in 'in-and-out' terms for a
first degree.

Mark

My own view is that HE access depends less on income than on
perceived return vs income - i.e. the yield from taking 3 years
of higher education experience. Estimates of the internal rate of
return to a first year degree vary, but a figure of about 12% isn't
wildly out of line over an employment life. What any policy *other*
that free access needs to do in order to work is to:

(a) demonstrate this return clearly and indisputably (many young
people simply don't believe it, or can imagine the lifelong return
from the vantage point of 17 years of age)

(b) provide access to low interest loans which clearly make the 12%
attractive

The problem with successive governments is that they have worried
more about (b) than about (a). Indeed, they've muddied the picture
by adding uncertainty over tax incidence on higher incomes, and
taken an old statist approach to demand side planning in the labour
market through HE. The result is that a host of initiatives have
actually hidden or distorted perception of the real benefit/cost
situation.

What we need is:

(a) an initiaive to replace the likes of Aim Higher (with its
general but rather lame encouragement to take up HE places)
that focuses on lifetime decisions at 16, with a focus on how
options chosen will relate to lifetime prospects, income,
job satisfaction etc. In short we need one-on-one IAG with some
thought to the benefit of HE (financial and otherwise) clearly
delivered to students.

(b) an underwritten 'performance bond' for students as part of
the deal on entering HE. If, on graduating, the computed return
to their investment in HE is less than X%, the government would
refund Y% of tuition fee. With a bit more work on detail, this
sort of incentive arrangement (and with a tie-in with planning
through HEFCE) could help reassure students. (Of course, you'd
need to balance that with support for those who chose to take lower
return jobs, but initiatives on that are in place through the tax
system and through initiatives like key worker schemes).

(c) a change in funding from HEFCE from funding for 'in-and-out'
completion to what in the US is regarded as 'swirling' - an
expectation that students will duck in and out of learning, move
between institutions etc. The unit of funding should be the course,
not the student - so that students can commit to less than the
full credit load for a first degree. 'Lifecourse' research shows the
extent to which anticipated inflexibility puts off students. Indeed
HEFCE's own research on this has been misinterpreted. It is not
that students don't appreciate flexibility, but that they are -
like all of us - conditioned to thing in 'in-and-out' terms for a
first degree.

Mark

I would have thought that if you were eligible for free school meals, you would have been exempt from paying fees, both under the present system, and under my plans. In all likelihood, so would the kid you sponsor and support. In fact, it is precisely so as to encourage people like him to go to university that I believe we should charge those students that come from families (and schools) where everyone expects to go university, and have done so, at the taxpayer's expense, for generations. After all, it is their fees that will fund your friend's bursary.