Degrees of Mutualism
It seems slightly odd to me that I have only ever written once about Higher Education policy, given that I am a governor of my university, and hear about it all the time in meetings. But it has become a big issue at the moment in the Lib Dems, and seems to have been one of the major discussion areas at the Liberal Youth conference over the weekend, so I thought it might be time for me to jot down a few thoughts.
One thing that seems clear, and I believe this is common currency in university board-rooms across the country, is that the current muddled system cannot go on. 98% I believe it is of courses are charging the full top-up fees, and even they do not make up for the real terms fall of over 60% in funding per student over the past decade and a half or so.
On top of that, it fails to create any kind of price mechanism where people might be able to see what value a university or rather its applicants put on a particular course at a particular institution. It is a nonsense to think that three grand at The New University of Bloggshire is as good value as three grand at one of our world leading institutions like Oxford, Cambridge and Imperial. Instead we rely on very subjective analyses of the National Student Satisfaction Survey and even that is difficult as the organizers may put a good course in a subject area in which an institution is not so excellent and devalue that one course.
What also seems clear is that the value of a first degree is, shall we say, not as high as perhaps it was when all those who say "I got university free, so I'm damned if I'm going to see the next generation up to their necks in debt" went to university. It is a very generous sentiment, and, whilst I didn't in fact go to university I do recognize the hypocrisy - had I taken my school teachers' advice I would have had free higher education and a living grant too. That may not of course be the fault of the Higher Education Institutions so much as primary and secondary education - I don't suppose many students in my day would have had to be taught remedial English and maths at university as we are told some are today in order to get the most out of the Higher Education experience. Additionally, many more students than previously feel the pressure to do second and subsequent degrees in order to stand out in the job market as perhaps a first degree would have done for them in previous generations.
I think the majority feeling in those university board-rooms is that they would prefer to see the fees cap lifted completely when the opportunity arises sometime after 2010, even though by that time many may not want to charge too much so as to be in competition for a smaller number of students when the 18 year old cohort dips significantly in around 2012. We are also on tenter-hooks waiting to see how economic troubles in the wider world will affect student numbers - in previous recessions there has been a boost to Higher Education as people out of work re-train, but faced with fees and debts and an even more uncertain economic outlook, we wonder whether this will be the same this time round.
So, regardless of how our policy affects students themselves, the universities are in an ever more uncertain position. Whatever option we choose, we must see to it also that universities get sufficient funding. There will be no merit in having free Higher Education if the universities themselves cannot deliver that within the budgets allowed.
Anyway, I wanted to suggest an idea with this post. It's somewhat half formulated, and I certainly have not tried to run any figures on it yet, but I hope you might get the idea and maybe be willing to help develop it in the comments.
I have always regarded universities as social enterprises, mutual institutions of a sort. Indeed I once tried to persuade Brookes to adopt a more overt mutualism in its management structure. During the Great Depression in North America, when students were still having to pay fees but had very little money left for anything else, many embraced mutualism as a way to get through. This was the era in which the co-op meal plan, the co-op houses and halls of residence, and the university credit unions burgeoned. Partly as a result of this they have a much stronger alumni culture than we have here.
A credit union type system could be used to enable universities to charge a full market rate for their courses whilst financing all students "needs blind" so that they do not have to pay anything until they are earning. These credit unions would enable alumni (and possibly applicants before they are at university) to save, with interest, in less toxic investments than they have been in the banking system of late while funding current students through university and who would then be expected, as part of their "pay back", to join and save, investing in the next cohort of students, when they graduate.
On top of this we need a package of measures perhaps to encourage the development of low cost co-operative halls of residence and mutual housing societies to prevent the basic accommodation needs of students becoming the £5-7,000 per year drain that the big corporate halls providers expect to charge and the private rented sector delivering second class housing for students.
- Login to post comments


Vote for Jock's Place on Wikio
3 comments for "Degrees of Mutualism".
1. Free markets in everything
From the MW manifesto:
1. UK based students should get the same basic welfare income as anybody else in that age group, say £48 per week, 52 weeks a year.
2. Uni's should of course charge market value. Some of the monopoly income that the top universities get purely because of snob value should be creamed off (as corporation tax, if nothing else, a sort of 'monopoly value tax') and used to subsidise other universities (or students generally) if really required.
3. Students ought to stop whining!! I rounded off my 'getting qualifications' decade by doing a law degree by attending mainly evening lectures while working full time. It took me three and a half years and I got a first class degree.
4. If students want to form mutual societies to fund each other, they will do so. If not, they won't. I don't have any moral or political problem with low interest rate student loans to cover tuition fees, which is a sort of state-sponsored mutual fund. Collecting repayments as a % of earned income is a sh1t idea. It should be straight, compulsory repayments over (say) five years without the option.
Flat repayments encourage people to take jobs, however low paid. Collecting a % of income above a certain level discourages people from taking jobs above that level.
Here endeth.
2. I already agree with 1.
I already agree with 1. And I like 2. - there is some form of economic rent in there. On 3. I don't think we should begrudge them "one chance" to do full time Higher Ed. It is, perhaps, on 4., which is the only "new idea" in my piece, that we probably diverge.
I got the impression that the Student Loan Company is not now terribly advantageous. It is also not "recycling" that savings and loans money into Higher Educaiton so far as I can see - indeed it has repeatedly securitized and sold on its loan book. I see the Credit Union (and the co-op halls) as being of as much benefit to the universities themselves as to the students. In particular in getting the "alumni culture" going a bit more.
People are put off donating - they see these grand donations by wealthy individuals and think they can't make much of a difference, but let them do some of their "banking" or "investing" with their former institution, including perhaps sharing some of the benefits of spin-outs and it could make a difference. My next "big idea" (see later today I hope, and not purely my idea to give credit where it's due) may provide a better framework than a traditional co-op or credit union.
3. I guess actually the idea is
I guess actually the idea is a bit ofa development of the earlier Tory idea of settling large endowments on universities and just letting them get on with it. I think the capital involved in that would be huge. The mutual univesity way of doing it is to enable that to happen without a huge amount of up front capital - you just need to be able to fund one chort of students and then rely on that coming back in to fund later ones.