Jo Johnson (Don’t scrap tuition fees, they have been a great success, 5 July) paints a distorted view. Whatever the merits of tuition fees, it is the way they have been managed that is a disgrace. George Osborne sold the tuition fee debt to the private sector, which obviously wishes to make a profit; originally fees were paid back with interest set at the rate of inflation. The well-off have no problem paying them off. No profit there. Those that struggle are the less well-off and those going into vital but relatively low-paid jobs such as social work, nursing and the public sector generally. They now face interest charges of up to 6% to provide the necessary profit. (The Bank of England’s interest rate is 0.25%.) So yet again the less well-off have to pay up for the private profit that the well-off can avoid. Not fair.
Dr Peter Estcourt
South Chailey, East Sussex
• The high 6.1% interest rate and the effect of compounding makes the student loan system operate as a regressive form of a 9% graduate tax. For those who swiftly move to a high salary – or who can take out secured borrowing at a lower rate – the debt is quickly paid off and the tax quickly ceases. Those lower down the chain will pay the equivalent of a 9% graduate tax throughout most of their working life, often while earning no more than non-graduates. It may be debated whether a graduate tax is an appropriate system, but this regressive form is indefensible.
Colin Garwood
Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire
• The financial pages of the Times and Telegraph often include advice as to how the wealthiest households can invest to avoid the burden of university fees. In contrast, the government has knowingly increased the debts of students from the poorest households, with students from the poorest 40% of families leaving university with around £57,000 of debt, according to the IFS (Report, 5 July). Jo Johnson describes this as a success story, but also neglects to mention the devastating impact on part-time and mature student participation of the higher fees introduced in 2012. Damian Green’s concerns about the impact of his government’s higher education policies are shared by students, their families, many vice-chancellors and business organisations. Defending the status quo is not an option. Rather than pulling up the drawbridge, it’s time for the Conservatives to engage and move on from defending the status quo.
Pam Tatlow
Chief executive, MillionPlus, the Association for Modern Universities
• It is shameful that the poorest students will now finish university with £57,000 in debt, more than those from better-off homes. Our research has shown that graduates will be paying back their loans well into middle age, affecting their ability to go to graduate school or afford a mortgage, and decisions on having children. It is grossly unfair that someone from a council estate should pay more than someone from a top boarding school. At good American universities, all costs are means-tested. That’s why we at the Sutton Trust have 260 students at 60 good US universities, all of which means-test. As our students are from homes with family incomes of less than £40,000, they qualify for grants which cover 100% of their costs. Surely we should take our lead from the US and means-test all costs associated with going to university.
Peter Lampl
Founder and chairman, Sutton Trust, and chairman of the Education Endowment Foundation
• Does the so-called market for higher education work benignly for “customers” (young people), “producers” (universities), and for society? When purchasers in a textbook market realise the product they are buying is yielding less benefit than they had anticipated, the demand will fall. However, in educational markets, where the main “product” is regarded as qualifications for employment, students finding that their current education level will not reward them with a decent job are likely to take the logical step of applying for more education at a higher level, not less. This escalates over time as successive levels of education fail to provide adequate employment opportunities, from those with GCSEs to A-levels, to first degrees, to masters, and even to doctorate level. The result is ballooning graduate debt and underemployment, at great cost to society. I first experienced this process working as an educational economist in an African country post-independence. We reckoned that the level of education at which leavers were experiencing unemployment and underemployment was rising through the system faster than the students themselves. This is market failure. However, the last impression I want to give is that we should cut back on education, and university education in particular; it has nobler purposes far beyond equipping young people for work. So if there is to be a review, we need a fundamental rethink, not a tinkering with the system.
Lawrence Lockhart
Bath
• A cynic might say that an additional upside of encouraging young adults to go on to university is that the cost of supporting 18- to 22-year-olds – paying them in-work benefits, or JSA while they seek work – has been transferred from the state, to the individual, with the promise that their efforts and investments of thousands of pounds will bring their just reward. We used to call it jam tomorrow.
Charles Cronin
London
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters
