I see that Jason Soon has tweeted about the Comment is Free article in the Guardian with the Pyne/Norton friendly title:
Higher fees don't mean fewer working class students - look at the UK for proof
Yet the details in the body of the article indicate that the true title should be something like:
Higher but still capped university fees with generous enough loan support does not put off working class students (or so it seems after 2 years of a new system)
I mean, from the article:
In 2011 the UK's governing Conservative-Liberal Democrat
coalition announced substantial reforms to higher
education funding. Following the recommendations of a review into
higher education funding commenced by the prior Labour government, the cap on
student fees was almost tripled to £9,000 ($16,400) and public funding
significantly reduced.
The
present cap in Australia:
At present in 2014, Australia’s fee cap ranges between A$6,044 and
A$10,085 (£3,358 and £5,603), varying with the type of course studied.
The Guardian piece itself says:
Readers should be cautioned against drawing too much inference
from the UK experience. Alongside generous income-substitution loans, the UK
still maintains a fee cap, charges a progressively indexed interest rate only
when graduates are earning an income and writes off any unpaid debt after 30
years. An Office for Fair Access was also created to negotiate
equitable student access targets with universities and monitor compliance.
And
Bruce Chapman in Australia thinks fees at top universities will rapidly go up:
''Fees will go up and they will go up quite significantly,''
Professor Chapman, director of policy impact at
the Australian National University, said.
''I expect most universities will increase tuition fees to
international student fee levels, which are currently about three times
higher. The Group of Eight universities will do that pretty quickly.
'Fees will go up and they will go up quite significantly.': Bruce Chapman. Photo: Glenn Hunt
''Past changes to HECS didn't deter students from entering
university, but now that there will be a real rate of interest on the
debt we are in uncharted waters.''
Professor Chapman said it was plausible the cost of a bachelor of
medical science would rise from $24,000 to $120,000 – the fee for
international students at the University of Sydney.
''The idea fees will go down anywhere is frankly fantasy land,'' he said.
There are a few things I don't really understand:
*
Pyne has been arguing that the scheme will mean lots of new university places (80,000 is bandied about, but it seems to be guesswork) available from the lower level universities for "sub degree" courses which may prepare students for higher degrees. But wait a minute - I thought it was a common view amongst the Right that there is
too much emphasis on students doing University for the sake of doing University, and that these students would often be better doing more direct occupational training? Or is there some push on now that we want to fully emulate an American system of high school to college to university? (As if the American system is worth emulating.) Next I expect Pyne to be suggesting Rugby scholarships be introduced.
* If you make medical degrees a lot more expensive, don't you risk doctors wanting to increase their fees? Is this part of the reason that the US health system is so expensive?
* The English (see this
earlier link) appear to think the Australia system is a great big experiment that will be very interesting to watch. Yes indeed - and one which the Coalition gave us no forewarning would be suddenly undertaken.
* Why not do it via incrementally increasing the cap and monitoring what happens? This is what the Guardian writer actually suggests:
With the exact consequences of fee deregulation hard to predict, incrementally
raising the fee cap could offer a period of evaluation. However, with the full
package unlikely to get through the Senate unamended, there is a high chance
some of the more dubious changes will be throttled back.
4
