Current Events > Ending free college in the UK made college better (with a caveat)

(+) Yeah! (+)

Despite increasing financial pressures on higher education systems throughout the world, many governments remain resolutely opposed to the introduction of tuition fees, and some countries and states where tuition fees have been long established are now reconsidering free higher education. This paper examines the consequences of charging tuition fees on university quality, enrollments, and equity. To do so, we study the English higher education system which has, in just two decades, moved from a free college system to one in which tuition fees are among the highest in the world. Our findings suggest that Englands shift has resulted in increased funding per head, rising enrollments, and a narrowing of the participation gap between advantaged and disadvantaged students. In contrast to other systems with high tuition fees, the English system is distinct in that its income-contingent loan system keeps university free at the point of entry, and provides students with comparatively generous assistance for living expenses. We conclude that tuition fees, at least in the English case supported their goals of increasing quality, quantity, and equity in higher education.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w23888

kinda silly that you need to say it, but free college is inferior to college that costly, but which has generous progressive assistance based on income
---

http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/cp503.pdf

Until 1998, full-time students in
England could attend public universities
completely free of charge. Two decades
later, most public universities in England
now charge 9,250 equivalent to about
$11,380, or 18% more than the average
sticker price of a US public four-year
institution.

Advocates of these reforms argued
that a free tuition system was regressive,
since the main beneficiaries were the
middle classes, and that without drawing
on private resources from those who
could afford to pay, the system would be
unable to meet rising demand. Instead,
universities would have to limit enrolment
slots, reduce per student spending or
both with low-income students and less
prestigious institutions most likely to bear
the consequences, potentially exacerbating
educational inequality...

First, public funding would bring in
more money for cash-strapped universities,
enabling them to take more students,
including the disadvantaged.

Second, requiring students to pay would
make the system fairer since previously
the main beneficiaries of free college were
students from middle and upper class
families.

Third, increasing resources would enable
the government to target assistance
to the neediest, who were struggling with
living expenses at college. Key to this was
the introduction of the income-contingent
loan for fees and maintenance, which
ensures that no student pays upfront and
enables large increases in liquidity at the
point of enrolment.

---

So if I'm understanding the article properly, when college was free, UK colleges didn't have the money to accept lots of people, which led to them accepting less disadvantaged students?
---

Anteaterking posted...

So if I'm understanding the article properly, when college was free, UK colleges didn't have the money to accept lots of people, which led to them accepting less disadvantaged students?

that is part of the argument, yeah, that charging tuition for people who can pay it frees up more public resources for people who can't
---

This is not a surprise to anyone who understands basic economics. Offering "free" things tends to massively inflate the indirect costs, as well as reduce quality.

It's one reason why the UK's healthcare system is on the verge of collapse.

pls posted...

This is not a surprise to anyone who understands basic economics. Offering "free" things tends to massively inflate the indirect costs, as well as reduce quality.

It's one reason why the UK's healthcare system is on the verge of collapse.

But another big part of the argument is that college should be free upfront, which is why lower income folks are offered much more generous loans and stipends than we get in the US
---

Balrog0 posted...

pls posted...

This is not a surprise to anyone who understands basic economics. Offering "free" things tends to massively inflate the indirect costs, as well as reduce quality.

It's one reason why the UK's healthcare system is on the verge of collapse.

But another big part of the argument is that college should be free upfront, which is why lower income folks are offered much more generous loans and stipends than we get in the US

"Should" is never an argument, because normative statements are not arguments. They are ideals that not everyone shares. Keep in mind that there is no such thing as free college - it might appear free at the time of service but there are costs for it. When something is "free" in matters that pertain to the government, you can bet there are indirect monetary and efficiency costs.

If quality and accessibility plummet, is it really even free education at that point? Or a massive waste of time instead?

pls posted...

It's one reason why the UK's healthcare system is on the verge of collapse.

I would pin that more on the current government and massive inefficiency within the NHS itself. It's not like it is actually free, given we pay taxes to fund it so it is free at point of use.
---

pls posted...

"Should" is never an argument, because normative statements are not arguments.

what a weird time to play semantics, when you just agreed charging prices makes things "better' (is that not a normative statement iyo?)

pls posted...

They are ideals that not everyone shares. Keep in mind that there is no such thing as free college - it might appear free at the time of service but there are costs for it. When something is "free" in matters that pertain to the government, you can bet there are indirect monetary and efficiency costs.

All of that is irrelevant to what I said, and what is presented in the abstract and article, though. It is implied in the word "loan" that you will pay it back (that counts as a cost FYI), which doesn't change the fact that the argument calls for government subsidized loans that are more generous than what the US has for reasons of quality and efficiency.

pls posted...

If quality and accessibility plummet, is it really even free education at that point? Or a massive waste of time instead?

No, but the argument is that quality and accessibility would suffer if college were not free upfront for those who are incapable of paying tuition on their own.
---

Funkydog posted...

pls posted...

It's one reason why the UK's healthcare system is on the verge of collapse.

I would pin that more on the current government and massive inefficiency within the NHS itself. It's not like it is actually free, given we pay taxes to fund it so it is free at point of use.

People should stop saying that the UK has free healthcare, then. It doesn't.

pls posted...

People should stop saying that the UK has free healthcare, then. It doesn't.

pls posted...

Offering "free" things tends to massively inflate the indirect costs, as well as reduce quality.

It's one reason why the UK's healthcare system is on the verge of collapse.

---

Balrog0 posted...

what a weird time to play semantics, when you just agreed charging prices makes things "better' (is that not a normative statement iyo?)

No because it's objective - more accessible, higher quality.

Balrog0 posted...

All of that is irrelevant to what I said, and what is presented in the abstract and article, though. It is implied in the word "loan" that you will pay it back (that counts as a cost FYI), which doesn't change the fact that the argument calls for government subsidized loans that are more generous than what the US has for reasons of quality and efficiency.

I'm not sure government subsidized loans are the solution. In the US we have a huge student loan bubble because of government subsidies, and schools are just becoming degree mills to keep getting that sweet government cash.

Balrog0 posted...

No, but the argument is that quality and accessibility would suffer if college were not free upfront for those who are incapable of paying tuition on their own.

Imo the best solution is to stop treating college degrees as required when they're not required for most jobs that ask for them. That way people won't feel like they "need" a degree and we won't have to worry about everyone getting something regardless of whether or not they can afford it.

Anteaterking posted...

pls posted...

People should stop saying that the UK has free healthcare, then. It doesn't.

pls posted...

Offering "free" things tends to massively inflate the indirect costs, as well as reduce quality.

It's one reason why the UK's healthcare system is on the verge of collapse.

Notice the word free in the second quote block was in quotation marks.

pls posted...

No because it's objective - more accessible, higher quality.

okay, good, so the normative part of the argument is that you should do certain things (like making it free upfront) to increase accessibility and higher quality

pls posted...

I'm not sure government subsidized loans are the solution. In the US we have a huge student loan bubble because of government subsidies, and schools are just becoming degree mills to keep getting that sweet government cash.

They work in the UK, at least. I don't know about a bubble, the problem with loans here is that they are not targeted well based on income in addition to being too meager for those who really need them plus the way we administer the repayment plans is burdensome and costly for both individuals and government.

pls posted...

Imo the best solution is to stop treating college degrees as required when they're not required for most jobs that ask for them. That way people won't feel like they "need" a degree and we won't have to worry about everyone getting something regardless of whether or not they can afford it.

that's up to private businesses
---

pls posted...

Imo the best solution is to stop treating college degrees as required when they're not required for most jobs that ask for them. That way people won't feel like they "need" a degree and we won't have to worry about everyone getting something regardless of whether or not they can afford it.

Yeah, but how do you do that? Are you going to force businesses to lower their standards?

Also, even if a degree isn't required, as long as it gives you a leg up in hiring, it's hard to say to people "You shouldn't get a degree and put yourself at a disadvantage."

I'm not necessarily saying that this fits your situation, but a lot of people who think college isn't for everyone are sitting comfortably with their degrees at jobs that those degrees got them.
---

Anteaterking posted...

Yeah, but how do you do that? Are you going to force businesses to lower their standards?

By not subsidizing the cost of college anymore so that it stops being an expectation from the labor pool.

Anteaterking posted...

Also, even if a degree isn't required, as long as it gives you a leg up in hiring, it's hard to say to people "You shouldn't get a degree and put yourself at a disadvantage."

I'm not necessarily saying that this fits your situation, but a lot of people who think college isn't for everyone are sitting comfortably with their degrees at jobs that those degrees got them.

Most degrees are useless for getting jobs that require said degrees. The requirement is only an HR checkbox at this point.