Student Loans
I was lucky. In my day a 3-year undergraduate degree was provided free to those school children who were believed to be able to benefit from it. The state (in my case the UK) provided the university with enough money to put on sufficient courses. And the state (or the county) provided a means-tested grant that provided just enough money for a student to feed and house themself for each academic year of 30 - 40 weeks. Mine was a pretty average family, with one parent writing a book and the other working as a G.P.; but I and five siblings each received the full student maintenance grant.
The state wanted so many doctors each year and got them, so many scientists, so many teachers, so many librarians, artists, etc.; and they got them. Each year a new cohort of school-leavers found places at university, and a new cohort of graduates found jobs. Firms toured around the better-known universities like wasps round an open jam-jar.
Then some wretched government, wanting to bribe the electorate by lowering taxes, found that there was no longer enough central government money to pay for the university places; and a short-sighted boffin suggested charging Student Fees.
It is argued that a university degree confers a benefit on the graduate. Not contested. But it also confers an enormous benefit on the state. With a healthy university system we can staff our hospitals, laboratories, workshops, class-rooms (etc) without needing to bribe people from other countries. I have not heard much about the benefit to the state from a healthy university sector. (On the other hand, I have heard that the university sector in the UK is in an unhappy condition.)
There is some talk about fairness. That it is unfair for the state to give, free to able school-leavers, a means of earning more than less able ones. It is certainly not equal, but it may be fair, if selection is handled fairly and without prejudice.
The thought of going into considerable debt (e.g. £30,000) at the beginning of a working life may put many able school-leavers off studying for a university degree.
Suppose the median annual pre-tax salary in the UK in 2025 was £40,000 (actually £39,039), and that of non-graduates was £30,000 (actually £29,500). Suppose, therefore, that the median annual pre-tax salary of graduates is £50,000. (This is a guess.)
There must be many people who realise that graduates would (on these figures) pay more tax than non-graduates, and this might be sufficient to pay for the university course, and to justifying it being free for suitable candidates. So I did some calculating, using data on the salaryaftertax.com website.
Pre-tax(£) After tax(£) % tax Tax p.a. Tax (30 years)
Non-graduate: 30,000 25,120 16,3 4,880 146,400
Graduate: 50,000 39,520 19.2 10,480 314,400
It is clear that, in a working life, the graduate is indeed paying for her/his tuition, many times over, simply in the already established progressive tax system. He pays £168,000 more tax than the lower earner; more than twice.
If the government wants the Fees paid up-front, perhaps I would allow a loan scheme. But to charge interest on that loan at greater than RPI seems simply greedy; usury!. (Repayments of the loan should be counted as tax-deductible expenses.) But I would prefer, as fairer, the system of my youth.
Comments are welcome, direct to cawstein@gmail.com

