Social bonus
by Sonia Sodha
An interesting suggestion has emerged from Oxford University today to waive fees for students who go onto do ‘socially useful’ work – like social work.
I am pretty sympathetic to the idea that in this period of unprecedented fiscal consolidation, students might have to bear some of the costs (for example by means-testing the subsidised interest rates they currently get on student loans, which costs the government over a £1 billion a year). In many cases, the private benefits derived from a degree – in terms of personal development, skills and later financial reward – outweigh the social benefits, but this is not reflected in the huge subsidy undergraduates get (around £8,000 on average per year, around double what we spend per secondary school student per year).
The argument that’s often advanced against this thinking is that charging tuition and higher rates on loans will put students from poor backgrounds off, even if there are means-tested grants, loans and fee waivers (take a look at Demos’ Service Nation report). However, under scrutiny this just doesn’t stand up: as many young people from poor backgrounds who get good grades go to university as people from richer backgrounds. The real issue is that fewer young people from poor backgrounds do well at school – an issue that isn’t going to be solved by making HE cheaper for everyone (but which Demos has much to say on: see our recent report Ex Curricula).
But the big problem with asking students to contribute more to the costs of their degree, however, is that some students don’t go on to get jobs that are much better-paid than average, and undertake work that delivers huge social benefit – like social work. That’s why this idea that’s been mooted for discussion at Oxford is so powerful. Here’s hoping that it will be considered as a proposal by the Browne review of HE funding, due to report later this year.
Sascha
Superficially this sounds like an intruiging idea, but I would propose that there are huge obstacles in the realisation of any such scheme.
How do you measure social benefit? Are only social workers worthy of such support?
What about the entrepreneurial business or IT student that goes on to found his own company, thus providing jobs and inducing capital into the community?
Surely, there is an argument that the entrepeneur will reap the financial benefits of this in the long run, but does that mean the graduate's contribution is of less social benefit?
What about the top-university graduate who decides to forego a high-paying career in the private sector in favour of a relatively modestly paid job in the civil service? This graduate's skills, expertise and dedication will benefit society at large, should this student not receive the same support?
Choosing a degree and career should be based on personal preference rather than mere financial incentive irrespective of class or background.
Neil Macaskill
Just to declare an interest - I work at a University.
Determining what is "socially useful" work would be a highly subjective exercise. With the current system someone who takes a low paid job will pay back at a lower rate and eventually have their debt written off.
My own preference is for a graduate tax - at a rough guess a 2% tax would raise more than is currently raised by student fees. Problems though - collecting the tax, and allocating the revenue.
DAVID VINTER
Not much definition as to what is 'socially useful', do we count the nurse looking after the very ill? And just where would the urban meritocrats choose to value a degree in Agricultural Science that produces food for the whole damn lot of you?----Bet you haven't thought of that!
DAVID VINTER
It sounds fine to choose any degree you like. But the indulgence of reading something like medieval armenian poetry, will have very obvious limitations as compared to electrical engineering, or applied sexual pleasure. Regardless of fun, the hungry must be fed, houses must be built, and it costs.
Charlotte
To put my view into context: I am speaking from the perspective of a graduate (the first in my family) from a modest background (grew up on a council estate, parents occasionally out of work, but in an affluent area with good state run schools ) who went on to study English Literature (rather than say business or sciences) at university before embarking upon a low income career in theatre (rather than say a socially useful career, although, for the record I do believe that the arts bear many benefits for society!)
When reading about this proposal I initially thought that I was in favour of the idea - it sounds good at first but then so does the current administrations mantra of "reduced wastage" which I read as a cut by another name!
Upon reflection I feel that the idea of compensating for the lack of financial reward that a graduate will yield in a 'socially useful' job, by waiving loan repayments for those individuals, is a nice sounding but essentially short sighted solution to a much bigger problem than the cost of higher education.
The measure will surely discriminate against grads from poorer backgrounds since they will effectively be blackmailed into taking the jobs that society needs filling rather than the job that they desire/ are most likely to enjoy/suceed at. Basically it's a con for the poorer grad - they are told that we live in a socially mobile society, "hey look you went to uni, that's social mobility for you" then the poorer grad is faced with the resolutely UNsocially mobile reality "yeah ,well you're poor, so why not look into one of these jobs as an option - we really need someone to do it so as an incentive we'll let you off of those loans that you had to take out to go to uni. I know that your mates are all going to work in the private sector, doing what they've always wanted to do, but don't aspire to do the same as those wealthier people that you met at uni, look after your finances and take the job that we need you to do"
Hmmm I don't know about you but the idea doesn't sound so good for social mobility and happiness to me
The problem here is that money is not the only reward that one recieves from employment. To bribe grads from poorer backgounds into the jobs that society needs filled with a financial incentive could lead to feelings of alienation and disatisfaction. I for one know that I could earn more in another industry but value my happiness more. (I have no inheritance to look forward too so have had to fully consider the cost of my happiness over income outlook.)
If society wants individuals to work as a social worker/nurse/teacher then we need to pay these jobs competitive wages and, just as importantly make these roles as well respected as they should be so that the roles become desireable in themselves.
Pushing grads from poorer incomes into the jobs we need to fill by way of financial incentives alone will only exascerbate this country's current situation of little to no real social mobility. If we really do want social mobility in our society then we need to find another solution.
DAVID VINTER
Sorry Charlotte, the world is not and never will be 'fair'. For example have you ever noticed how generally speaking, the prettiest girls are the most socially mobile?
And somebody has to ---rod the drains out.
Charlotte
Don't be sorry David, I'm sure it's not your fault, well not totally anyway! ;) I agree with you that the world isn't fair but I find it hard to accept that it never will be. Although if I'm in the minority and society really believes that the world will never be fair then the first thing that we should do is to stop propagating the myth that it is. That's my real 'beef'. If we stop feeding people the myth of meritocracy and then people won't feel so responsible for their inability to 'measure up' in an unfair world. Dissatisfaction is the bane of many lives. Oh and on the subject the social mobility for the prettiest girls - yes in some ways this is true, but you know that it depends on where you want to mobilise to and how.
Charlotte
Also, on the subject of what jobs are 'socially useful' I think that this is impossible to define. The British Academy's booklet Past, Present and Future outlines the public value of the Humanities and Social Science. Academic work which impacts upon policy to improve real societal problems such as crime prevention may actually improve society's lot much more than a job that we instinctively refer to 'socially useful'
http://www.universitiesweek.org.uk/Home.aspx
DAVID VINTER
Firstly congratulation Charlotte on being the first of your family to graduate, me too, way back in '73, and as a mature student. No I didn't previously live in a council estate, but one grandfather was a farm labourer, the other a docker, they both left local school aged 10!
So frankly it sounds to me that you have already climbed a long long way up the steep wall of life. Your choice of a theatrical career sounds OK to me. Like many careers those at the top can make millions, [just like many other professions, there is an enormous range of incomes---eg the law, football, hell why anyone should get paid at all to kick a ball from one end of a field and back, I cannot imagine!]
No doubt such a career, will equip you with the essential middle class voice, this alone is worth thousands a year. So good luck for the future. Guess what you have been talking to an Agricultural Economist----rare birds we are.
Jem Bendell
Does the data you mention look at how many students from poor backgrounds go to top Universities and then onto ethical careers, in comparison to the average?
I wonder why civil society leadership is dominated by middle and upper classes, and what is lost for society and social change as a result.
If the data suggests this is so, then the next question is whether the fees have anything to do with poor students career choices post University. If conscious of debt, and unaccustomed to the size of it, we might assume so, and thus test.
Reports can skirt around the issue but tuition fees will never help social mobility throughout different professions.