Why I will NEVER support Compass

Glass House Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 06:20:18 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

Niel Lawson's lies and deceptions on Tuiton Fees.



Anyone who's taken any notice of the comments I have left on this site will know that I am a paid-up member of the right of the Labour party. I believe that is where the correct policies are, and where the party's ability to win elections resides. Obviously people disagree with me and that is what this site is for - to challenge assumptions and for us all to become more informed than we otherwise would be.

About a month ago, I read some of the entries covering Compass and tried to understand where they were coming from. I like to think that I'm not overly dogmatic and told myself that, despite my hostility to the group, I would read their manifesto with interest and see if it changed my mind on something.

However, Neil Lawson has written an article in for Guardian Unlimted today, challenging Brown to switch funding for higher education from a deferred-fees system to a Graduate tax system. In which he says...

"With fees totalling £9,000, and average living costs of £12,000, you know you can't afford to walk away owing more than £20,000. University is out of reach - not of your ability, but of your pocket"

Somewhere out there is an 18 year old who is wavering about going to university. They will read this article and be misled into believing that they cannot afford to go to university.

The article implies/or at least does not dispel the myths that...

  • Fees must be paid upfront, meaning that you need rich parents to go to university
  • The "£20,000" debt is unaffordable to kids from poorer backgrounds (when in fact, graduates don't have to start paying it back until they reach earnings of £15,000 per year. If they never earn that, they never have to pay any of it back)
  • Poorer students get no help (actually the act that brought in top-up fees also reintroduced bursaries and, the fees are means tested, which means that poorer kid's debts are smaller than those from richer backgrounds. Below a certain threshold, they pay NOTHING back EVER)

If this is indicative of the lazy thinking of Compass, I will have no part of it whatsoever.

If the article puts even ONE child off from going to University through lies and fear, Neil Lawson should feel disgusted with himself for the rest of his life.

I really am so angry. Shame on him.


tags: , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Why I will NEVER support Compass | 25 comments (25 topical)

Re: Why I will NEVER support Compass (#1)

by Glass House on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 06:23:46 PM GMT

Just to add to this.

It's not disagreement on policy that I am so worked up about - everyone should feel that they can write about differing viewpoints. It is the fact that the article goes further that trying to be persuasive or casting his views in a better light than others - it is actually providing the public with disinformation.


Re: Why I will NEVER support Compass (#2)

by nickparrott on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 08:16:00 PM GMT

I don't think Lawson has said anything that's untrue - or even particularly misleading.


[ Parent ]

Re: Why I will NEVER support Compass (#3)

by Glass House on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 08:39:51 PM GMT

"University is out of reach - not of your ability, but of your pocket"

is a demonstrable lie. University is beyond no-ones pocket under the new system.


[ Parent ]

Re: Why I will NEVER support Compass (#5)

by nickparrott on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 07:21:00 AM GMT

That entirely depends on your perception of what is out of pocket.


[ Parent ]

Re: Why I will NEVER support Compass (#7)

by nickparrott on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 07:28:21 AM GMT

Sorry, that should be "out of reach".


[ Parent ]

Re: Why I will NEVER support Compass (#9)

by smiley on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 09:25:10 PM GMT

You can disagree with him all you like, but there's no way you can say that he is a liar - it's just your opinion against his.  

The reality is that although fees don't have to be paid up front, students from poor backgrounds don't the financial support to leave with anything other than massive debts.  The problem was always that grants went (and aren't at decent levels now).  Your argument that poor kids (with no or little help from parents) will come out of uni with less debt than rich kids has left me speechless.

Do you actually think Lawson's piece puts young off going to Uni more than the government's policy itself??


[ Parent ]

Re: Why I will NEVER support Compass (#25)

by owaisrajput on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 04:04:59 PM GMT

I am fully agree with you


[ Parent ]

Re: Why I will NEVER support Compass (#4)

by Glass House on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 08:44:25 PM GMT

"you know you can't afford to walk away owing more than £20,000."

The way the repayments are set up is such that ANYONE can afford to walk away owing the money. Because the system is setup so that if you can't afford the repayments, you don't pay the repayments.

It's like if the government was handing out morgages on which the interest rate is only the rate of inflation AND telling people that if they can't afford the repayments, they don't have to pay them. AND THEN someone coming out and saying that the system stops poor people from buying houses!


[ Parent ]

Re: Why I will NEVER support Compass (#6)

by nickparrott on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 07:27:35 AM GMT

That is true only if you agree with the government's definition of the point at which the repayments are affordable.

I think it entirely reasonable that if you were anticipating a lifetime on the national average household income of c£25k pa and maybe having a family to support and so on, that you might well consider paying off £20k of debt unaffordable, even under the terms of a student loan.


[ Parent ]

Re: Why I will NEVER support Compass (#8)

by nickparrott on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 08:24:10 PM GMT

I may come back and write more extensively about this, but one other important point that you completely ignore is that part-time students (who make up 45% of the student body) still pay up front under the new system, and their fees are getting hiked. I suspect that many will decide they are indeed unaffordable.

I don't have figures to hand but I suspect that part-time students are particularly like to come from "non-traditional" backgrounds which makes this a particularly problematic element of the package.


Re: Why I will NEVER support Compass (#10)

by davidfloyd on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 10:51:07 PM GMT

I imagine Neal Lawson will be delighted that he's now considered important enough to have sent Glass House off to a hyperbolic hell in a hand-cart.

I'm personally fairly dubious about the idea of a graduate tax but, from the section quote above, I'm baffled as to how Lawson's argument amounts to either lies or deception.

It's certainly not lies as, the quoted section at least, is true although in my opinion the debt figure is quite optimistic.  

In English at least, it doesn't imply any of the negative implications that are listed afterwards.

It actively doesn't imply that fees are paid upfront - if the fees were paid upfront the money wouldn't be 'owing'.

I'm a big fan of Neal's but I think it's bordering on the hilarious to imply that on council estates across the next country, the next generation of working class Einsteins will be giving on the prospect of higher education as a result of his punditry.

That's assuming we're all allowed to come up with supposed implications that have little or no connection to the original material.


Re: Why I will NEVER support Compass (#11)

by dancrawford on Sat Aug 12, 2006 at 04:08:01 PM GMT

Think the Guardian letters' page on Friday was pretty instructive on this. Here are some excerpts:

I'm a mature student in my second stint in higher education. Having gained my first master's degree in 1974, I'm about to start my second in September, and from this perspective I want to point out some of the erroneous assumptions in Neal Lawson's article.

The product of a low-income working class family, I first started university in 1971. There were no fees to pay, but maintenance grants were set at a level where I had to work through the holidays and get what support I could from my family to make ends meet. It seemed worth it then, because I was passionate about my subject, and because I wanted to get out of the grim northern town I was brought up in and become middle class.

The young people I'm now studying with have a very different view. Class seems less important to them, and income is the major determinant of success. Middle-class children still see university as important. But young people from poorer households are much more calculating. A wide variety of high-income jobs, from plumbing to IT, are accessible via on-the-job training, so why should they burden themselves with £20K of debt if they're at all doubtful about going on to a degree? Certainly not for the "summer of friends, places and ideas" that Neal Lawson sees as university life. That rather middle-class view of taking a degree is sadly as out of date as being a member of a left-of-centre pressure group. New Labour's tuition fees aren't the cause of that change, but rather a reflection of it.
Greg Fox
Cambridge

Neal Lawson neglects to say that the poorest third of students will not pay fees at all; that - unlike at present - no one will pay or repay any fees until after they have graduated and are earning more than the average wage; that interest is not charged on fees, making them a cheap way to borrow. Finally, he assumes that variable tuition fees will discourage poorer students; we do not know since admissions for this autumn have not been completed, but fees did not have such an effect when they were introduced in 1998, nor earlier in Australia. There are objections to the new system - but what is wrong with acknowledging that higher education has to be paid for and that students benefit, in so many ways, from a university course?
Professor Roderick Floud
President, Universities UK 2001-2003

From my perspective (I'm about to start my third year at university and am both disabled and from a lower-income family), these reforms have helped a lot of my friends consider higher education for the very first time. I was greatly helped by the legislation introduced by the government restructuring higher education finance as well as the Disability Discrimination Act. Before Neal Lawson writes more columns on higher and further education, he should consider that widening participation refers to a broader spectrum of students than he thinks.


Re: Why I will NEVER support Compass (#12)

by davidfloyd on Sat Aug 12, 2006 at 08:28:34 PM GMT

This is quite a bizarre selection of comments.

Greg Fox responds to Neal Lawson's 'assumptions' by unleashing a series of sweeping anecdotal opinions masquerading as facts.

For example: "Middle-class children still see university as important" - an utterly meaningless statement.

Who is defined as 'middle class' - the children of factory owners? people whose parents also went to university?

What does it mean to see university as important - that they bother to apply? that they hand in their essays on time/at all?

Young people from poorer households may or may not be more calculating but, statistically they're very much more likely to go to university now - rather than go straight into full time work - than they were in the 1970s, rather than less as Mr Fox implies.

That's one of the main reasons why there's a discussion about university funding in the first place.

Roderick Floud's "but what is wrong with acknowledging that higher education has to be paid for and that students benefit" is equally bizarre.

Unlike Mr Floud, I chose not to go to university but I've still managed to deduce that the debate between top-up fees and a graduate tax is about how students should contribute to the costs of their degrees rather than if.


[ Parent ]

Re: Why I will NEVER support Compass (#13)

by nickparrott on Mon Aug 14, 2006 at 10:29:05 PM GMT

I read that letter from Greg Fox at the time and thought it was fairly bizarre then, for all the reasons that David Floyd lists but also because it seems to entirely accept Neal Lawson's argument that the debt does indeed put off people from working class backgrounds, so it's a bit hard to quote it as a rebuttal.

It's also worth noting that someone who thinks it is "out of fashion" to be a member of a left of centre pressure group may not be on the same wavelength as most Labour Party members.

Prof Floud's letter does perhaps deserve a fuller response...

"Neal Lawson neglects to say that the poorest third of students will not pay fees at all"

It is unclear what Floud is referring to here but there is no exemption that would not work better under other student finance systems.

The variable fees system relies on a mixture of bursaries and exemptions offered by individual universities (problematic because more complex and the universities with the most students from deprived backgrounds will be those that have the least income from fees) and that the debt will be wiped out after 25 years if unpaid (problematic because those on mid-range incomes could still be making payments for 25 years and graduates still have to owe £20k plus compound interest for that period).

"unlike at present - no one will pay or repay any fees until after they have graduated and are earning more than the average wage"

Firstly, upfront fees were only brought by the government (again at the urging of people like Floud) in the first place; obviously a graduate contribution scheme of one sort or another is the right way to go, but most systems can easily incorporate that and Lawson's own proposal of a graduate tax is predicated on precisly that principle.

Secondly, repayments start at an income of £15k per annum and last time I checked, that wasn't the average wage.

"interest is not charged on fees, making them a cheap way to borrow."

True, but would be the case under any system, and the size of the debt is the problem - plus most students have to borrow commercially in addition.

As for his other points - if the fees introduced in 1998 were such a success then the government wouldn't have been trying to replace the system in the first place; and interpretation of the evidence from other countries is a matter of some contention.

Frankly, if anyone has been playing fast and loose with the facts in the pages of the Guardian, it's Floud himself.

I'm yet to see anyone actually address the point Lawson was making about the choice of variable fees over any of the other options on offer.

I have written on that previously so won't bother to expand my opinions here but Lawson's critics do rather seem to have missed the point in my opinion.


[ Parent ]

Re: Why I will NEVER support Compass (#14)

by doctordunc on Wed Aug 16, 2006 at 12:41:22 AM GMT

Lawson's critics there have missed the point - I don't think Glass House has.  He puts forward a valid opinion (most of which I disagree with).

This is a difficult one for me to chip in on.  It's one of my pet areas so I feel I ought to contribute (I was leading occupations on top-up fees when they were still the mad brainchild of the Russell Group and the government were saying they'd never contemplate them...) but a few points need to be made first:

  • I'm not a fan of Lawson's (his rabid and undemocratic attacks on the left through the 1980s have not been forgotten everywhere)
  • I don't support a graduate tax
  • I don't accept the logic of student repayments

That out of the way:  there are a lot of improvements under the new system compared with the old one.  That isn't a massive vindication of government policy because both systems were introduced by this government.  But - mostly due to the good work of Labour backbenchers - the ridiculous introduction of top-up fees has come hand in hand with some improvements: a return of small, means-tested grants; encouragement for universities to give bursaries and other help; an incentive to universities re: diverse recruitment.

When I'm trying to persuade people to apply to university (which is a big part of my job) it is that that I concentrate on.  The other point - the moment at which loans will be repaid - is a much harder argument to convince young people about.  If debt means very little to you - your family regularly borrow money and have no problems paying it off - then talk of £30,000 debt (especially without interest) will seem very little.  But to lots of people considering applying to university it seems enormous.  And talking to them about their changed circumstances on leaving only make matters worse: if they get a graduate-level job in the public services, earning £15, £16 thousand as a starting salary, a substantial part of their wage will go to pay back their loans.  If they hook up with another student with a similar debt, that's a dual burden - what if they want to buy a house?  It's better - if you want people to go to university - not to encourage them to think along those lines.

If I had graduated with £20-£30 thousand debt, I think there is very little chance I would have - could have - contemplated doing the MA, the PhD and the PGCE that I did.  As such it would be hypocrisy in the highest order for me ever to contemplate supporting a student repayment scheme.

But the situation is worse than that.  When I was a student I had a number of friends who came along after having done their A Levels in evening classes while working: mature students.  There's help at the university level for mature students now (as then) - but the part-time evening class A Level classes have gone, because the government has pulled the rug from beneath almost all adult education (yet more market idiocy).

At every stage of the New Labour reform of higher education funding, people like me have been warning that its the thin end of the wedge.  And it still is.  Differential fees are near meaningless when almost all courses charge the same.  The pressue to lift the ceiling on fees will be irresistable.  

This is not the last we shall read on this subject, I fear.


[ Parent ]

Re: Why I will NEVER support Compass (#15)

by davidfloyd on Wed Aug 16, 2006 at 10:58:54 PM GMT

"Lawson's critics there have missed the point - I don't think Glass House has.  He puts forward a valid opinion (most of which I disagree with)."

Well, Glass House accused Neal of implying things he didn't imply and of being a liar - a fairly serious allegation not borne out by any evidence provided in the post.


[ Parent ]

Re: Why I will NEVER support Compass (#16)

by Glass House on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 01:34:42 AM GMT

I didn't realise that this thread was still going.

I stand by my statement that there are demonstrable lies in Lawson's piece.

Currently, repayments are made at 9 pence in the pound on every pound a graduate earns over £15,000.

I post this because, judging by some of the comments on this thread, most people dont understand this.

eg.

Graduate earning £15,000 p/a pays nothing in repayments.
Graduate earning £20,000 p/a pays £450 per year in repayments
Graduate earning £25,000 p/a pays £900 per year in repayments.

The repayments ARE NOT linked to the amount of debt the graduate is in (as it would be in a normal bank loan). I think this is what people don't understand.

Doctordunc says that "if they get a graduate-level job in the public services, earning £15, £16 thousand as a starting salary, a substantial part of their wage will go to pay back their loans"

This is COMPLETELY untrue. As I said above a graduate earning £15,000 per year pays NOTHING at all back. A graduate earning £16,000 would pay £90 back per year - In no way a "substantial part of their wages"

This is all from my student loan information (which I have in front of me right now). This can be seen at http://www.direct.gov.uk/EducationAndLearning/UniversityAndHigherEducation/StudentFinance/RepayingSt udentLoansPost1998/fs/en


Re: Why I will NEVER support Compass (#17)

by Glass House on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 01:48:28 AM GMT

Additionally, can I just say that I accept Doctordunc's position. He feels that Education should be free as a point of principle. While I disagree with him on that principle, it is a perfectly valid position to take.

What is not valid is to say that paying fees after graduation based on how much a graduate is earning (not, as it assumed by most people as a rate determined by the amount of debt and an interest rate) puts University out of the reach of poorer kids. As demonstrated above, the system is set up so that debt is always managable since low earner pay NO repayments and if your income falls the debt repayments also fall.


[ Parent ]

Re: Why I will NEVER support Compass (#20)

by nickparrott on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 03:09:04 AM GMT

You seem to keep missing a number of points - firstly that people might not agree that simply because the rate of repayment is related to income that makes those particular rates affordable; secondly that the rate of repayment may be of less concern than the total size of the debt; and also that Lawson's article was about the impact of a market system of fees.

I think it is an entirely valid, though of course arguable, proposition that the variable fee system could put University - or certain Universities - of out reach of some poorer kids.


[ Parent ]

Re: Why I will NEVER support Compass (#18)

by nickparrott on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 02:51:59 AM GMT

"I stand by my statement that there are demonstrable lies in Lawson's piece."

I'm sorry, but you haven't come up with one thing that is a "demonstrable lie".

Your original accusation seemed to be predicated on the assumption that "affordable" could in some way be objectively defined and that under the Govt proposal, that objective definition was met vis a vis the Graduate Contribution Scheme.

But what is affordable is never going to be an objective assessment, it's always going to be a matter of subjective judgement.

If you expect to spend your life earning around £25k pa then you might well conclude that you don't want to spend thirty years forking out a grand a year of it, for example if you were planning to raise a family on London rents.

As to your point about the workings of the GCS, I understand that perfectly well, I just think that you draw arguable conclusions from the facts; that it does not justify the accusation made in your original post; and nor does it refute any of Lawson's arguments.


[ Parent ]

Re: Why I will NEVER support Compass (#21)

by Glass House on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 04:10:11 AM GMT

Affordable in this situation = anyone can afford it.
Under the current system, no one can say "I'd love to go to university, but i literally don't have the money to do it". They may decide for themselves that they'd rather spend money that they would eventually have to pay in repayments on something else, but the choice is still theirs to make.


[ Parent ]

Re: Why I will NEVER support Compass (#23)

by nickparrott on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 06:27:43 AM GMT

"Affordable in this situation = anyone can afford it."

But that just depends on the person's subjective judgement of whether or not they can afford it.

"Under the current system, no one can say "I'd love to go to university, but i literally don't have the money to do it"."

Hmm, well even in the narrow terms that you set for that statement, this does depend on the maintenance loan being sufficient to cover living costs, which is disputed by some.

"They may decide for themselves that they'd rather spend money that they would eventually have to pay in repayments on something else, but the choice is still theirs to make."

Erm, yes but that could be described as the choice of whether or not they can "afford" it.

That is Neal Lawson's point - that some people will be in the situation where they decide that they can't afford the amount the debt that they would have on graduation.

And it may well be a rational choice for some people under the current system, contrary to your claims.

Indeed, it might not seem like much of a choice at all if the "something else" is your basic living costs.

Now, that is just an opinion, and it could be over-stated, but it is a perfectly valid case. Your counter-arguments are just that - arguments, not objective truth.

I repeat, you have produced no evidence that Neal Lawson has told a "demonstrable lie".


[ Parent ]

Re: Why I will NEVER support Compass (#19)

by doctordunc on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 03:01:35 AM GMT


True, Glass House (honestly, I know all this - it's my job!); the sums do not seem huge (however, the size of the loan does put students off though, I can assure you of that based on empirical, experiential evidence: you may argue that they're daft to allow it to put them off, but put them off it does).  My point has always been, that if repayments do not seem a lot on the wage packets of recent and future graduates, then it would be truly negligable included in progressive taxation across the whole population.

I think you should tax people for being rich, not for being educated.  I have a middle income occupation; I went without wages for seven-to-eight years in order to get my qualifications.  Student repayments (whether based on income contingent loans or on a graduate tax) are unfair.

I concede this is not the Neal Lawson/Glass House argument.  Neal Lawson supports a graduate tax, which would put students off just as much (pointing out to students that they'd have an extra tax to pay is no less off-putting than that they'd have an extra loan to pay back).

On the earlier point, I think it extremely harsh to say Glass House "lied" about Neal Lawson's argument (although I don't think he was entirely fair about mine ;-) ) - the closest to that is when he suggests that Neal implied that fees were paid upfront (which he clearly didn't).  But that's just woolly reading; the rest of it was fair comment.


[ Parent ]

Re: Why I will NEVER support Compass (#22)

by Glass House on Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 04:21:22 AM GMT

Much as we disagree on almost everything on every other thread, I respect your principled stance on free education (as I said before).

And you may be right that the perception of debt may put some kids off. I would say that this means that more effort should be put into educating children on the realities of the system. That is why I was so outraged about Lawson's article - I felt that it reinforced this false perception.

That said, the perception issue is separate from whether it is true that university is financially out of reach of some.

I'm honestly finding it difficult to understand why I'm having such trouble persuading people of this. I can't for the life of me understand why any one literally couldn't afford to go to university. Surely it's like saying "I can't afford to get a pay rise as i couldn't afford to pay the extra marginal rate of tax on my higher earnings"


[ Parent ]

Re: Why I will NEVER support Compass (#24)

by JonRogers on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 02:36:37 AM GMT

I think the key point is that it is incredibly irritating that those who got the benefits of free and accessbile higher education are now pulling up the ladder.

I graduated 21 years ago having enjoyed free higher education and having lived on a grant (not a loan).

This was also true of most Cabinet members, who then took this away from future generations of students.

Most decent Labour right wingers would think this was wrong. Most decent people would think this was wrong. Most people do think this was wrong.

Labour should provide a political choice for those of us who disagree with this sort of neoliberal nonsense - not an opportunity to carry out such right wing policies!


Why I will NEVER support Compass | 25 comments (25 topical)