Unlock Editor’s Digest for free
FT editor Roula Khalaf selects her favorite stories in this weekly newspaper.
Like many other countries, the UK faces insoluble long-term challenges: it has unavoidable obligations that impose painful trade-offs. Given its growing population and slow-growing economy, all this may become even more difficult.
For a taste of such challenges, look at the heated debate over student loans. Institute of Fiscal Studies It is expressed thus: “On average, students now leave university with just over £50,000 of student loan debt. Repayment is income-dependent: many graduates will repay little or nothing, while others repay 9 per cent of their income above a threshold for decades, often seeing outstanding balances rise. That design has led some to argue that the system is unfair and to argue that students are unfairly “There were loans sold whose terms have changed over time.”
This controversial outcome is the result of an imperfect attempt to solve exceptionally difficult problems, namely, how to finance the expansion of tertiary education in the UK in a fair and fiscally manageable way while preserving the institutional independence and academic excellence that have made it highly regarded.
In a speech given in 2022, nick hillman The Higher Education Policy Institute notes that “there were only 85,000 full-time students in the UK in the early 1950s – compared to 2.2 million today.” Thus, the UK has greatly expanded educational opportunities, especially for womenWho have defeated men. Furthermore, according to Times Higher EducationThe UK now has six of the world’s top 50 universities, with Oxford, Cambridge and Imperial in the top 10. For example, France has only one and Germany has three in the top 50. Thus, Britain has maintained its relative superiority. Its university sector is also a major export industry, With 686,000 foreign students in 2024/25. Overall this is a victory.
Changes in both the nature of the economy and individual aspirations made a massive expansion in tertiary education inevitable. When I went to university only 5 per cent of my generation did. That’s right, it was considered wasteful. But such a huge expansion also created big dilemmas. How was it to be financed? How should the huge increase in costs be shared between students and society? How well can standards of teaching and research be maintained? To what extent can the precious freedom of educational institutions be protected?
I was involved in the debate in the early 2000s about how to finance the sector. I argued in line with the Blair government’s emerging policy for higher fees and income-contingent loans, which were enacted in the controversial Higher Education Act of 2004.
I’m convinced this was the best strategy. It was politically impossible to obtain the necessary resources from the common taxpayer alone. It was also wrong to do so, because, overall, graduates were better off as a result of their university education. Furthermore, I argued, universities would be more free if they could charge fees directly. Finally, a system of income-contingent repayment would provide both resources and needed insurance for those who are less financially successful.
In my opinion all this is correct. But, as always, the devil is in the details (development). Firstly, the fees (and loans) were capped at £3,000 per year, which was clearly too low. Fees surge under coalition government £9,000 capWhile direct government support for university teaching was ended. One justification for this was the absurd accounting convention (later changed) that certainty of future loan writedowns would not be recognized. This allowed the government to register a large projected saving on public expenditure by shifting from direct expenditure to debt.
Subsequent changes have been incorporated Increasing the period before loans can be forgiven, higher interest rates and, more recently, freezing the nominal values ​​of the limits for loan payments. Debtors rightly complain that it is unfair for the government to increase the cost of their loans at will. During this time, Fee income lags costs Teaching domestic students means that universities cross-subsidize expensive courses (such as science and medicine) from the fees of low-cost courses (such as humanities).
Here is a successful sector that depends on the government. But the latter attempts to avoid the cost by shifting the burden from taxes. This creates unpredictability and inevitable unfairness. Is this the best we can do? In most ways, yes. But the state should provide more direct support for teaching.
Follow Martin Wolf myFT and on Twitter
