There where a number of interesting questions raised from students, course reps, newly elected and outgoing officers. The debate hinged around the topic of how do we pay for universities and higher education in the future.

 

Both the VC and NUS agreed in principle to a graduate contribution scheme, the Vice Chancellor a member of Univesities UK (UUK),  talked about how UUK's plans would see graduates contribute to the cost of Higher Education, an ideal that is shared by the NUS, who explained further how they would like to see buisnesses contribute along side graduate contributions, to a "peoples trust for higher education". This idea was not met too kindly by the Vice Chancellor who "rather hoped that name would change" and indicate how this "trust" would evade the cuts that other areas of the Inland Revenue faced.

 

The question of "free education" was raised by MMUnion's President-Elect Robert Croll, asking, given that the number of "billionaires in the country has like doubled, why should we be paying" this was a point that was refuted by all the panellists, with the Vice Chancellor rubbishing the idea of taxing the ultra rich to fund universities would be very short sighted, and completely unsustainable. The Vice Chancellor commenting more broadly on Free education, played down the assertion that fees had put of disadvantaged students, and provided a barrier to minority students; asserting that only ten years ago, there were only 200,000 students studying at university, compared to the 750,000 that study in British institutions today, genuinely open the doors to students who had never had the chance before; reverting to free education would slam that door shut again, John Brooks quiping that "you dont move back to the stone age because electricity is difficult to make"

 

 

The position of free education is one the NUS has moved away from, as Susan argued that, with the widening of Higher Education it was unfair that universities should be paid for by those who had not directly felt the benefits, further taking about the NUS Blue Print, that sees graduates and employers, contributing according to the benefits they receive. All the panellists agreed that fees had not been the best way in the past, and rejected the idea of raising fees as dangerous to higher education, and the idea of moving back to free education as being unable to provide the number and quality of graduates that this country needs to remain a competitive intellectual force.