Five panelists, a room full of avid listeners in the students’ union and a difficult battle ahead. It could only be Leeds University Union’s Big Debate! This time, the debate fell to the theoretical possibility of free higher education, specifically talking about undergraduate university education from the ages of 18 to 21. Chairing her first Big Debate, and excellently so, Georgia Hennessy Jackson kicked everything off by reminding the panelists and audience members to remain civil and fair to each other, and then, with formalities out of the way, the panelists were off.
The panel from left to right: Arguing against free education were Bradley Escorcio and Bethany Bartley-Jeacock, chairing the debate was Georgia Hennessy Jackson, whilst arguing in support of free education were Tom Dixon, Nick Raikes and Harry Shotton.
Arguing that education is a human right and should be granted freely, Tom Dixon started the debate with a passionate speech about the value of education, expressing his belief that the idea of people paying for education is simply ‘wrong’. His argument throughout the debate was that free higher education would allow people from all walks of life to go to university, which, he says, is currently not the case. Tom, the union’s Education Officer, proposed the motion for the debate, and he was clearly incredibly excited about what he calls the ‘education revolution’ that free education could bring about. Bethany Bartley-Jeacock opposed his arguments, saying that she does not believe that university is ‘inaccessible’. She argued that the government has always done as much as possible to allow people from all backgrounds to go to university through the use of bursaries, grants and by putting limits on when fees are to be paid back. Her point was rather silenced, however, by the argument from an audience member that even the idea of high tuition fees puts off many people, stopping them from going to university altogether.
In spite of this small defeat, the anti-free education side pushed on, with Bradley Escorcio arguing that while we all believe that £9000 fees are ridiculous, some fees are necessary to fund the education system. Met by retorts from the pro-free education side, Bradley said that given the British government’s current debt, we could not afford to fund free education for all. On the opposing side, Nick replied by saying that free education would create a ‘trickle-down effect’ as it would involve building more university buildings, hiring more lecturers and creating more skilled employees to send out into the global employment market. This, he said, would result in a better British economy. Bradley, however, argued that any investment in education should be put into primary and secondary schools instead of into universities and other forms of higher education (like apprenticeships). He said that in actual fact free education would still benefit those who are better off and go to private schools, as entrance to university would still be based on getting high grades. Since private schools usually produce the most students with high grades, having free education would not affect the current unfair situation whereby students who can afford to pay for secondary school have more access to the top universities in the country. Instead, Bradley argued that money needed to go straight into schools to stop this gap between private and state schools at a younger age. This excellent point certainly made many people in the audience nod thoughtfully, including myself.
The pro-free education side weren’t finished yet though, and Harry Shotton brought home his belief that it is ‘unacceptable’ that some people cannot afford to be educated at a higher level. He also mentioned the interesting example of Germany, where tuition fees have recently been abolished. Harry said that this was an important example for Britain, and finished off with a thoughtful question: ‘Tell me, he said, what is wrong with free education?’Cue more head nodding from the audience. It was difficult for the anti-free education side to defend this idea, but both Bethany and Bradley focused on the realities of free education, highlighting the fact that it is not affordable. Bethany also made the very good point that if education is free, it would have to be paid for by increasing taxes. The bill will be ‘paid for by society’, she stated. Bradley supported this point, saying that we need to focus funding into schools where it is certain to pay off, not into higher education which, given the rate of graduate unemployment, is a gamble.
When the debate finally drew to a close both the panelists and audience had been treated to a range of interesting and thought-provoking arguments, perhaps changing a few minds around the room about the question of free education. Personally, my eyes had been opened to a very important issue, and I felt somewhat stuck between supporting what I believed was right and understanding that it may not be an economic reality.
The question is: what do you think? Is free higher education a human right, or should investment be placed lower down in the education system? Would free higher education make university more accessible to all or would those who are better off still benefit? And finally, would investment in free higher education have a ‘trickle-down’ effect or do we have to accept that fees are a necessity if we want to maintain the status of our universities? Whatever you believe, the most important thing is that we, as university students, continue to voice our opinions about issues that impact us directly. If you want to be heard then another Big Debate is being considered for this semester, so make sure you sign up and get involved! You never know, your viewpoint could shape the future policy of Leeds University Union.
If you would like to listen to the Big Debate on free higher education you can find a recording on the Leeds Student Radio website.
Image 1
http://lsrfm.com/the-big-debate/
Image 3
Image 2