University funding based on graduate income

At the moment, universities get a flat fee for each student regardless of their graduate employment income. There is therefore no disincentive to put on courses with little or no enhancement to the employment and income prospects of graduates.

Universities being supported by taxpayers should be paid in line with how much value they add to graduate employment prospects. The more the graduates from a particular university gets paid and as a consequence the amount of tax they pay, the more the university should get paid and vice versa.

This would incentivise universities to put on courses that add to graduates' employment prospects and improve their teaching.

Where do you propose the interim funding should come from as universities move from being funded up front with £9k for teaching in year to funding that trickles through a couple of hundred pounds a year over 20-30 years after completing the course?

That information already exists about which university a graduate went to and their income.

You can phase the scheme in over a 5 year period so students continue to pay £9000 or whatever the fees will be and the university gets a percentage of that depending on how much their graduates get paid.

At the moment, universities get a flat fee for each student regardless of their graduate employment income. There is therefore no disincentive to put on courses with little or no enhancement to the employment and income prospects of graduates.

Universities being supported by taxpayers should be paid in line with how much value they add to graduate employment prospects. The more the graduates from a particular university gets paid and as a consequence the amount of tax they pay, the more the university should get paid and vice versa.

This would incentivise universities to put on courses that add to graduates' employment prospects and improve their teaching.

So you intend to backdate this to previous graduates? All tax payers will have a proportion of their income sent directly to their university? Does this not mean double charging graduates who have already paid tuition fees to fund their course?

I don't think you quite understand what I'm asking - if you cut university income from £9k in year to £9k over 5 years then how do you propose to fund the gap? How will universities pay their bills and employ their staff if their income is reduced substantially on a promise that it will be paid back in 5 years (and do you realise that many degrees last 4 or more years - saying that universities will get their money in 5 years after they start teaching is ridiculous - you're implying that a university would receive £27k in repayments from graduates in their first 2 years of employment).

The problem with this idea is that it will eventually create a very dull society. It will kill creativity. Universities offering engineering courses will be awash with funds while universities offering art and theater type courses will be impoverished.

Do we no longer value or have a need for these things; music, literature, art, drama etc?

The reason why some arts graduates can't find well paid jobs is they did not learn anything that employers valued. There is no reason why students of drama or literature can't acquire skills and knowledge that are valued by employers. There are plenty of people who never went to university or did arts that are creative.

You need to unconfuse yourself.

Some people aren't interested in acquiring skills that are valued by employers. Not everybody wants to fit into that particular pigeon hole. Maybe some people want to learn music so they can just pick up a piece of work as a jobbing musician here and there and mix that with travelling in India doing charity work or running a second hand jeans stall on Camden market. And why not?

I think we need to take a step back. Not everybody wants to spend their lives like a battery hen in an office cubicle shuffling bits of paper around.

PRSOM.

Some people aren't interested in acquiring skills that are valued by employers. Not everybody wants to fit into that particular pigeon hole. Maybe some people want to learn music so they can just pick up a piece of work as a jobbing musician here and there and mix that with travelling in India doing charity work or running a second hand jeans stall on Camden market. And why not?

I think we need to take a step back. Not everybody wants to spend their lives like a battery hen in an office cubicle shuffling bits of paper around.

You need to unconfuse yourself.

I really don't

In 2013/14 the SLC paid just under £6b to universities to cover tuition fees. source and source for non stats people
The average repayment in the first year following graduation (so 3/4/5 years after starting university) is £430 source. It takes 5 years after graduating for the average annual repayment to reach £1000.

If the system you propose is brought in in 2016/17 then where does the £6b come from in 2016/17? Or are universities expected to teach students for free?

Edit: especially considering that in 2013/14 1/3 of students were still paying the lower loan. By now the SLC tuition fee loan will be considerably higher than £6 billion

Thats fine, they could go to a private university where they can pay for their own degree.

..says the guy who doesn't understand

If you're paid a 20k salary, and one day your boss comes up and says "ok Maker, I'm not paying you for 5 years, but then I'll pay you 100k at the end" - will you be able to survive on your savings for 5 years until your money comes in?

When did you get to decide who is entitled to a university education? Since when were universities put there solely to produce the latest batch of fodder for industries current needs?

Universities will get their fees in arrears and on a sample of graduate earnings. Students will still pay £9k a year. A random sample of graduates of each university will be assessed from data from Student Finance to see who much the earned. Depending on the amount, the university will get paid a percentage of the £9k per graduate. If the university meets a target for earnings per graduate, they get paid the full £9k, if not, they get a paid a percentage of £9k on a sliding scale.

As a taxpayer, I think I get a say on how my money should be used. It is a waste of money to pay for a degree that is useless to the graduate and the employer.

As a taxpayer, I think I get a say on how my money should be used. It is a waste of money to pay for a degree that is useless to the graduate and the employer.

Degrees in any subject does not guarantee a good job, you have to show you are actually suited to the job and be able and willing to do it.