To move the tuition fees debate forward we need to start talking about a graduate contribution

The subject of tuition fees was noticeably absent from debate in the election. Very little was said by the three party leaders, despite the fact that many parliamentary candidates busied themselves signing up to the NUS pledge not to raise fees.

Meanwhile, there is no shortage of vice-chancellors willing to say that the fee cap should be raised, or lifted completely – a development that will do nothing to enhance the public's understanding of, or affection for, fees.

If we were able to step outside of this sphere for a moment we might learn some lessons about why there is such a divide between public opinion on university funding and the view from within the sector. It isn't simply about money or the fee cap.

We face the risk of attempting to tackle our difficulties without addressing the essential problem that so many people are opposed to the system in the first place. We're in danger of spending all of our time with our heads under the bonnet of the car trying to fix the engine when the real problem is that no one has thought to work on the sales pitch.

At the heart of the matter is the fact that it is still a commonly held belief that higher education is a public good and should be entirely funded by the state. As a result, most people have never been convinced of the case for university tuition fees.

Graduates are still in the minority, and those benefiting from a university education are granted access to the most respected, popular and highly paid jobs. Despite this, the public still has to be persuaded that, in these circumstances, some personal contribution should be made in recognition both of earnings and attendant benefits.

Changing mindsets is no small task, especially because we have adopted a language that would not be out of place in the small print for a finance advert or store card agreement: using words like fees, loans and debt. No wonder many parents of prospective students still believe there is an up-front fee to pay on arrival.

In consideration of these factors, the University Alliance is submitting proposals for a new graduate contribution scheme, making the case to Lord Browne's review for a complete overhaul of language and approach. Our proposals would see universities setting a "maximum contribution" with no upfront payment and graduates contributing through the tax system in relation to their earnings. This reformed language would make it explicit that there is no cost for students and that the "contribution" graduates put in forms only a part of the funding of their university education.

These proposals are not an argument for an upfront fee or for higher charges. They do, however, propose significant improvements for more effective use of government subsidies and introduce private finance, as there are gains to be made by modifying the way the subsidies are funded. They also ensure that graduate contributions relate directly to earnings – if you don't benefit, you don't contribute.

For students and graduates, this is not actually a radical change from what they experience now, but few people understand the current system. We believe that moving to a graduate contribution scheme would constitute a small step in bridging the current divide in understanding.

To borrow an example from Professor Nick Barr at the London School of Economics, many parents would, and perhaps should, lose sleep if their child had credit card debts of £20,000. On the other hand, very few parents should lose sleep at night worrying about the £20,000 component of the average £1m in tax that graduates will pay, on an income-contingent basis, over their lifetime.

These are not merely words, despite the plea for a change in language; such a change is fundamental and should be a major focus for Lord Browne. Moving away from a regressive and misleading language based on fees and debt to one that emphasises investment and graduate contribution might just help us take this debate forward.

• Professor Janet Beer is vice-chancellor of Oxford Brookes University and chair of the University Alliance group of business-focused institutions

read full article