Features
USEFUL WEB LINKS
STUDENTS AND MONEY – A BRIEF HISTORY Years 1963-1979: Robbins Committee on higher
education recommends ‘courses of higher education should be
made available to all those who are qualified by ability and attainment
to pursue them, and who wish to do so.’ Creation of set of
new redbrick unis and polytechnics built to meet released demand. |
Reform of higher education has been high on the government's agenda, with promises to open it up to more working class students. The controversy over student fees is set to be reignited as details of the so-called 'access regulator' are announced. Gary Flood reports
Freedom to learn?
The next couple of weeks will see more details from the government on
its plans to reform higher education, in the form of specific proposals
on the so-called access regulator, its proposed means of making sure more
working class students get into top universities.
Critics say they could save themselves the bother if they just reduced
the biggest barrier to working-class entry into tertiary education: its
growing cost.
The issue of top-up fees and other ways to finance education is a growing
problem for the government.
Its January White Paper caused a storm of protest. (A White Paper is a
document produced by the government setting out details of future policy
on a particular subject, and will often be the basis for a later Bill
- so the government is trying to get feedback on the proposals before
formally presenting them as legislation in a future Queen’s Speech.)
Despite outlining a 6% increase in university funding per year over the
next three years, Education Secretary Charles Clarke was pilloried for
saying it was time students paid more towards the cost of their higher
education.
The proposals: Labour wants to bring back the grant for poorer students
(but in a limited way), abolish upfront fees (but it’ll allow colleges
to charge fees of up to £3,000 per student, up from today’s
£1,100 maximum from 2006).
That new grant will be £1,000 a year to help with maintenance, at
a cost of £300m. From September 2004 students whose family income
is less than £10,000 will get this £1,000 grant, with a declining
proportion of that up to those from £20,000 a year homes.
From 2006 fees will be paid for after graduation through the tax system,
with no interest charged on deferred fees, with the ceiling for when the
loan must start being paid back out of salary being raised from £10,000
to £15,000.
The White Paper was greeted with highly vocal opposition. The government
stands by its proposals, arguing they represent the best way forward for
the whole of the sector.
Critics – led by the NUS, but supported by bodies like the AUT (Association
of University Teachers) – say no, and are determined to fight the
proposals.
UNISON agrees. "UNISON is completely opposed to the government's
proposals to allow universities to charge differential fees," says
Chris Fabby, UNISON national young members officer.
"We believe this move would lead to the creation of a two tier elitist
higher education system where talent will be secondary to bank balance.
Our policy is clear we want the government to abolish all forms of tuition
fees and reintroduce a "living grant" for all students."
But does the NUS want a return to the ‘good old days’ of 100%
free education and full grants? It says not: "[We] have long accepted
that well-off graduates, those who have financially benefited from a university
education, should make a contribution towards their maintenance costs."
But it feels that the proposed solution isn’t really a solution for
most students struggling to make ends meet, and will end up being so costly
as to make further education once again an option just for the wealthy.
As the NUS president, Mandy Telford, wrote in a Guardian column in January:
"It is astonishing that the government opted to bring back a nominal
grant and abolish up-front fees, yet actually triple the cost of studying
at university."
The NUS is conducting a major campaign to fight the proposals, starting
with a mass lobby of parliament, and a week of mass action across UK town
and cities later this month.
Given the parlous state some of their members are in, can you blame them?
The NUS claims that in the academic year 2001-02 a student’s average
take-home after rent was £38.85 if they lived outside London, and
£36.27 in the capital.
That compares – unfavourably – with the government’s own
set level for what it thinks a single person needs to live on, as the
Jobseekers’ Allowance stands at £42.70.
The student loan rates for this academic year are £4,815 for students
living away from home in London, and £3,090 for those at home. (In
comparison, in 1982 a full grant for a London-based undergraduate was
£1,900.)
But the NUS claims the real cost of being a student is £8,400 a
year in London and £7,317 outside - which could translate to a shortfall
of nearly £5,000 each year.
Barclays says that average debt on graduation is now £12,000, up
sharply from 2001.
Though other research (from UNITE/MORI) puts that figure lower, even that
analysis has still come up with a hefty £7,652 as estimated debt
to paid off.
But critics say that the tuition fees could make those scary numbers truly
horrifying for some prospective undergraduates. If students are liable
for fees of up to £3,000 per year, that brings the cost of the basic
three year course to £9,000. Added to accommodation and living expenses,
a graduate may well be leaving university with debts of £21,000
or more – maybe more (medical students could end up £40,000
in the red).
What’s undeniable, as with our first scenario, is that going to uni
these days isn’t the dope-smoking revolutionary free for all it was
for some of us. A 2000 Labour Research Study report found 60% of students
questioned had to work as many as 20 hours a week in such jobs to make
ends meet.
Yet the government wants more and more of us to go to university, no matter
what our backgrounds. In 1990 20% of young people between 18 to 30 went
on to further study after A-levels. In 2002 that was 43%, and Labour says
it wants that to go up to 50% by 2010.
This is why the government is proposing what it calls the access regulator
– a third party that will regulate universities to make sure they
recruit from a wider social background.
The government says that its compromise is the fairest way of providing
the resources our children need to create their futures. But it seems
it faces an uphill task persuading all the parties concerned.
Maybe AUT general secretary Sally Hunt is on to something when she says,
"People feel very strongly about this issue. Top-up fees are extremely
unpopular - and could become this government’s poll tax."
Contact the article's author Gary Flood
|
|
LOTS MORE FEATURESIncluding stress in the workplace, getting out of debt and the pensions crisis more... |
© Copyright 2008
