tuition fees

No More Fees Please

A new study into the future of HE funding is calling for tuition fees to rise above £5,000 a year.

The report by Policy Exchange, More Fees Please?, states:

“It is clear that if the cap is set at £5,000 or lower, once again the majority of institutions will charge the maximum fee and no real market will be activated.”

Sadly, rather than look to alternative models of funding, the call is simply to raise fees and get students to pay more. Specific caps are not discussed in the report as, “we do not think it is appropriate to stick our fingers in the air and specify a level for the cap here”. However, it does not go as far to suggest a removal of the cap.

photo by benrybobenry

As this new study is released, Times Higher Education reports of a survey that suggests more than half of students would be willing to pay fees of £5,000. Students were asked how low fees could go until they were so low that it would make them doubt the quality of their course, and how high fees could go before they would not pay it.

I don’t like the questioning here. Tuition fees are not the only source of funding for universities and the reality is more complex. To ask if a lower tuition fee would make students doubt the quality of a course seems the wrong question to ask. If taken out of that context, I’m sure students would not consider fees in the same way.

Nevertheless, the survey does suggest that widening participation will be disturbed if fees are raised.

The Policy Exchange report argues that poorer students will not suffer from higher fees. It states:

“There is clear evidence that top-up fees have not deterred poorer students from going to university, as the anti-fees lobby predicted they would. In fact in the second and third years of top-up fees applications soared in England, much more so than in the years preceding the introduction of top-up fees. Most crucially, the increase in applications was not just from middle-class students. In the 2007-08 academic year applications in England for students from the three lowest socioeconomic groups rose by nearly 10%, and in 2008-09 climbed by a further 27%.”

Firstly, applications in the higher socioeconomic groups rose even higher. Secondly, it’s no surprise that so many students and parents have pushed toward degree study as greater belief is put on the thought that a university education is the only way to secure a bright future. At some point, the game will change. Along with it, poorer students will be deterred by higher fees and applications are bound to suffer. This is bad news.

Universities group million+ agrees:

“The simplistic approach of this report, which proposes changes to the contributions made by students whilst at university, could have an immensely damaging impact on participation. […] It’s nonsense to suggest that there aren’t thousands of people from lower and modest incomes being denied places at university. This year alone up to a quarter of a million well-qualified applicants could miss out. This report’s proposals would simply serve to put yet more barriers in their way.”

The University and College Union (UCU) say that the call to simply charge students higher fees is an “astonishingly weak” solution.

The 1994 Group does give its support to higher fees, calling it “the only feasible option”. However:

“an increase should only be introduced if it is coupled with two fundamental guarantees. Firstly, a guarantee that a targeted and robust student support system is in place that ensures that no student is unable to attend university because of cost. Higher education should continue to be free at the point of delivery with repayments contingent on income after graduation. Secondly, a commitment from universities to continue to enhance the student experience on offer to all students.”

Raising tuition fees is not the way forward, no matter how much support is given to widening participation. The state of HE is rapidly changing and the full effects of those changes haven’t been felt yet. Nobody can truly understand the impact of recent, and upcoming, alterations in HE.

Given this uncertainty, the ‘solution’ to HE funding by raising fees could prove costly not just to students, but to everyone involved. To base so many future plans on past situations that no longer represent the true state of HE is unwise.

Last year, I hoped for more discussion on the future of HE funding. Now tongues are wagging, it’s time to make our opinions heard. One fantastic way of doing that is to visit Vote For Students and pledge to use your vote in the next general election to support candidates who would vote against any increase in fees in the next parliament.

Higher fees? No thanks!

Further Reading

Getting to the heart of discussions about fees

This week, the National Union of Students (NUS) is holding several Zones Conferences in Manchester. Today is the second day of the HE Zone Conference (wish I was there!) and David Willetts, the Shadow Secretary of State for Universities and Skills, has just spoken.

The following Tweet came through from @NUS_HE:

David Willetts: “the student experience should be at the heart of discussions about fees” #nuszones

On one hand, this seems like a wonderful thing to hear. However, we should be cautious before heartily agreeing.

Now, I haven’t heard the whole speech and I hope the NUS delegates attending are able to grill Willetts and take on board the entire picture that he’s given. But from the brief sentence above, here’s my take…

The student experience is a different discussion to fees entirely. The only time when the student experience should be at the heart of discussions about fees is when fees are taken as the only (or the chosen) option for funding Higher Education.

As I see it, at the heart of discussions about fees should be whether or not fees are the best way of funding HE.

Everything else is secondary. If we go down the route of using anything like the student experience as a way of discussing fees, we’re led down a path of accepting fees as the best way of dealing with HE funding. Dangerous territory when students are putting in so much effort to bring the question of HE funding to the attention of everyone (Town Takeovers being one such campaign).

money_time

Once fee discussions centre around the student experience, it opens the way for variable fees at institutions with an arguably better student experience. It opens the way for all sorts of changes that could go against what students are fighting for right now. Alternative ways of funding HE could fall by the wayside, or suffer a major setback at the very least.

This is just the way I see it after reading the single Tweet from the HE Zone Conference, but I’d hate to see the waters clouded at such an important time.

If David Willetts’ address to the conference has been recorded, I look forward to hearing it in full.

I’m pleased to see that those attending the HE Zone Conference are looking constructively at what they’re listening to. One of my favourite responses so far over Twitter highlights an important point…you need to hear all angles and arguments to get the best shot at understanding and succeeding yourself:

“pleased HE zone conference invited David Willetts to speak, it is good to hear from someone i dont agree with on many levels #nuszones” – @MichaelaNeild

[Update: The NUS reports on the talk, explaining that Willetts said that “the case has not yet been made for the first £3000 let alone more.”

Willetts said “How would I vote today? I think I would say today, if the vote arose, that the case has not been made. This is not an argument that I believe the universities have won. They haven’t yet properly accounted for the first £3000 they had, so I would say not unless and until you have shown what is in it for students and their parents.”

While not a suggestion that the Conservatives would scrap fees in favour of a different method of funding, at least it’s a positive nod toward the general unhappiness about leaving university with so much debt. It’s a start!]

Graduate Tax – A better alternative to tuition fees?

The National Union of Students (NUS) has published a blueprint that suggests setting up a People’s Trust for Higher Education. It is, they say, “A fund built mainly on contributions by former undergraduate students and their employers, and the employers of current students”.

Rather than ramp up fees, lift caps and get universities charging different fees, the NUS blueprint asks for a form of graduate tax that would be paid over a fixed period of 20 years, based on your earnings. The more you earn, the more you pay back. This has been suggested as a reasonable alternative to implementing higher and variable fees. In fact, it’s designed to abolish fees completely.

This blueprint has been written to stimulate public debate, rather than answer every question, rather than prove a solution to every problem, rather than explain a perfect system.

That said, it is still a clear set of proposals aimed at creating a fair system for all and encouraging widening participation.

The NUS state:

“Our proposals would end the very notion of a course fee or price, and shut the door on a market in fees. Graduates should contribute to the future costs of higher education according to their actual future earnings, so that those who benefit the most from university by earning more will contribute more, in order to give future students access to higher education.”

However, Nick Taylor brings up a valid point that the NUS suggestions could be “Funding Our Failures”. He asks us on his blog to “think of an alternative that doesn’t persecute successful students and reward idiots”.

Taylor’s blog post asks a reasonable question, especially as the NUS blueprint specifically states, “Those who leave higher education and, for whatever reason, have only a very low income for the rest of their working lives, may pay nothing at all, and will have relatively little debt compared to today.”

Problem areas like this do need to be addressed, otherwise the system is open to abuse. It is, therefore, up to us to contribute further to help introduce a system that works for all. The NUS brings us closer to a way of funding HE using methods other than charging sky-high fees. So now we have a more detailed, greater supported and generally talked about platform to work from and mould into shape.

Although an open statement, the NUS blueprint also starts to talk about the future of HE given the likely boost in revenue that’s been calculated. They call for the funding to:

“be conditional on new measures to monitor and improve the quality of the student experience and the impact of higher expenditure in the higher education sector. We believe this should be focused on the outcomes of higher education and the extent to which it actually changes people’s lives.”

If widening participation is truly being taken seriously by the government, it should be made clear to all that HE can change people’s lives for the better and that it’s worth being a part of. There will always be the ‘Wasters’ that Nick Taylor refers to, but I believe more can be done to persuade these individuals that they can achieve more to the benefit of themselves and others. It won’t work for everyone, but this new blueprint should go beyond the debate of graduate tax versus student fees and look to the way in which individuals can be encouraged to make the most of their time within HE. University looks like a laugh because it really can be a laugh. That doesn’t stop it from being a positive and rewarding move in life at the same time.

Finally, the blueprint opens the way for better support of lifelong learning (which is something I’m all for). The graduate tax would be related to the number of credits that people have studied. That allows people to move in and out of HE in different ways and benefit without being hit with huge fees, just for trying to gain more education. A graduate tax would still need to be paid, but in such a way to allow greater access and better participation.

I am pleased to see today’s blueprint and hope for a wider debate within HE because of it. While we may not have all the answers right now, we’re certainly a lot closer to finding an effective and fair system of funding higher education. Now it’s up to us to get working on filling in the cracks and building a system that works for as many people as possible.

The more of us who get involved, the easier that should be. Let’s do it!

Related Links:
The Guardian – Wes Streeting (President, NUS) on the blueprint

The Guardian’s own take on the graduate tax

University and College Union (UCU) response to the blueprint

Million+ response to the blueprint

The Guardian has put up a voting and commenting page about “Graduate Tax vs Tuition Fees“. Be sure to watch the comments both for and against!