By Joe Rukin
DfES, Discussion papers on Higher Education
A lot has been said in the last few weeks about student funding, so here's a quick guide to who has been saying what and what has been happening so far. The ball started rolling when Imperial College announced they were planning to charge a £10,500 top-up fee, at around about the same time as planning a merger with University College London, which has now been put off. The Government will now publish their strategy document in the New Year. To contribute to the discussion paper, Click Here
It started with the leak of a confidential paper to be discussed at the college's ruling council meeting, which said "it seems likely" the government will propose to remove the £1,100 limitation on fees. Imperial rector, Sir Richard Sykes was seeking approval from the meeting to "state publicly that it would wish to introduce higher fees", but the leak hardly made it necessary. The paper said
"It seems likely that the higher education white paper ... will state that the government is considering removing the limitation on the fees that can be charged to home/EU undergraduate students. The political implications of such a statement are such that it seems that the government would probably only wish to do this if there is public support from a number of higher education institutions."
The Students' Union held a silent protest outside the college council meeting and at an emergency meeting on Wednesday evening, students vowed to oppose any fees increase, objecting to "the paper and the principles behind it" and arguing that "education should be free and accessible to all". They also pointed out an archive video from 1 May 2001, when Sir Richard told students:
"We do not want to have - let me make this very clear in front of all of you, so I want you to listen - we're not interested in increasing the financial burden on students. It's a pointless exercise. One, it's illegal, and there are better ways of making money."
But now the u-turn was complete as he said that now 40% of Imperial's undergraduates come from independent schools "whose parents are used to paying fees to educate their children"
Straight away student funding shot up to the top of the political agenda, but not all university heads were impressed. Dr Michael Goldstein, of Coventry University, didn't mince his words, described the current support system as
"A complicated, burgeoning bureaucracy. An inadequate provision, which causes great hardship for many students and their families. A confused and conflicting set of government policies, which on the one hand rightly seek to encourage into higher education people from less well-off backgrounds, only to counteract and undermine this intent by the imposition of fee charges without providing students adequate financial support".
As for the suggestion of top-up fees he continued, adding: "And now we have the awful threat of a fees escalation, led by well-off universities predominantly serving the well-off; the introduction of a socially divisive regime, in which the ability of students to pay will determine the quality of their educational experience."
In Scotland a similar response was heard, with university principals expected to reject unanimously Downing Street's plan for student top-up fees and express their "deep hostility" to the idea. But they will express tacit support for graduate tax, which already exists (more or less) in Scotland. Andrew Cubie, who wrote the report which founded 'graduate endowment payments' said;
"They are simply getting it wrong if they think there is a lot of money sloshing about in people's pockets which can be tapped into. To simply follow the American example is to forget that parents over there start trust funds for the purpose of higher education when their children are very young. There are simply not many people in this country who have got £6,000 or £7,000 in their pockets for their child's fees. The people who do have that sort of cash available will want their child to go to Oxford or Cambridge and not to the newer universities. Some ministers and civil servants seem to believe there is a parental cash cow out there but it does not exist."
Straight away the Labour party showed cracks between support for Graduate Tax against Top-Up fees. Minister for HELL Margaret Hodge showed her usual tact by saying
"In the UK we see paying for education as a cost ... the Americans see it very much as an investment.If you set the cost to the individual student alongside the benefit that accrues to that individual, just by virtue of having had a degree, it's enormous - £10,000 debt set against £400,000 average additional earnings shows you the extent to which this is a good investment."
Gordon Brown was the first to weigh in against this, as he has long been seen to be a critic of top-up fees before the subject hit the media spotlight. Brown's allies believe that the only reason top-up fees are being discussed is because the Russell Group of 19 elite universities are conducting an ideological campaign for market-based top-up fees as a way of loosening their ties with the mainstream public education sector.
Clare Short, the International Development Secretary was next out against top-ups, saying
"I think it's a really bad idea, I'm against it. The rich would pay extra fees and go to the classy, elitist universities, rather like the US. I don't want Britain to go there, and I'm sure we can find a more intelligent way through."
Now over 100 MPs have signed an early-day motion opposing tuition fees proposed by Paul Farrelly, the MP. He said:
"The net result of allowing universities to charge top-up fees, with some charging the full market rate, is you have private universities. The effect will be to put off lower income students from applying to top universities, creating real two-tier universities and the rich would pay extra fees and go to the classy, elitist universities, rather like the US. I don't want Britain to go there, and I'm sure we can find a more intelligent way through."
Just to prove this, a report from the Equal Justice Works, the National Association for Law Placement and the Partnership for Public Service in the USA came out. It concludes that with larger debts, students only consider well-paid jobs, with law graduates in the USA shunning work in the public sector in favour of highly-paid private sector posts to help them pay off their student debts. Up to 66% of newly trained lawyers will not consider work in legal aid organisations, government offices and non-profit groups, according to the study.
Now more than 100 MPs have signed an early day motion against top-up fees, but of course it hasn't just been senior Labour party figures that have been attacking top-up fees, it's been the students as well. Cambridge students have already forced through a motion at their University ruling body to oppose top-up fees, after initially running a campaign asking alumni not to make donations to the University. At Oxford, the student union is considering whether to table a motion of no confidence in its vice-chancellor, Dr Colin Lucas, after he publicly refused to rule out top-up fees. An SU spokesperson said:
"The union is vehemently opposed to top-up fees and finds any suggestion on them deeply, deeply misguided - whoever those suggestions come from."
At University College London, students have scored a double success. After the merger with Imperial was ruled out, an Academic Board meeting has voted 220 to 30 for UCL to rule out top-up fees. The policy will not be binding until it is passed by college Council but student activists were upbeat. Dan Ozarow said
"This will hopefully send a powerful message to the government that HE institutions will not tolerate Top-Up Fees as an answer to the crisis and that they
should seek alternatives. I would urge any student that knows sympathetic staff who might raise similar
motions to contact them, or even raise them yourselves if you have the honour of being a student union rep on these college committees."
And as for the alternative, well as predicted, now that we've all been scared witless of top-up fees, out comes that 'compromise', graduate tax. Just a fortnight after Tony Blair appointed him, Charles Clarke has basically said that fees in their current form are untenable, and possibly after the introduction of the European Human Rights Declaration into British law, illegal. His consultation document states
"In most respects the law treats 18-year-olds as independent. The exceptions are higher education, driving a heavy lorry or having an air weapon in a public place. They can vote, pay taxes, drive a car, get married without parental permission and borrow money. We treat 18-year-olds as adults in most aspects of their lives. But for HE they are treated as dependents and we assume their parents will fund them. Is this the best approach? Does the focus of our current student finance system on a student's parental income rather than their own later earnings discourage students from thinking about a degree as a long-term investment?"
Well exactly, why on earth have a system of upfront payment were only about a third pay full fees because of parental income, when you can charge students after graduation, and they can all pay? But hey we all want grad tax don't we?
Whilst this goes on, Lord Ron Dearing must be getting used to no-one listening to him by now. In 1997 his review into student finance recommended that grants should go up by £250. Instead the new government abolished them. Well he's still on his soapbox, urging the Government to allow grants of £2,500 a year for students from the poorest homes. He told the Independent;
"We cannot afford ... a divided society in which the children born to well-heeled parents are destined for university, while for the others there is only a one in four chance of making it."
He also said the government has done nothing to solve the crisis of university funding;
"The universities are in financial trouble and many are heading for deficits. They say they are in as much difficulty as in 1996 when a cash crisis led to the Dearing Committee being set up, to undertake a major review of higher education. We found that the universities had been under sustained pressure to get their costs down, and that the funding per student had been cut by 40 per cent over 20 years."
"I am not going to argue that Dearing got it all right. We did not. But contrary to the advice of the Dearing Committee, they took away maintenance grants. In fact, the history of recent years has been of Government reducing support for the less well off by more than for students from well-healed homes. And what the Government has done by discretionary grants to help redress the balance for those in greatest need has been too complicated and uncertain to deliver the goods. The students you want to attract need a better deal, and one that avoids the present complexities."
Links
Guardian, Graduate tax fairer than top-up fees - Clarke
Guardian, Leak reveals university plan to levy £10,500 fees
Guardian,
Oxford students consider no confidence motion against head
Guardian,
University head attacks 'fees escalation'
Guardian, Chancellor at odds with Blair over top-up fees
Independent, Ron Dearing: Poorer students need grants of £2,500
Independent, Call to restore student grants
Independent, Short: University top-up fees a 'really bad idea'
BBC, Tuition fees block public service
BBC,
Top uni's plan for higher student fees
BBC, How higher tuition fees would work
BBC, Students protest against fees plan
BBC, Ford boss: 'Business to fund universities'
BBC, Education ministers divide on fees
IC Coventry, Student support 'inadequate' - city VC
Times, Clarke leaning towards a tax on graduates
Times, Scotland's university chiefs set to reject top-up fees
Scotsman, Short in open revolt over top-up university fees
epolitix, Clare Short's attack on top-up fees greeted with a muted response from Number 10.
IC Liverpool, Duncan Smith accuses Blair of secret university top-up fee plan
DfES, Discussion papers on Higher Education
Observer, Morris backs the poor in blast at top-up fees
