By Joe Rukin

White Paper Summary.

Access to loans, the new grant and fee levels will still depend on a students' parents income. Under the new proposals, if your parents earn £10k or below you will get the full grant of £1k per year. This will go down on a sliding scale to nothing when your parents earn £20k. Universities will be allowed to charge upto £3,000 per year in fees, to be payable before or after your course. The same means testing on tuition fees will still be in place as is now, meaning if parental income is less than £20k, the first £1,100 per year of tuition fees will be paid by the government, which will go down on a sliding scale to nothing to nothing once parental income hits just above £30k. This will bring about an increase of debt where full fees are charged of £5,700 to £9,000 (as the student will be asked to pay fees, not the parent). Repayments will be administered through Inland Revenue as loans are now, with the threshold for repayment starting when a graduate earns £15,000.

The table below represents the change in debts under the new system. Although the DfES claim in their case studies that a student receiving a 'full grant' will not need to take out the full loan due to this extra support, the maximum available to them with grant and loan will be £4905 (years 1 & 2) or £4390 (year 3), and it is highly unlikely any student from a family which qualifies for a full grant will not still need the full loan. As such the grant has not been deducted from the total debt level. A £1,000 grant would not cover two terms worth of rent at most institutions. As most universities are currently planning to charge the full £3k/year fee, fees have been taken at that level. The total loan is not planned to change yet (though there will be a review), with £11,200 representing a maximum £3905 (years 1&2) £3390 (year 3). Reports of £21,000 in goevernment related debt are slightly over the mark as they have not considered that the year three loan is smaller. Richer students will continue to qualify for 75% of a full loan. All fees will be adjusted for inflation in the future. Up to now that has meant a £25 increase in the maximum fee per year. Debts will be liable for 'inflation rate' interest charges.

		NOW				FUTURE
parental   income (p.i.)	loans	fees	total	loans	fees	total debt	grant	debt as % of p.i.
£10,000	11200	0	11200	11200	5700	16900	3000	169%
£15,000	11200	0	11200	11200	5700	16900	1500	113%
£20,000	11200	0	11200	11200	5700	16900	0	85%
£25,000	11200	1620*	12800	11200	7380*	18580	0	74%
£32,000	11200	3300	14500	11200	9000	20200	0	63%
£50,000	8405	3300	11705	8405	9000	17405	0	35%

(*Please note that the fees figure is for £25k may be slightly out.)

Whilst the removal of upfront fees has been heralded as a massive victory by some, on closer inspection it is an outright disaster if the government wishes to increase working class participation. Currently those falling below the £20k parental income threshold pay no fees at all. This is the group most likely to be put of by fear of debt, yet their debts will increase by £5700 where full fees are charged. This is 40% of students. A further 20% only pay partial fees. Also, Charles Clarke claims that 30% of students parents fall below the £10k threshold and will qualify for a full grant, which will come on line before the election in 2004. Fees of upto £3k would not happen until after the next general election. Besides being far less accessible, this 'grant' is just 57% (less in London unless they will be weighted at the todays rate) of what if when David Blunkett abolished it in 1998, after years of Tory cuts.

Many students may say 'Why should I get involved, this won't effect me?', but by making changes that don't come in until current students have finished is the way governments try and minimise opposition. If your parents (if they went to university) had put up more of a fight when things like book and travel bursaries were being abolished, -yes it may seem unbeleivable now but they did exist- we might not be in the dire state we are now.

There are also plans to 'steer non-research intensive institutions towards other parts of their mission' meaning as expected some universities will be stripped of research and PhD funding, with the definition of a 'university' changing to allow institutions which will cease doing research to still be called a university. This will severely impact university funding, which will drive those effected to charge full undergradaute fees and will also limit the diversity of research, student choice and undergraduate teaching.

It is also highly likely that mature students will not have access to HE funding. Currently, a student has to be under 50 in HE to qualify for loans. With greater debts, the government is sure to consider that this limit will fall.

Steven Kelk, policy advisor from People & planet also points out;
- the cementing of the shift in discourse from students as academic citizens to consumers, and the notion that student 'demand' is paramaount. This must surely be the nail in the coffin that universities do not "compete" with each other and bodies outside the public sector.
- the continued obsession with this nebulous concept of 'international competitiveness in research' - this is one of those terms that people trot out without thinking what it means
- the way that higher fees may 1) increase the relative competitiveness of private institutions 2) give those institutions more of an interest in securing a 'level playing field' with "public" institutions 3) make public funding less "funding" and more a "subsidy", all tying in with GATS
- the unashamed promotion of greater business involvement, particularly with foundation degrees
- the de facto stripping of research powers through super-concentrating RAE and (probably) removing research degree awarding powers, plus the watering-down of the University title to incorporate teaching-only institutions. Part of the government's motivation is to strip middling and lower unis of their research powers but more insidiously to legitimise the growth and legitimacy of corporate universities -most notably the NHSU- apparently they don't think it'll take off unless it becomes a 'university'. They're going to actually have quite a fight with the V-Cs about the University label because the European universities have enshrined in the Magna Charta the notion of a university as having both teaching and research-degree awarding powers.
- The tiering of the sector along multiple axes. If the white paper ushers in an era of teaching-only universities, this will lead to a significant growth in foreign for-profit universities and other international players keen to dive into the "market", no longer hamstrung by their lack of research prestige etc.
- Where are we going? This is a question I keep asking myself. The white paper quite openly advocates the use of endowments in the longer term so it's clear there is a tilt towards the US system but in a weird, New Labour way which will (amongst other things) demand a level of business sensitivity which will probably outstrip the "naturally grown" and still academically-centred US system.

What you can do.

The first step now is to build for the national lobby of parliament on March 5th. A template for a poster is available at the bottom. Ask at your student union/guild if they are providing transport (some may have already spent their campaigns budgets though, so some fund raising may be necessary). If you can't come, please use the tools below to fax your MP. If you are going, use the fax below to write them a letter AND tell them you are coming on March 5th and expect to see them there at work on a work day! If you are living away from home, please remember to fax both your MPs and get your freinds, families and coursemates to do the same. You've got a very good chance of getting a reply.

@nti copyright 2003 www.educationet.org