Looking at the higher education system back in the 80s makes for quite a remarkable comparison with the system as it stands today. Back then, those going to university were allowed to do so for free, and even given additional maintenance grants. However, if the Government gets its way, come 2013 students could be charged up to £9,000 a year in tuition fees alone- a meteoric rise from the current level of £3,290. This begs the question of why fees should be allowed to go up; or rather, why they shouldn’t.

First and foremost, there is the issue of the sheer amount of debt that students will accrue. On £9,000 a year for tuition fees, over a typical three-year course the debt accrued could be up to £38,000. The fact that you only begin paying this back once you are earning more than £21,000, or that after thirty years any outstanding debt is wiped out, does in no way diminish the size of this debt. This is particularly off-putting if you come from a poorer background; if your dad is the sole breadwinner in the family, bringing home just £15,000 a year, how would you feel knowing that by going on to university you will potentially have up to £38,000 to pay off? Some argue, perhaps with some validity, that this is ‘pub economics’ since, as mentioned above, you only have to start paying back once you’re earning above £21,000. Put another way however, the Government’s proposals say that if you want to be earning a good salary later in life, ie. above £21,000, then you’ll have to start giving the Government up to £38,000. This in itself could act as a disincentive for poorer students to go on to university (and speaking of poorer students, don’t get me started on the Government’s plans to scrap EMA and abolish Aimhigher…)

A further reason against the fee rise is that it is highly unlikely to increase the quality of the education you receive at university. The rise in fees is largely replacing the Government funding allocated to universities, so in other words the cost of a university education is being pushed onto the student. Students will have every right to be consumerist if they are having to pay so much, and the fee rise is therefore questionable if there is no improvement in teaching quality for the students themselves. One might even argue that it makes things a bit more difficult particularly for humanities students; with the Government suggesting that the teaching grant for humanities subjects could be cut entirely, students on humanities courses will face restricted choice in subject and module choices- for them paying up to £38,000 will seem even less value for money.

Thirdly, what is remarkable (and you can verify this on page 51 of Lord Browne’s report) is that only £3bn a year is needed to remove tuition fees altogether. For the Government to be constantly telling us that there is no money left, it is mind-boggling when all of a sudden £7bn is found to bail out the Irish economy. With the Portuguese and Spanish economies also looking a bit shaky, it will certainly be interesting to see whether our Government somehow finds a few more billion quid whilst telling us there is no money left at all.

The Government’s plans to allow variable fees of £6,000 to £9,000 a year also threaten to create a two-tier higher education system. It is likely that the Russell Group of universities (the most research-intensive universities in the UK, often considered the most elite; so Oxbridge, LSE, UCL, Manchester, Edinburgh, and a number of others) will all charge the very maximum. Some universities fear they may not attract enough students considering the quality of the education they offer if students are having to pay over £6,000 a year. These universities, likely to include some former polytechnics which became universities after 1992, might fail to attract enough students, or will have to do so at a lower fee level. Either way, it likely that at this rate they will, frankly, go bust and be forced to close down. However, combined with dropping the Labour mentality that “university is the only way to success” and investing in more instituitions that offer vocational qualifications, having fewer universities may leave the rest of the higher education sector less stretched for funding. So whilst one may argue that having less universities is acceptable, it can only be so provided there is investment elsewhere in the tertiary education sector. Going back to those institutions that charge lower fees, it is likely that a degree from a £3,000 a year institution will be seen by employers as “lesser” in some way than a degree from a £9,000 a year institution. This varying fee level also has worrying implications for, again, poorer students- who may prefer the former institution to the latter, and combined with employer perceptions this may adversely impact upon their future job prospects.

It is also the case, on a more philosophical note, that a well-educated workforce does indeed benefit the rest of society; through higher productivity, more innovation, more enterprise, greater cultural awareness and a plurality of other benefits. Should society not be paying for this rather than the graduates themselves? Proponents of tuition fees will respond to this by saying that the graduate also benefits by being able to earn a higher salary and thus being able to afford a far better lifestyle for himself. Well I would respond by suggesting that the graduate does indeed pay for this; by paying a higher rate of income tax, greater National Insurance contributions, more Council Tax if you have a better house as a result, more VAT by being able to afford more expensive goods, in addition to paying inheritance tax if the value of your estate if over £325,000 at the time of your death, and so on. So graduates do pay for the better lifestyle they managed to afford as a result of going on to university- the Government is effectively double-taxing those who went to university by charging them fees in the first place.

So overall, there are a number of reasons why tuition fees shouldn’t be allowed to exist, let alone go up to £9,000 a year. The debts of up to £38,000 will put off poorer students who, even if they did decide to go on to university, may opt for universities that charge less, for degrees that are seen as “less”- the result of a two-tier system that the Government’s plans will create. Considering standards are unlikely to rise, seeing as the higher fees will replace Government spending, it will raise the “value for money” issue time and time again, particularly for humanities students. Resolving the whole issue entirely though, and thereby making university education free for students and funded entirely by the state, will cost just £3bn a year- though of course, there’s no money left apparently. These are all massive decisions that will change the higher education sector as we know it; all the irony of course is that these decisions are being taken by a load of men in suits who didn’t pay a penny to go to university themselves…. so much for their mantra of “fairness” hey?

Mo Saqib
Humanities Faculty officer, University of Manchester Students’ Union

Share on Facebook