The degree-dation of uni education?

**The Issue**

From next year, universities will be able to ask students to pay considerably more for their tuition. The increased cap on fees has received overwhelming media attention, but it is not the only controversial consequence of the coalition’s higher education policy. Accompanying the general increase in fees, universities will also now be able to set different levels of fees for different degrees.

Before the official announcement of the coalition’s changes to higher education funding, Sir Robert Burgess, Vice-Chancellor of Leicester University, welcomed the changes, suggesting, “newer institutions would still be able to charge the maximum for their most popular and higher quality courses, while research-led institutions may need to charge less than the full amount for less popular programs.”

However, critics of the legislation have raised concerns that disadvantaged students will be put off from applying for more expensive degrees and from pursuing the careers that they are associated with. Others have questioned the ethical implications of turning university education into an economically-driven market, motivated by the convenience of a university rather than its students.

**Mrin:** As economists, we are taught that differentiated prices can be charged for differentiated products. That is to say, we pay a different price for a cappuccino than we do for a hot chocolate, even though they’re all beverages. It’s about taste, not hierarchy. Also, in a differentiated market, a different amount of resources goes into making a product. Translating this into our debate about fees, the resources that go into different courses differ. A medicine or sciences degree requires far more lab supplies than one in arts. Therefore it makes sense to charge different prices for these courses.

**Olivia:** I would argue that the negative consequences go further than you have stated. Should students be penalised financially for choosing a course that requires more lab resources, such as Chemistry, over a course like English?
Also, your argument fails to take into account the huge dependence on library resources that arts students have, something which cries out for increased funding.
Furthermore, graduate employers could be easily swayed by different course prices and only seek graduates who have done more expensive courses. It’s within our culture to see things that are more expensive as ‘better quality’ and perhaps ‘superior’. So how does a prospective employer of an arts graduate decipher whether that student has a genuine passion for his or her subject, or has just gone for the cheaper option?

**M:** Okay, I think you might be vastly underestimating employers’ criterion for hiring their work force. They usually come equipped with a clear set of qualities they’re looking for, which stretch far beyond the courses adopted, and this tends to group prospective job offers according to academic fields. It is highly unlikely that a job which requires an English graduate, say a journalist, would accept a Chemistry graduate for the job, or even give him a greater edge over the English student, because of his more expensive degree. Jobs tend to be specific to a certain subject, rather than universal.

Addressing another fear, a multi-tiered fee structure is unlikely to bring about a ‘multi-tiered student community’. Firstly, the differences are not likely to differ so greatly as to make some courses unaffordable. With respect to other less expensive courses, the differences are likely to be marginal, just enough to incorporate some of the extra costs. It would be taking a huge liberty with the truth to depict students studying ‘cheaper’ courses as coming from a whole different social spectrum: the difference between various courses is minor compared to the overall hike in fees.

**O:** I don’t think it should be asserted that price differences are not great enough to make people choose different courses, as financing studies is notoriously difficult for a lot of students. Some can easily afford to study. But for others, studying is a financial struggle every day, and students are known to cut costs wherever possible. We’ve already seen the Caged by Costs campaign on campus last term, suggesting that even smaller costs such as textbooks do affect students in a very real way. Most students already come out of university indebted enough without the extra pressure of certain courses adding more of a debt burden than others.
I’d also add that discrimination between students may develop based on ‘cheaper’ degrees, and this could also work in reverse, with some students perhaps making negative assumptions about those studying more expensive courses.

**M:** I understand your concerns over student debt, but with the overall fee level going up, student loans would have to accommodate the higher amount anyway. Also, the leap itself is going to make the fee differences seem trivial, and I doubt it will lead to quite the listless course choosing scenario you propose. Truthfully, student discrimination already exists, amongst other forms of student rivalry at the University, such as Philosophy, Politics and Economics students and Warwick Business School students, or Rootes and Bluebell, something that is in both parts hilarious and horrifying to me. The fee structure will do little to precipitate it. We are likely to come back next year to find more of the Rootes vs. Bluebell banter than different courses.

**O:** Of course student rivalry already exists. However, the truth is that we do not know how different tuition fees for different courses will affect student life. I can only assert that there is a strong possibility that certain degree choices will be seen by students as less worthy than others. And who can blame them if the University appears to support this claim, by making certain courses cheaper?

**M:** Most home students are not aware of this, but a multi-tiered fee structure is already in place for international students. International students have their courses divided into ‘bands’ of sciences, social sciences and humanities, and a different price is charged for each band. Despite this, international enrolment is only increasing at the University. We need to stop bandwagon protesting of what, I think, is a great proposal, and take a deeper look.

**O:** That’s an interesting point, but international students do already pay much higher fees and many do not get support from the UK government. What worries me is that students who can barely afford to study in the first place (let alone to study abroad, which brings increased costs in most cases) will be put off from pursuing their preferred degree courses. It concerns me that these students will opt for the slightly cheaper option and create the beginnings of a division of courses based on wealth.