Tuition fee system “worst of both worlds”
Tuition fees funding system for English universities leaves all parties worse off, says independent study.
The study, conducted by the Higher Education Commission, said: “We have created a system where everybody feels like they are getting a bad deal”.
The Commission attributes this partly to the fact that, although students are required to pay more, they are not necessarily able to repay it all back which forces the government to write off high levels of student debt.
The cuts in teaching grants are not widely understood: students perceive universities to be “rolling in money” as a result of the tuition fee rise.
A large number of Warwick students have stood against the price of higher education in the UK, through demonstrations at university building, the Senate House, last week.
The demonstrations were in support of the nationwide Free Education campaign to secure education that is funded through taxation or charitable donations, rather than tuition fees.
Marie, a first-year Politics and International Studies undergraduate and strong supporter of Free Education, commented: “Tuition fees as high as they are in England act as an obstacle for students who are not from an upper-class background.”
“Countries provide enormous amounts of money for say, the military, or for banks and corporations during the financial crisis. Investing the same amount of money into the education system, however, seems to be difficult.”
The Higher Education Commission admits that the current system is not financially sustainable in the long term. The report admitted that there is no “magic bullet” to design a better alternative, but offers a number of measures, as reported by the BBC:
- Lowering tuition fees to £6,000 would reduce student debt, but it would leave an estimated £1.72bn funding gap for universities
- A graduate tax would require government to borrow £4bn to fill the gap between ending fees and the arrival of tax revenues – and such a tax would mean there was no clear link with the value of a particular course
- Removing the £9,000 upper limit on fees would allow more money for universities and clearer competition, but higher fees would mean even higher levels of public subsidy for loans
- Different charges for different universities or courses could also reduce the number graduates from expensive courses with high fees even if they were essential for the economy
Comments (1)
Please, stop perpetuating the myth that the current fees system means that students from less well off backgrounds can’t afford university education. It simply isn’t true.
There are plenty of budding 16 and 17-year olds who read stuff like this and think “there’s no way that I can afford to go to uni” – when in fact the student loan system is open to all. All articles like this serve to do is reinforce inequality by making people from low income backgrounds think that there’s no way they can go to uni.
The UK student loan system is open to everyone, regardless of personal circumstances, credit history, or personal wealth. Repayments are income contingent, which means that if you don’t land a good job after uni, you don’t have to worry about finding money to pay off your loan.
Contrast this to the US student loan system – where student loans are frequently dependent on family credit history, are not income contingent (i.e. you have to repay regardless of whether or not you land a good job), and cannot be discharged through bankruptcy.
Should education be free? Yes. But does the current system ensure that people can attend university regardless of income? Yes. Are the loans enough to cover all of your living costs at uni? Maybe not always – but you can work over the holidays to top it up.