The Big Question: Are higher top-up fees the only way to fund our universities properly?

Author: By Richard Garner, Education Editor

Why are we asking this now?

The Business Secretary, Lord Mandelson, has just announced the setting up of
the long-awaited government review of student fees.

Why has it been set up?

Ironically, it was one of the “sops” granted to Labour back-benchers
when then education secretary, Charles Clarke, was trying to steer
legislation to introduce top-up fees for the first time through the House of
Commons. The implication then was that ? if the policy went drastically
wrong and led to students from poorer homes abandoning the idea of going to
university ? the review could suggest modifying or scrapping the idea.
Alternatively, if it was successful it could pave the way for the current
ceiling of £3,225 a year being lifted.

What has happened since top-up fees?

There is certainly no shortage of would-be applicants for university. The
number of applicants eligible for a place this year who missed out rose by
30,000 from 109,103 in 2008 to 141, 118. In all, there were record numbers
of students applying with more than 600,000 seeking a place ? 10 per cent
more than last year. Only 13,000 extra places were provided ? including
10,000 in so-called STEM subjects (science, technology, engineering and
maths) considered vital for the future of the economy but for which
universities were not provided extra funding to cover teaching costs.

So who is in favour of increasing top-up fees?

Most vice-chancellors are. A survey of them revealed that ? on average ? they
would like to see the ceiling shoot up to £6,500 a year (more than double
the present fee). Some, like Sir Richard Sykes, the former rector of
Imperial College London, would like to see the cap lifted altogether with
universities free to charge the full cost of courses (around £20,000 a
year). Business leaders like the CBI believe that students should also be
made to pay a greater share of the cost of providing a university education.

What about the politicians?

The review announced by Lord Mandelson on Monday will not actually report
until after the next election. It has been set up in consultation with David
Willetts, the Conservatives’ higher education spokesman, over its scope.
That gives both major parties a carte blanche not to say where they stand on
the issue of raising fees until after the election. However, both Lord
Mandelson and Mr Willetts have made great play of the fact students must be
provided with a “quid pro quo” if fees are raised in terms of
greater access to their lecturers and more information about their courses.
Reading between the lines, it would be a fair bet that both parties will
eventually sign up for an increase in student fees.

Is anyone opposed to increasing fees?

The National Union of Students would like to see the inquiry study other ways
of raising the necessary finance to fund the higher education system ? such
as a graduate tax.

The University and College Union, the lecturers’ union, believes an increase
in fees will put off students from poorer backgrounds from applying to
university. Then there is the case of the Liberal Democrats, whose leader
Nick Clegg indicated at his party conference that he was preparing to scrap
the party’s pledge to abolish top-up fees.

It later emerged that party policy committing the Liberal Democrats to
abolishing top-up fees was to remain in being ? but that it was just not
prudent to implement it at the moment because of the pressure on public
finances due to the recession.

Can we guess the likely recommendations?

The chairman of the review committee is former BP boss Lord Browne of
Madingley, who seven years ago said he could see the fee increased fourfold
in time. However, his appointment has been widely welcomed and it would be
wrong to read too much into that. The NUS is happy that it believes the
voice of the student will be heard through Rajay Naik, a former executive
member of the English School Students’ Association. Others on the review
body include Professor Sir Michael Barber, the architect of New Labour
education policy and one-time former director of policy at 10 Downing Street
under Tony Blair’s era. In all honesty, it is difficult to conceive of them
voicing outright rejection of an increase in student fees.

What other factors will they take into account?

Lord Mandelson has made it plain he wants to see a fair balance struck between
the fee levels charged and the students’ ability to pay. He is adamant ? as
indeed are most of those in favour of increasing fees ? that any increase
should not lead to any student being turned away from university as a result
of their inability to afford to take up a place. One item of research that
the review body will consider is a study ordered last week by Lord Mandelson
into how Britain’s more selective universities could increase their take-up
of students from disadvantaged areas. This review is to be carried out by
Sir Martin Harris, the head of the Office for Fair Admissions and will be on
Lord Mandelson’s desk in the spring.

What’s the economic case for an increase in fees?

Since the introduction of top-up fees universities have gained an extra income
of £1.3bn a year. In the coming years they will face a squeeze on central
government funding (it is noticeable that, when the two main political
parties talk of ring-fencing areas of public spending against the ravages of
recession, schools are always at the forefront of their minds rather than
higher education).

However, the Government is not dropping its target of getting 50 per cent of
people into higher education, although Lord Mandelson conceded last week at
the launch of his blueprint for the future that the make-up of the student
body was likely to include far more adult returners to the world of
education. Currently, there is about a 43 per cent participation rate in
higher education amongst school leavers so it can be seen that it will take
an increase in income from somewhere if the Government’s target is to be
met.

What if there is a change of government though?

We are unlikely to see the Conservatives call for a reduction in student
numbers. Boris Johnson, when he was the party’s higher education spokesman,
announced the party’s U-turn on curbing expansion. He eloquently pointed out
that it had not gone down well on the doorstep at the last election when the
party said it was in favour of children going to university ? “but
not your children!”.

When would a new figure come into force?

The review is unlikely to report until late summer 2010 at the earliest. A
time will then have to be set aside for consultation. Realistically, it is
impossible to see universities being allowed to charge extra until autumn
2012 to give them time to prepare their new prospectuses for students.

Should the top-up fee ceiling be increased?

Yes…

* Universities need extra income if they are to maintain standards and
increase student numbers

* Given the recession, it’s unlikely that funding for higher education can
come solely from government

* The introduction of top-up fees had little or no effect deterring students
from applying to university

No…

* With employment prospects dwindling, students won’t want to countenance any
more debts

* Higher education should be available free of charge, just like primary or
secondary education

* Universities have not yet delivered on “value for money” with the
current ceiling of £3,225

View full article here


VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Ezine Article Board

Author:

This author has published 5774 articles so far.

Comments are closed