The National Union of Students (NUS) yesterday published a ‘groundbreaking’ report which highlights the faults of the university funding system in unprecedented detail.
In ‘Broke and Broken: A Critique of the Higher Education Funding System’, NUS demonstrates the unfairness and lack of sustainability in the current system, and argues that the scenario can only get worse if the cap on top-up fees were to be raised or lifted.
NUS President Wes Streeting said: ‘Market forces have already crept into our higher education system.
‘More prestigious universities in the Russell Group are able to offer poorer students an average annual bursary of £1,791, but less prestigious universities in the Million-plus group are only able to offer £680.
‘There is clearly a market of prestige at work, with financial support being based not on how much you need it but on where you study.
‘And things will only get worse if the cap on top-up fees is raised. If the cap were raised to, say, £7,000, and a true market of price emerges, some students will end up owing almost £40,000 on graduation.
‘This is a staggering amount, which in some cases will actually exceed the amount of money they can expect to gain from their degree over the course of their entire working life.
‘Political parties need to stop burying their heads in the sand over the issue of higher education funding.
‘We need to have a proper debate about a viable alternative to the current system, which is creaking under the pressure of market forces.
‘We need to alleviate that pressure, not exacerbate it by contemplating the raising of the fees cap.’
Brendan Barber, TUC General Secretary, said: ‘The TUC welcomes this considered and well-balanced critique of the current higher education funding system.
‘The TUC has always been critical of the principle of variable tuition fees.
‘We would be equally critical of any attempt to raise the cap on fees, for many of the reasons set out so well in this publication.’
Sally Hunt, General Secretary of the University and College Union, said: ‘This NUS paper provides a cogent critique of the current system of student finance and offers a stark warning to those vice-chancellors and politicians agitating for a rise in fee levels.
‘It is students from poorer backgrounds that find themselves hit the hardest as they are less likely to be able to rely on financial support from their parents.
‘We are very concerned about the inadequate and confusing system of grants and bursaries for students and are calling for a fairer, national bursary system.’
Gavin Hayes, General Secretary of pressure group Compass, said: ‘This new NUS report shows clearly how the current higher education funding model drives institution against institution, and student against student.
‘Top fees and market mechanisms in higher education compound social inequality, undermine learning, and promote a damaging consumer mentality in students, who have to work far more to support themselves than ever before.
‘This report makes it clear that the current system is a failure. It is not too late to put in place a bold, radical and socially progressive higher education funding model.’
Bryan Gould, the former Labour leadership contender who left UK politics to become Vice Chancellor of the University of Waikato in New Zealand, said: ‘Higher fees and larger debts will deter many students from seeking a university education.
‘Many who are so deterred will come from parts of society that are financially constrained or – for cultural reasons – debt-averse.
‘Our society will be less strong and integrated if the talents and potential of significant parts of it are marginalised in this way.’
The report’s conclusions include:
• A narrow focus on the fees ‘cap’ during the forthcoming review will not address the current failures in the system.
• The system as designed – based on the principle that the market better delivers what students pay for – is faulty and has a range of unintended and negative consequences.
• Inside the market system, assumptions about the ability of educational ‘consumers’ to navigate choices effectively are misplaced and unsupported.
• The system ensures that the richest institutions financially benefit most from poor performance in widening participation – and vice versa.
• Significant amounts of institutional bursary help arising out of the new system are being allocated on criteria that are not related to financial need.
• The ‘credit crunch’ and associated effects on food and fuel prices risk engulfing the additional help provided by the government in grants.
• As a result, rather than act as an engine of social mobility, the current system’s ‘diversity’ acts to reinforce existing social inequality in both opportunity and outcome.
• The system fails to ensure that those who enjoy the greatest financial benefit from higher education will contribute more to its costs.
Separately, the UCU warns today (Thursday) that an increase in for-profit universities would see successful institutions of the future measured by how much they can overcharge to provide the cheapest service.
Commenting on a Universities UK report, ‘Private Universities and public funding: models and business plans’, UCU general secretary, Sally Hunt, says: ‘UCU has warned before of a creep towards style over substance when private firms become involved in higher education.
‘Aesthetic makeovers with the aim of attracting fee-paying students to institutions are already happening; however, flashy buildings can never compensate for poorly-funded courses or excuse shortcuts when it comes to delivering education.
‘Education is about learning and scholarship, not marketing fads.
‘The development of courses, for example, must be a long term, not a short term, process.
‘Next year’s fees review is an opportunity to take a serious look at what direction higher education in this country will take.
‘If we move towards more private involvement in higher education then successful universities of the future will be the ones that can flog cheap courses for the most cash.’
In May the UCU released ‘Marketisation and the growth of the private sector in tertiary education’, which explored the challenges universities and colleges face in safeguarding quality teaching, research and standards in the face of the privateers.
