Comment: A savage attack on higher education
The Browne review into higher education funding threatens Britain’s future as a centre of knowledge.
By Sally Hunt
Lord Browne has produced a radical report that transfers the cost of a university education from state to student, seemingly to plug a massive hole in public spending that will be laid bare in next week’s comprehensive spending review. If implemented, these recommendations would see the creation of a market in higher education – course against course, department against department, university against university.
The single biggest change proposed by the review – that universities should be free to set their own annual tuition fees – could see some charge as much £12,000 a year. While it is possible a proposed levy on those charging over £6,000 would put the brakes on to some extent, for student and their families, even £6,000 is a doubling of the current cost. When the proposed higher living cost loans and new commercial-style interest payments are factored in, my union has calculated a three-year degree would cost a massive £38,000. If fees were £12,000 a three-year degree would cost an incredible £68,000.
England would be in the unenviable position of having the most expensive public degrees in the world, with families having to shell out between £76,000 and £136,000 to put two children through university. For the University and College Union (UCU), the proposals would be the final nail in the coffin for an affordable university degree for the vast majority of ordinary families.
Inevitably, participation will fall amongst some groups – research has found the fear of debt deters poorer students. Those students from lower and middle income backgrounds who aren’t put off by such enormous debt will make their choices based solely on cost and the perceived benefit in the job market a course will provide. Academic ability or ambition will by necessity become irrelevant for a huge swathe of students.
Unpopular courses and departments will close. It would become almost impossible to develop courses in new areas of knowledge without directly perceived economic benefit. If enacted, these proposals would weaken the country’s position as a global knowledge centre, pumping out invaluable research.
The only positives I can see are the raising of the income threshold and greater financial support for part-time students. Currently, students start to pay back their loans once they are earning £15,000 but Browne has recommended that threshold rises to £21,000 to protect those graduates who do not go into high-earning jobs. I am pleased to see the review puts part-time students on a level playing field with full-timers by giving them access to loans for fees rather than having to pay fees upfront as they do now.
But in essence, this is a savage attack on what a university is and what it can offer to all students – not just those with deep pockets – as it effectively privatises the cost of higher education from state to family. It will create a divided sector where some universities become bastions of privilege offering a wide range of academic subjects, and others churn out debt-ridden graduates in limited vocational fields.
UCU believes big business should be taxed for the substantial benefits it gains from a plentiful supply of graduates and has proposed a modest Business Education Tax for the top 4% of companies – those who make profits of over £1.5m a year. Increasing Business Education Tax to the G7 average of 32.87p and hypothecating the extra revenue to higher education would generate enough annually to abolish tuition fees.
If they support implementation of this review, the Liberal Democrat Party will have done a U-turn that the electorate will not be able to forgive and forget.
Sally Hunt is general secretary of the University and College Union
The views expressed in politics.co.uk’s comment pages are not necessarily those of the website or its owners.
-01.png){kind=spacer}