Lifting the cap on tuition fees

Higher Education needs more funding. Is raising student fees the only option? Professor Karen Stephenson considers.

Whoever wins next years election, one thing seems clear, tuition fees will rise, though by how much is guess work.
Much has been written on the current level of tuition fees and whether the cap should be raised or lifted completely. Most, even UCU and the NSU, recognise that more funding for universities in the UK is required, it is the source of those funds that is in dispute. The OECD annual report, shows the UK spends 0.9% of GDP on higher education, that compares to 1.5 per cent in Canada, 1.4 per cent in Sweden and 1 per cent in the US. If we are to continue to compete on the international stage we have to maintain this percentage if not increase it.
A BBC survey suggested that 2/3rds of the 53 Vice Chancellors who responded wanted to see an increase in tuition fees, with a huge range proposed from £4,000 to £20,000.
The UUK report published in March this year, considered raising the fee cap to two different levels, £5,000 or £7,000. The report concluded that raising fees to £5,000 would maintain the status quo without much chance for variability across the sector. The report also suggested that raising fees to this level would not have an adverse effect on student numbers. Raising the fees to £7,000 might result in a variability allowing some institutions to charge more than others further enhancing the market place for Higher Education (“HE”).
In October 2009, Lord Mandelson made it clear that the Labour Government was considering how best to deal with tuition fees, confirming that “We will also have to look at the contribution that individuals make to the cost of HE, which we will do through the independent fees review that will be launched after the publication of the HE framework.”
David Willetts, Shadow Minister for Universities and Skills, made mention of the fees cap and whether the Government would be right in lifting it. Recognising that the debate is not an easy one, he went on to say “There is a much wider agenda here for change and challenge in HE and it does need to be looked at properly. Any rebalancing of financial support between businesses, students and their families, philanthropy and exchequer could only be done as part of a wider set of reforms in HE”
In an interview with the London Evening Standard in October, David Willetts is reported to have said “Students to face higher tuition fees after election” the standard goes on to say “Students face paying higher tuition fees after the next election as the Tories hint they are prepared to consider raising the current £3,225 a-year charge.”
In October, Professor John Holman, said, at the launch of the National Science Learning Centre report on improving teaching of science in schools, “It is very difficult to see how a future of excellence throughout the university system can be maintained unless at some point there is a more economic approach to university fees. I think at some point we need to question whether the cap on fees is lifted. It is difficult to see how excellence is sustainable without it. We need to look at the possibility in the long term of raising the cap.”
The Unions recognise that more funding for HE is vital if the UK is going to maintain an international reputation for high quality graduates and post graduates, but do not believe the way forward is by raising tuition fees.
Sally Hunt, responding to Professor Holman’s report “We completely agree with Professor Holman that there is a desperate need for extra funds for HE if we are to maintain our proud international record in HE and particularly in the sciences. However, we must move away from the idea that the only way to raise extra funds is to simply lift the current cap on tuition fees.”
The NUS makes the point that students are leaving university with record levels of debt at a time when graduate job prospects are at an all time low. They believe that there is a new way to generate funds and suggest that a new Trust for Higher Education be established. “…a stakeholder fund designed to collect together…contributions from people who have completed higher education courses …and from their employers where appropriate. The government would also be empowered to pay lump sums into the fund for particular purposes”
The Government review into variable tuition fees commissioned by the DBIS is not expected to conclude until after the next general election, so no one really knows what will happen. If the Labour party are unsuccessful, this review may not even see the light of day. The Government has not ruled out a rise in fees, and it is clear that many universities have been pressing for more funding.
If the cap is raised to the £7,000 envisaged by UUK, or lifted completely, freeing universities to charge any level of fees they wished, a market characterised by extremes’ could emerge. Students are likely to become far more critical, league tables and any other form of comparison will probably increase in importance. New and improved league tables could well emerge, giving more detail than ever before. These could include: degree classifications, drop out rates, pass rates, employment and salary statistics for graduates to mention but a few. Individual universities will have to justify their position, and be ready to defend the fees they charge. The academic provision will come under greater scrutiny and students will feel more inclined to challenge practices that they feel inhibit their learning experience, or the grades they are awarded. It is possible that we will see legal challenges to academic judgements. If doctors professional decisions can be challenged in court, why not academic decisions?
A variable fee structure would raise questions of access and widening participation. Universities will have to justify their position with regard to the Charities Act 2006 and the requirement of “public benefit”. Can a university be for the public benefit if only the very wealthy can access it? Bursaries, and widening access policies will be closely scrutinised and challenged. Precious time and funds will be spent defending claims and complaints.
The general appetite for HE may decrease. If current student debt is on average £30,000, a £20,000 tuition fee would increase that debt to beyond £70,000 - how many potential undergraduates would feel able to take on such levels of debt?
Historically, a recession is a time of growth for the FE and HE sector. For example, employees who have been made redundant, or those fighting to keep their jobs look for ways of improving their CV, what better way than to increase the level of qualification you hold?
Any conclusion is inevitably speculative. That said it does seem reasonable to acknowledge that HE in England and Wales is poised on the threshold of a major shift in paradigm. The existing system clings precariously to the idea that a degree is of equal value wherever it is awarded. This maxim appears increasingly vulnerable. The societal concept of meritocracy is deeply embedded in the notional equivalence of different Higher Education Institutions (HEI’s). The prospect of gaps between Russell Group, Red Brick, and Post 1992 HEI’s turning into chasms with wealth becoming a substantive determinant of entry is a real one. If and when this comes to pass; in time; it is likely to undermine societal cohesion and the legitimacy of its internal power structures. UB