Simon Hughes MP, the government's Advocate for Access to Education, writes on the need for everyone to be honest, and not to put people off higher education.
Simon Hughes MP (Liberal Democrats, Bermondsey and Old Southwark) is HM Government’s Advocate for Access to Education
This week a poll conducted by the Sutton Trust revealed more than a fifth of 11-16 year olds believe their families will have to pay for the cost of university tuition. A further 10 per cent believed students paid for university with money they earned before and during their studies.
A recent report by Virgin Money revealed that one in four parents have started saving to pay for their children’s university fees.
This situation is clearly unacceptable. And now as we start a month where higher education is again back on the agenda, with today’s publication of the White Paper on higher education, and the decision of the Director of Fair Access on university access agreements due soon, there must be a concerted effort once and for all to destroy the myths around the new student finance system.
The negative politics surrounding student finance must end.
All too often in the recent past, politicians and others have given greater priority to attacking the government, rather than advancing the interests of young people and students. Politicians of all parties, student leaders, trade unionists and all others with a public platform and who are listened to on these issues must now make sure that they know the facts and do everything to make sure young people and their parents also understand the facts and are not misled.
I know that many people in the Labour Party and others have seen a political advantage in spreading the myth that university will now become unaffordable. To misrepresent the costs and payment methods for student tuition is not in the interests of any young person who this year or next will be making crucial decisions about their future.
This is the decision I made last year when I was asked to be the government’s Advocate for Access to Education. Despite not voting for the policy on student finance, and having campaigned for years against student fees, I decided that it was much more important, now that the decision had been made, to make sure that we got out there and did all we can to make sure that young people were not put off by many of the misunderstandings which had come out of the heated debate on higher education policies.
Let me be clear where we are. No university student studying for their first degree either full time or part time will be obliged to pay any fees starting in 2012. No university student has to pay anything to their university for tuition during their studies and no graduate will be obliged to pay anything back until they are paying at least £21,000 a year. After that, they pay back a proportion of their income through the tax system.
Whatever our thoughts on the politics of university finance, no one should say that anything that the government has done will make university tuition unaffordable. And no one should pretend that the system as introduced is not very similar to the graduate tax proposed by the National Union of Students.
The policy also includes part time students for the first time which means they will no longer have to pay up front fees, repayments are made starting at a higher income, and there is now a mechanism for making very high paid graduates contribute more to the financing of the higher education system than lower paid graduates. These changes make the new system of student finance much fairer and more progressive than the one this government inherited.
Young people between the ages of 11-16, the subject of the Sutton Trust’s study, are making crucial decisions on which courses to take and at which school or college. These decisions can have a major impact on their options after they leave school, and they should not be based on an idea of the university system which is simply not true.
There are also many people who will soon start applying to university to begin in 2012, the first year of the new student finance system.
Over the last six months I have been travelling around the country to meet students, parents and teachers to discuss the higher education reforms and what it means for them, as well as collecting their views on what government and others can do to promote access to education. I have found that, when the facts of the student finance system are made clear, young people and their parents are almost all far more comfortable with the idea of going to university.
I will shortly be sending my report to ministers which will outline how the country and the government can do better in the future to improve access to education for young people, and in particular how we can improve the information, advice and guidance which young people are provided with when they have to make key decisions about their future.
I have already made recommendations to the prime minister and deputy prime minister on how the government can do more to communicate with young people who might be applying in 2012.
However, many of these efforts will be in vain if people in all walks of life do not challenge the misconceptions which surround student finance.
We now all have a duty to make sure we go out into our communities and into the media and make sure that young people know the facts. Whatever our views on the reforms of higher education, we cannot any longer let party politics get in the way of the aspirations and futures of our young people.
36 Responses to “We need to make sure all young people know the true facts about higher education”
Leon Wolfson
Oh, and bear in mind that unless they radically change the current funding delivery arrangements, you WILL in many cases need the money up-front, since the SLC is usually extremely tardy with their payments. Or you can lose a week+ of university access multiple times during the University year.
It’s bad enough *now*.
Elijah
Whilst it is true that no student is required to pay tuition fees upfront, i do not agree that this exempts fees from the ability to call them unaffordable.
I go to medical school, around 40% of my year is graduates and many of the rest are from privileged backgrounds. A large section of these people have their fees paid for them (and many their living expenses) by their parents and as such will leave university with little or no debt (even after two degrees). I do not have this luxury, my parents could not afford to pay my fees for one degree let alone two, luckily i am going into a profession where the debt i have incurred from my studies (which will be over£40,000 even on the current system as i study in london) will be overshadowed by my eventual salary and so financially i am still better off.
However many people go into professions which don’t have such a high salary, most graduates will by the time the new threshold comes into place probably exceed that level but many by only a little and they will begin to ask themselves what have they really gained from going to university. Neither of my parents went to university however their wage exceeds the new threshold and people from similar situations might well ask, why should i go to university and incur life long tax deductions from debt when i could just go into the family business or they may find that at least their choice of course is influenced by financial matter.
Those people who are as now privileged enough to have upfront funding from their parents and so reduced debt burdens will not face such deterrents and will be able to pick and choose the subjects they wish to study. It cannot be right that there is one system for those from wealthier backgrounds and another for those from poorer backgrounds, peoples choice of university should be down to their personal preference, finance should have no bearing on it.
This as such is why i reject your claim that just because you do not have to pay fees up front you can set fees at whatever level you like and still call them affordable.
Nick
Hi Labour trolls! Funny how you never criticise your party’s introduction of tuition fees in 1998 – after having promised not to do so of course – and Labour’s further imposition of top-up fees after the 2005 GE after having promised IN YOUR MANIFESTO that you wouldn’t. Anything BluLabour might say on tuition fees now is therefore simply political posturing designed to garner student votes. You had your chance to maintain the fairest system – that of covering the cost of tuition from general taxation but as usual, went for the right wing option. Twice. Now you attack the hapless LDs for ‘breaking a manifesto promise’ when they don’t even govern alone. You had a massive majority back in 2005 and broke your promise happily. What’s your excuse? You don’t need a debate about becoming BluLabour – you ARE BluLabour. Hypocrites.
Ed's Talking Balls
‘do everything to make sure young people and their parents also understand the facts and are not misled.’
That part of what Hughes said struck me. Everyone is focussing on headline figures etc and, clearly, that is crucial, but whether you are asking someone to part with £9k, £27k or nothing at all, it is vital not only that people understand how, when and how much they must pay, but also what they are getting for their money.
I think it is nothing short of a scandal that people are being told that a degree is the be-all-and-end-all. Utter rubbish. If someone is going to spend (potentially) £20k+ on an Arts degree from the University of Bedfordshire, they should be told how employers will regard that qualification.
13eastie
@19, Leon
If people are not being deceived, I’d like very much to know how the likes of “Jen” (who has also posted above) came to the truly bizarre conclusion that she would need to sell her home before her daughter went to university in order to pay the tuition fees.
Just the other day, on LFF Jen wrote:
“I did try to sell the house last year to try and raise the money for the tripled fees faced by my daughter …”
https://www.leftfootforward.org/2011/06/unshocking-poll-reveals-teenagers-put-off-by-gbp9000-a-year-tuition-fees/#comments (post #10).
We should assume that:
a) Jen is not stupid
b) Posters such as Jen are: genuine; trying to get on in the real world; not trapped in some sort of spite-filled left-wing bubble
If she has not been misled, how do you suppose she arrived at her desperate conclusion?
@21, Elijah
I know from personal experience that reading medicine can be a monstrous undertaking financially; the best of luck.
I think you need to look at things from a broader perspective.
The proposed scheme will allow graduates on low incomes to repay zero. Their tuition will be paid for by other tax-payers (some of whom will be non-graduates on low incomes). This is not unaffordable for the student.
People who earn more will have to pay a contribution towards the advantageous eduction from which they are benefitting. If not them, then who?
Some people will look at the numbers and conclude that the cost of a particular degree course is not justified by the benefits. In many cases, this assessment will be correct. If the student himself does not think his course is worth the £27k price tag, how can he possibly make a case that someone else should stump up?
Many degrees are truly worthless. I say this as an employer who has binned countless CV’s over the years from useless, dull applicants who think that the social science degree at a they studied (at a “university” that also offers certificates in hairdressing) on the back of D’s and E’s in “vocational” A-levels makes them in some way more attractive than the 19-year-old who can explain how he saved his boss some money last week.
If such a bare-bones analysis encourages students to choose engineering over meeja-studies I don’t think we should be overly concerned.
Medics often have to make a similar decision about intercalating. Is it an indulgence? Will it confer an advantage? Who should pay?
And there is certainly nothing wrong with choosing not to go to university. In almost every industry you will find people who have succeeded on their wits alone. This is something we should celebrate, lest we become even more dogmatic about “qualifications” that have little intrinsic value (and which are, in any case, very frequently the subject of falsification).
There is nothing you will learn from a distance-learning MBA that you couldn’t work out running your own business for a couple of months.
What is most important is that young people make correctly informed choices on a range of options that are not limited by party-political propaganda. That so few people on LFF can bring themselves to agree with this point speaks volumes.