The government has got it totally wrong on higher education funding - it’s time for Labour to propose an alternative.
.
By Rory Weal
Figures released yesterday show that university applications from UK students for courses starting this autumn have fallen by 8.9 per cent. The drop coincides with the increase in tuition fees, to £9,000 a year, which the current cohort will be the first to experience.
These figures stand in stark contrast to the government line when tuition fees were increased in November 2010, when education secretary Michael Gove told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme:
“I believe that [higher fees] won’t put off students. They will make a rational decision on the benefits that accrue to them [from going to university].”
Yesterday’s figures have disproved Gove’s assertion that the prospect of having over £27,000 worth of debt will not deter students from applying.
These statistics show that the prospect of carrying such an extraordinary debt before even leaving university is making many young people, who would have previously considered going to university, reconsider.
What is equally notable is the differentiation in applications from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. In England, tuition fees are at £9,000 a year, whereas in Wales and Northern Ireland fees stand at £3,465, and there are no fees for Scottish students applying to university.
Application figures clearly show that the slump is far more dramatic in England, with Scotland experience a far less significant fall. England has seen by far the most substantial reduction, down 10% compared with the same point last year. The other declines are of 2% in Scotland, 3% in Wales and 5% in Northern Ireland.
• Putting an individual through university generates £227k for the economy 9 Jun 2012
• A small mercy for the marching students of tomorrow 9 Nov 2011
• Coalition continues being wrong, wrong, wrong on its own tuition fees policy 7 Nov 2011
This clearly shows a strong link between increasing fees and declining applications. The government’s previous attempts to claim that the fee rise will not deter students has been shown to be totally incorrect.
Sally Hunt, leader of the UCU lecturers’ union, attacked the government for their pivotal role in seeing universities become inaccessible to many young people, saying:
“These figures once again highlight the folly of hiking up tuition fees to £9,000 and making England one of the most expensive countries in the world in which to access higher education.”
She went on to criticise the double standards of the Tory-led government, which gives lip-service to social mobility but in reality is making the situation far worse, saying:
“This government can talk all it likes about improving social mobility but how will erecting punitive financial barriers help our best and brightest get on?”
These figures are evidence of a government that is blocking the ability for young people to get on in life. The increase in tuition fees is just one element of a wider mix of measures which are ending any pretence that young people can still do well regardless of their background.
The scrapping of EMA has made education unaffordable for many young people while the slashing of youth centres has taken away an essential resource from kids from deprived areas. Now we see that increasing the cost of education has meant that many young people are simply not applying to stay on into higher education.
In light of these figures, Labour needs to be pushing for a radical overhaul of the regressive and unfair tuition fee system with a new mechanism, which Ed Miliband supported in his leadership campaign: a graduate tax.
Such a tax would get rid of the deterrent caused by the threat of taking on masses of debt and encourage young people to apply for university, not least those from disadvantaged backgrounds.
The government has got it totally wrong on higher education funding. It’s time for Labour to propose an alternative.
40 Responses to “Fall in applications undermines government claims fee rise will not deter students”
Anonymous
You’re the one lying.
You’re telling people THEY WILL BENEFIT from going to University. THIS IS A LIE. They will LOSE MONEY over their working lifespan (The graduate premium in this country is TINY – around 2k/year, and this is distorted by very high earners in the City). It is NOT in their financial interest to go to University in this country unless it’s medical (the NHS pays) or they’re headed direct into the city (i.e. your rich kids).
Going out the UK to study in the EU is cheaper these days.
No – what’s “fair” is that people personally benefit. In addition to the major boost they’ll give to the economy, which exists quite separately to personal benefit. But don’t worry, the companies which are left will import a lot of graduates, your plan!
And that’s before we consider that we have a government who think it’s reasonable to change pensions without consulting…and there is LESS stopping them from changing repayment terms to more punitive ones. You’re telling everyone to trust a government which has already thrown away it’s public capital in that area.
(I also like your slurs, two of the three Universities I work for are most definitely NOT former Polys, and the last is a specialist University)
Spartacus
Whilst I agree the basic fact that some additional people will have been put off applying this year due to the increased fee value, I’d like to make 3 quick points regarding your comment and the article:
1 – You argue that a ~£27k loan (3 years of 9k) is unaffordable. I would point out to you that, with your conditions, you should probably worry that much of life will be even more so. A student loan is designed to be affordable (you don’t pay as much as a bank would ask for, you only pay once you’re earning X amount, you can take breaks if you become unemployed etc.) and accessible (it is automatically given to everyone regardless of future ambition or collateral). None of these conditions are met by a private loan that you might take out to buy the car you mention, none of them are included for the mortgage you assume you’ll get and be able to pay off. I also fear that having a child, let alone more than 1, will cost more than 9k a year and certainly more that 27k in total, yet everyone will have kids and everyone will get on with their lives. Student loans have a bad reputation because 14 years ago they didn’t exist. Objectively, they’re a great deal. The issue here is not the loan.
2 – Your cousin has, perhaps unknowingly, performed an excellent cost-benefit analysis of the options you presented to them. They have decided not to go to Uni, which is neither right nor wrong, but is their choice based on the facts (that you are likely to get degree X but it will probably cost you 3 year’s fees and then interest until you’ve repaid). Your Cousin obviously doesn’t want to go to Uni as much as others (which is again neither right nor wrong) because tens of thousands are still applying, regardless of fees and loans. If she were utterly determined, then the fees could be astronomical and still be no object. Many strive to get to Uni despite being from even poorer backgrounds or areas of the country (your criteria – I would not raise them otherwise). You paint her choice as society’s failure, but I would say it’s simply a decision along her walk of life. It’s not even a final one, anyone can apply, whenever and choose to complete degrees over more time, at home or later in life. Not following ‘the crowd’ does not mean you’re doing it wrong. The fees/ her choosing not to go is not the issue here.
3 – This issue comes down to a debate on how many people should go to Uni? If far fewer people went to university, it could probably be completely paid for (no fees, extra bursaries etc.). This would both be loved by the left (free education) and hated (elitist education). If everyone went, perhaps as an extension of compulsory education, then the country would either go bankrupt (~1M people a year at full fees and bursaries = 12-15k per person? = £12-15BN extra a year and only increasing) or the standard of education offered would fall drastically by spreading the current (too small, if you’d like my opinion) budget across all the required courses and unis. University has never been an inalienable right, nor can it ever be, otherwise absolutely everyone in the country should be offered the chance to go (nb. we’ve already said age and current life status doesn’t matter in getting a degree). Too many teenagers go to university for there ever to be a reduction in fees or an increase in the quality of education without an increase in fees. These were the second highest application figures on record, ever. If you want your cousin or, more likely, future generations to have a free higher education then you should campaign for fewer people to go and applaud your cousin in their leadership on this point.
4. Simple demographics require that there will always need to be a significant proportion (I would argue a majority) of teenagers who do not go to University. Why do builders, or entrepreneurs, or shopkeepers, or hairdressers, or mums, or gardeners, or receptionists, or soldiers need a degree? Since when did anyone NEED a degree to have “hope”? And since when, for many people, was Uni nothing more than a “waste of time”? A degree may open some doors for you in terms of obtaining specialist education or ‘proving’ that you are clever enough to have gotten a degree but it closes other doors (over-educated, no experience) and ignores those other doors that are opened by many other qualifications or experiences. The only thing sending more and more people to Uni achieves is to dilute the ‘value’ some careers believed a degree had in the first place: graduate companies will only recruit from the most academic universities (their own prejudices) and you’ll need an extra masters or Phd to prove you’re ‘clever’ enough to take the ‘top’ jobs.
University is an enabler and a great equaliser in life (i.e. anyone with a medical degree can become a doctor, not just doctor’s sons). Everyone has the opportunity to go (they actually do, all this state vs. private, rich vs. poor bollocks is overcome by hard work, natural intelligence and ambition). Everyone is able to pay (they can because it is a loan, available to all, payable when you can afford to repay it). So, if there is an issue with University (which there is in your opinion – that people have to pay as much as they do), it is because too many people go to make the experience either cheaper or of a better quality.
Anonymous
Oh, and I note that your argument applies equally well to 16-18 education!
Julian
Might it be, perhaps, that last year’s applications were higher than normal because of students avoiding gap years in order to beat the rise in fees? i.e. The so called fall in applications, if it exists at all, is not as significant as you make out.
Also, the fee increases (which I don’t agree with either) were recommended by the Browne Report, commissioned by Labour.
Rory Weal
RT @leftfootfwd: Fall in applications undermines government claims fee rise will not deter students http://t.co/5PUI9gaD < my post today