The grace of government

For as long as I can remember, I dreamt of going to university.

It was the only thing I had ever wanted for my future. However, in all those years of thinking about it, I never truly comprehended the financial effect this decision would have on my future.

And for the next generation of university aspirants, it is about to get even worse.

The fear of debt hangs over all of us currently studying, with 2011’s graduates – like myself – on track to owe an average of £20,000 to the government on leaving university. This figure is daunting enough, but imagine if it was something closer to double that. This is the fate facing future university students if the government votes in favour of the controversial Browne Report released this month, which advocates the removal of the current cap on tuition fees with only a levy on fees over £6,000 to keep universities from charging anything they like. This prospect is a devastating blow to the next generation of this country’s students, but what does it mean to the future of Higher Education as a whole?

The Government is calling for the rise in tuition fees because they feel that the freedom of competition between universities will improve the quality of the education provided, creating a consumer relationship with students who have a right to compare value for money between courses. Minister of State for Universities and Science, David Willett, stated in an interview that by funding the universities through their own tuition fees, the students will be ‘empowered’. I have to admit, I am not convinced I would feel empowered by being shackled to well over £30,000 of debt on graduation. Changes like these create a system in which the rich can afford to pay for the improved teaching and the rest will settle for what they can afford. This doesn’t empower, but ultimately restricts, limiting a student’s decisions when applying to university not by grades, but by bank balance or parental support.

Not only does the Browne Report suggest that the cap on tuition fees should be removed, it also calls for university funding to be slashed: with arts, humanities and social sciences losing anything up to 100% of their funding. This is disastrous for university departments in subjects such as English, and History, which would require the entirety of its budget in tuition fees alone. Charging such rates would turn people away from these subjects in droves, running the risk that departments would simply have to close. This would deny students the opportunity to study in their area of interest and rob the country of many fundamental, if not essential, key skills. In a letter to the Guardian, academics from across the country protested this reduction in their funding, stating that ‘Humanities departments will only survive by increased student recruitment, serviced at low costs, ultimately decreasing the quality of teaching that students are obtaining for their money. This puts departments in an untenable position, between survival at the cost of the course quality, or decline due to extortionate fees, possible only for the very wealthy. This letter was signed by no less than fifty academics from Arts degrees across the country, including York’s own English Professor Derek Attridge, all fearful for the fate of their departments.

The implications of these changes are clear.

If universities must compete commercially, we are likely to get a two tier system of institutions: those that churn out high numbers of low cost, low quality degrees, and those ‘elite’ institutions that continue their high standards by pricing themselves out of the aspirations of the majority of students. The government maintain, however, that by continuing to provide loans for the full tuition fees of all students until their earning exceed £21,000 (an increase from the current £15,000) they are safe-guarding the system from the perils of financial elitism. They fail to appreciate that many young people will look at these spiraling costs and simply opt out of higher education, fearing for their future in a job market that is no longer guaranteed to support them.

What options, then, are left open to those that refuse to enter into this covenant of debt? With apprenticeship numbers still in decline, and many training course now incorporated into universities that would once not have been; options for higher education and training outside of the conventional, and expensive, universities are getting fewer, making it almost impossible to enter many careers without a degree.

Why, you might ask, should we, as current students, care about these changes? After all, our degrees will not be affected by these increases. We have our own worries about the graduate job market in the light of the recession, without taking on those of the younger generation. However, these changes will continue to affect society in years to come. We have already seen the effects that irresponsible lending can have on the entire economy, who’s to say how much worse it could be with millions of young people leaving education either unskilled or already unable to support their own debt. If nothing else, imagine these changes had taken place just five or so years earlier. For all my hopes and dreams of university as a child, I wonder now what I would have done had I faced fees of an average £7,000 a year. Would I still have made the same choice? And if not, what would I be doing now?

If we ask ourselves these questions and dislike the answers we receive, it is our duty to fight back against these changes and protest against the total disregard for the futures of today’s teenagers.

Because, ultimately, there but for the grace of government go I.

Add Comment

You must log in to submit a comment.