What we should really be saying about tuition fees

Getting rid of fees won't make a fair deal for students, but neither will keeping them as they are

by Lucy Webster / August 11, 2015 / Leave a comment

Students marching against tuition fees rises in 2010. © LSE Library

With my third year of university on the horizon, I have spent two years engaged in the debate over student fees, which in recent weeks has returned to the mainstream, with the release of a new report on the government’s approach, and two Labour leadership candidates pledging free tuition at the point of delivery. I take a middle view, somewhere between those calling for free education and the current government’s elitist higher education policy.

Tertiary education should not be free. Unlike healthcare or basic education, it is a privilege and generates great rewards. But it should be fair, which means ensuring value for money and making it easier for those from disadvantaged backgrounds to afford. According to a new report from the Independent Commission on Fees, set up in 2012 to evaluate the impact of higher university tuition fees, this is far from the case. While some of the problems expected when the new fees were introduced have been avoided or mitigated, the government and the industry still have a lot to do.

Going to university weighs on someone’s mind from before they go until decades after they have graduated. Some 78 per cent of 16-18-year-olds are “very” or “fairly” concerned about the cost of living as a student, the commission found. Some 68 per cent are concerned about high tuition fees and 58 per cent are worried about having to…

YOU’VE HIT THE LIMIT

You have now reached your limit of 3 free articles in the last 30 days.
But don’t worry! You can get another 7 articles absolutely free, simply by entering your email address in the box below.

When you register we’ll also send you a free e-book—Writing with punch—which includes some of the finest writing from our archive of 22 years. And we’ll also send you a weekly newsletter with the best new ideas in politics and philosophy of culture, which you can of course unsubscribe from at any time

Prospect may process your personal information for our legitimate business purposes, to provide you with our newsletter, subscription offers and other relevant information.

Click to learn more about these interests and how we use your data. You will be able to object to this processing on the next page and in all our communications.

10842612745befc11b6d39d2.79252161

Go to comments

Interview: Lisa Nandy—the challenges facing the Labour Party

Alex Dean / November 7, 2018

The MP for Wigan on Labour’s troubling summer and how to move forwards

Can Ruth Davidson save the Tories?

Dani Garavelli / August 21, 2018

She has a reputation for being a different kind of Conservative—but just how far can...

Comments

David Murphy
August 18, 2015 at 13:33
I don't agree that STEM subjects get more investment. University of Reading has just announced they are shutting down one of their software engineering departments and Physics was closed down some time ago. They are high cost to run, there are not so many students interested (especially from the UK) and most don't attract much business investment. It seemed at Reading they liked having the humanities because they are cheaper to run. "For £9000 a year I get eight hours teaching over 23 weeks" Is this really the case? That would be one lecture roughly one lecture every three weeks. Did you mean 8 hours per week over 23 weeks? When I was at UNiversity studying History (1977-1980) we had multiple lectures and tutorials every week for three terms (10 weeks per term) and essays were pretty comprehensively marked. I was very prone to splitting infinitives, to the disgust of one of my tutors (an American). In a market system what should happen is that those getting poor value should be complaining and putting off other students. Also perhaps arranging transfers to other, better universities. However it also needs remembering that a university is not going to spoon feed you like you were at 'A' level. As to your answer to the funding and fairness issues, I would like to see the government putting greater funding into useful subjects where there is broader value to society. So subsidies supporting education, STEM subjects. Also, more to support poorer students. Also, better careers advice - how many people taking a degree actually need one? I suspect we have too many students now for what society and especially the economy, actually need. Perhaps we need a broader range of courses, such as were provided by CFEs and Polytechnics years ago - less academic and more geared to helping young people progress. There is no easy answer because the first question is wht? Why universities, what does society want? What purpose do and should universities and other higher education serve? What other forms of education will provide individuals and business what they need ?

Lucy Webster

Education and disability rights