British students pay £1,100 a year for their education. Although the least well-off among them apparently get this money back, the size of the payments, according to critics of the ruling party, does not correspond to the principle of ‘universal accessibility’ of higher education. The government responds to criticism by saying that the fees are a forced measure: in modern conditions the state is no longer able to support all universities at an appropriate level and ensure their competitiveness on the global higher education market.
At present, the government effectively continues to reimburse British students for most of the cost of their education: the aforementioned £1,100 a year, of course, falls far short of covering the real cost of tuition. In addition, the tuition fee is also covered by the state during studies: the student borrows this sum from the state and passes it on to the university, and only actually starts repaying it after getting a job upon graduating. The fee is the same for students at all higher education institutions and in all specialties leading to a government-recognised bachelor’s degree (or its equivalent).
But recently the government published the latest version of the bill, under which students studying in the United Kingdom with English passports will be forced to pay up to £3,000 ($4,500) a year for their education. Since then, mass protests have been taking place at many British universities. Student movement activists say that if the new law is passed, every graduate will owe banks up to £30,000 by the time they leave university (this sum includes loans not only for tuition itself but also for other expenses). Education would thus become an unaffordable luxury for young people from poorer backgrounds. The government, however, claims that the average debt will be half that — around £15,000.
Announcing the upcoming changes to members of the House of Commons, Education Secretary Charles Clarke called them “good news” for universities. The new plans also include a spoonful of honey for students: the government has decided to reinstate a system of grants for the poorest students (the so-called Access Scheme). This practice was interrupted by the Labour Party itself in 1998.
The overall situation with higher education funding in Britain is such that the government is forced to act in order to somehow remedy it. Charles Clarke, for instance, spoke in the following vein: “The House must recognise that the current situation, based on past achievements and on talking out the need for change, bodes nothing good for our universities.” However, criticism is even louder: for example, Clarke’s predecessor as minister, Estelle Morris, called the proposed changes “his brainchild, not mine.” Shadow Education Secretary, Conservative Damian Green, called the government’s proposals “confused and badly worked out” and added that they would satisfy neither students nor universities. Another opposition party, the Liberal Democrats, said that “shifting onto students the burden of an additional £20,000 debt will not increase the chances of university entry for the poorest part of our youth.”
According to the bill’s authors, the money received from students should be used to overcome the budget deficits faced by many British universities, as well as to fund plans to raise the educational level in the country: the cabinet intends to ensure that by 2010 at least half of all young men and women in Britain have higher education.
Under the new plans, universities in the next three years will allegedly be able to increase the revenue side of their budgets by 6%. Charles Clarke announced that a special commission would be set up to examine how universities wishing to increase tuition fees (this law is beneficial to universities, but they are free not to apply it to students for whom they are for some reason willing to pay themselves) would offer appropriate assistance to students from low-income families.
The reform, meanwhile, mainly concerns England: the matter has not yet been agreed with the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish authorities have already made it clear that they oppose raising the cost of education, and the two universities in Northern Ireland have not yet made up their minds.
It is curious to note how the disputes over the fee were resolved in a peculiar way at Oxford University the other day. In early January, the chancellor (head of the university) Lord Jenkins died here, and elections for a new chancellor were scheduled for 14 and 15 March. On 17 March the winner was announced: Chris Patten, the current European Commissioner, whose term in that post ends next year. Patten is broadly in favour of the new fee. Of the three other candidates for the Oxford chancellorship, only one, the actress Sandy Toksvig, declared her outright rejection of the fee. Incidentally, she ended up with the fewest votes.
However, the chancellor was chosen by those who already hold a degree and to whom the fee holds no fear: the elective body (convocation) essentially consists of Oxford graduates of various years, who came to the election from all over England and even from abroad. Students, whom the fee directly affects, fiercely supported Miss Toksvig’s position throughout the election campaign. True, as events showed, without success.