Briefing on Top-Up Fees

Written by the CUSU Sabbaticals 2002-03

Background

Over the summer, CUSU has been responding to mounting Press speculation that the government's Higher Education Funding Review will include proposals to introduce top-up fees. Sources close to the government, and individuals within the University administration, have confirmed that Cambridge University, in collaboration with other Russell Group institutions, has been lobbying the government in favour of the introduction of top-up fees.

The Review is due in early to mid November, and will (probably) come in the form of a consultation/White Paper.

What exactly are top-up fees?

In 1997, the Government scrapped the universal maintenance grant and replaced it with a system of tuition fees (a charge of just over £1000 to all students whose parents earn above a certain threshold). NUS and student unions have campaigned ever since for a review of HE Funding, and changes that would alleviate current levels of debt and hardship and remove the present financial deterrent preventing students from disadvantaged backgrounds from applying to University. During the 2001 General Election it became clear that HE Funding was the Governments “least popular” policy, and the Government subsequently granted a full and comprehensive review of Higher Education Funding (the review has since been delayed by several months).

Over the summer the Government has been indicating that the Review will propose a lifting of the cap on tuition fees (an introduction of top-up fees). Recently, both Cambridge University and Government Ministers have been referring to top-up fees under various euphemisms: 'differential fees', 'flexible fees' and 'relaxed fees'. All variations refer to the same thing: enabling the country's top research institutions to charge undergraduate students an unrestricted amount. Figures have ranged from £2,500 to £7,000 per student, per year. Cambridge University's Finance Director, Mr Andrew Reid, was quoted as mentioning the figure of £4,000[1].

What are the arguments given for top-up fees?

The University are currently in a severe financial predicament. An annual deficit of around £10 million is causing panic throughout the institution, and charging students more is seen as a quick-fix solution to the problem.

Students benefit from a degree, and it is suggested that they should make a significantly larger contribution to match the rewards they receive.

UK Universities are finding it difficult to keep up with their American counterparts. We are allegedly losing academics to American Universities, and research is lagging behind.Adopting a more 'American' ethos to Higher Education by scrapping the cap on what is charged, is the way forward for UK Universities.

What are our arguments against top-up fees?

Student debt and our compatibility with the American system:

NUS surveys have show that average student debt has risen to between £10/12,000 per degree since 1997. This debt has implications on the welfare of students, and has been associated with stress and academic underachievement. Increasing numbers of students are turning to part-time work to fund their degrees. Under a top-up fee system, this debt could increase to up to £30,000, which would serve to exacerbate problems of student debt and hardship.

The American system is supported by a backbone of student support, endowments funds and bonds, set up by children's parents when they are born in order to enable students to cope with the rising costs of education. Crucially, this financial infrastructure is absent in the UK, so any increase in upfront costs must be absorbed by loans – leading to higher levels of debt. Cambridge University's bursary schemes are already reaching saturation point.

A decreasing share of the UK's GDP:

The UK currently spends 1.1 % of GDP on funding its universities. This is half the US share of GDP spent on the Higher Education sector. Of the OECD's high-income members only Germany, Japan, Belgium and Italy spend a lower share of GDP. Top-up fees ignore calls for an increase to a central funding of Higher Education to match international counterparts.

A fully-privatised, market led Cambridge University:

Taking steps towards 'liberalising' the University's funding, moving away from government funding and control and towards financial autonomy is tantamount to privatisation. Top-up fees would be the biggest step the University could take in the direction of privatisation (some University officials have been allegedly using the phrase 'privatisation' to describe the introduction of top-up fees).

Top-up fees would symbolise an irreversible disengagement with the Government. Minister with responsibility for Higher Education, Margaret Hodge, has already used phrases such as 'setting Universities free' in her description of her proposed changes.

There are no guarantees as to where a market driven Higher Education system would take us. Less popular, non-research driven subjects may not be sustained, and the inherent value in a Cambridge education may be lost. Cambridge would no longer cater for the society it has in the past served, but for wherever the market leads.

Once the mechanisms are in place, there will be few (if any) restrictions to prevent universities, in times of hardship, from making students bear the financial brunt of the University's difficulties. Any restrictions that might remain post-privatisation would swiftly be removed by any government, in order that the responsibility (and therefore the blame) for the setting of fees would lie with universities rather than government. This also means a less accountable Higher Education sector.

A market driven Cambridge University would be less inclined to cater for and support small, and less conventional subject areas and departments.

Many academics and staff in the sector, and in Cambridge University, perceive themselves to be public sector workers, and feel their job has a wider societal value. Transforming into an independent, or 'private' institution' will have considerable impact upon the University's employees.

The societal value of a thriving and meritocratic Higher Education sector:

A University degree (particularly one from a Russell Group University) does increase the earning potential for the student. Nevertheless, a well-educated population, sufficient numbers of highly qualified professionals, a thriving research sector, and a meritocratic Higher Education system is of enormous economic and social benefit to society as a whole. It is legitimate, therefore, for society to contribute towards higher education through general taxation (the system up until now). Free education at all levels of academia is strongly held principle by a great number of people in society, especially within the academic community.

The severe shortage of graduates in the public sector will be exacerbated with any increase in student debt, as graduates will increasingly look to higher salary occupations in the private sector to reduce their debt more quickly.

Means testing doesn't work:

Top-up fees will rely on a system of means testing of parents the same or similar to the current mechanisms – mechanisms that are proven to be flawed. Figures indicate that 17% of students receive no contribution from their parents whatsoever, and 30% receive less that the government's recommended parental contribution[2]. The costs of top-up fees will therefore be worst for the significant number of students whose parents have been let down by the means testing system (usually parents on the border of the fee threshold, with more than one child in University).

The government, Cambridge University, and CUSU all take active steps to promote Access.It is one of the University's self-proclaimed aims to 'widen participation', and Ministers have indicated that the funding of any Russell Group University is under threat if targets for admitting students from underrepresented backgrounds are not met. Cambridge University consists of only 50% of students from state schools (approximately), despite the state sector accounting for over 90% of UK Secondary schools students. Moreover, there has been no substantial increase in the proportion of students in Higher Education from social groups IIIM to V since 1994. Close attention must be paid, therefore, to the probable consequences of top-up fees on Access:

Oxbridge is currently perceived as elitist. Top-up fees will turn this myth into a reality.

The success of Access initiatives lies in communicating the message that Cambridge is no more expensive than any other University; a strategy that will be deemed redundant if Cambridge is allowed to charge more than other 'more normal' institutions.

Perceptions of Cambridge are what determine whether or not students apply. Top-up fees will accentuate the widespread view that Cambridge is different to other universities, and not something 'ordinary' state-educated students should aspire to.

Debt, and the fear of debt, acts as a deterrent to students from educationally and financially under-resourced backgrounds – the very types of students underrepresented in Cambridge. Any increase in debt and fear of debt, therefore, could easily result in a worsening of Cambridge's record on Access.

What is our response going to be?

NUS National Demo, 4^th December (probable date)
NUS rally and lobby 72 hours after the publication of the White Paper
A University-wide CUSU campaign
CUSU lobby meetings with government and University officials
A close alliance with OUSU (Oxford University Students' Union) and the Aldwych Group (student unions of the Russell Group), and the NUS.
A University-wide petition against top-up fees
Drawing on the resource of Cambridge alumni against fees
A Paper to University Council resolving to oppose any attempts to increase upfront fees
CUSU ANTI TOP-UP FEE rally in late-November drawing on alliances with local unions and Cambridge academics and staff against fees
A motion to CUSU Council setting up FACT (Cambridge Access and Campaign Team) and release funds to initiate and co-ordinate the campaign
Facilitate Papers to College Councils throughout the University, urging support in the opposition against fees.

[1] The Times, Monday 8^th July

[2] Barclays Bank Figures