Skip navigation

24 hours to Save our Bursaries!

If you do one thing to help Access throughout your time in Cambridge, please make it this one. Help save the financial support available to our poorest students.

Contents (click on title to go to relevant section):

Letter to the Vice-Chancellor - Print out, sign and get your friends to sign!

CUSU Flysheet

CUSU Day of Action: Thursday 10 March 12 noon at Great St Mary's

Today it was revealed that the University received 140 signatures to our 25-member amending grace ON TOP of the 109 signatures on the graces put forward by academics themselves. Despite having received almost six times the number of signatures required, the University have undemocratically and illegitimately REFUSED to allow a vote on our amendment - they have therefore REFUSED to allow the Regent House to have their say on whether they want to save our bursaries. Their argument is that the amendments are incompatible with the purpose of the main grace (the grace which says what they will be doing in order to charge £9000 fees) - CUSU rejects this argument completely, and we are extremely confident that we will be successful in challenging this.

Now it's time for an urgent response. We will still win this fight, but only if we mobilise students and academics in drawing attention to the University's illegitimate ruling. We need to show the University just how outrageous and unacceptable it is to ignorie the view of the academics and students who make this University what it is.

This is a big ask, but it is important that we seize the moment: CUSU is launching a Day of Action TOMORROW - We will be marching on the Old Schools to show the University that we will not accept cuts to bursaries and we will not be ignored. But we cannot do this without your help! We need as many students and academics as we can get - so please use whatever lists you can - if people care about bursaries, then then this one hour is all we ask for!

We will be Meeting outside Great St Mary's TOMORROW (Thursday) at 12pm - We need your banners, we need your signs but most of all we need you and your students. If you care about the financial future of Cambridge students, PLEASE JOIN US!

UNIVERSITY DENIES ACADEMICS THE CHANCE TO SAVE OUR BURSARIES

CUSU CALLS FOR IMMEDIATE PROTEST IN RESPONSE

The Vice Chancellor today refused to allow a vote on CUSU's amendments to the University Council's grace, despite receiving almost six times the number of signatures required. CUSU, working with College JCRs and MCRs, launched a wide campaign last week to hold the University to account on fees and protect the bursaries that Cambridge offers its poorest students. This was supported by 140 members of the Regent House, with over one hundred members signing CUSU's second Grace on Preserving Bursaries.

Despite the incredibly high level of support from both fellows and students, the Vice Chancellor has claimed that the amendments are 'incompatible with the purpose' of the Grace. The University now claims that the main purpose of the Council's Grace was simply to confirm the existing University procedure: this is categorically untrue— the Grace sought 'approval of the University's intention to propose an Access Agreement to the Office for Fair Access', and the CUSU amendment simply proposed conditions as part of that agreement.

CUSU is confident that the decision of the University administration will not stand up to scrutiny, and will be immediately challenging it.

In response to the fact that the University is ignoring its students, its fellows, and its own democratic procedures, CUSU is organising an emergency demonstration outside Great St Mary's at noon, on THURSDAY 10 MARCH.

CUSU President Rahul Mansigani commented: "We are appalled and outraged by the decision of the University to blatantly refuse to acknowledge the concerns of its students and academics. The University's rules are clear on this matter, and the University has broken them.

It is unacceptable that the University administration is deliberately denying the Regent House the opportunity to save our bursaries, and ensure that our poorest students get a fair deal. We call on all members of the University to join us at noon tomorrow outside Great St Mary's to show the Vice Chancellor that we will be heard!"

Welcome to CUSU's guide to our campaign to save maintenance bursaries. We are seeking support for 2 'Graces' (See below), which we need your support for. This page aims to lay out some of the information about what is going on, how you can help and tips that will help you to help us save maintenance bursaries.
25 member amending Grace (Deadline Wednesday 2nd March, Midday - hand in to The Registrary, Old Schools)
50 member Grace (Deadline Weds 9th March, hand into The Registrary)

If you have any questions about how to get involved in our campaign, or the graces themselves please do get in touch - grace@cusu.cam.ac.uk.

Response to University's rejection of our amendments

by Sam Wakeford, Student Member of University Council

Today's Reporter contains a Notice blocking the amendments to the Council's Grace approving the seeking of an Access Agreement allowing £9,000 fees (http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/2010-11/weekly/6217/section1.shtml#heading2-6).

Amendments can be blocked only in cases where they are "in substance and effect incompatible with the main purpose of the Grace to which it refers, or immaterial to that purpose" (Regulation 11, http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/univ/so/2010/chapter01-section4.html#heading2-3).

Today's Notice claims that the "'main purpose' of the Grace promoted by the Council" was to "confirm the continued effectiveness of an existing University regulation". This is the regulation that states that the undergraduate fee will be "the higher amount under Part 3 of the Higher Education Act 2004". The Notice claims that the amendments were therefore "inadmissible as being in substance and effect incompatible with the main purpose of the Grace".

This is utter nonsense.

The Grace actually asked that "approval be given to the Council's intention to propose an access agreement to the Director of Fair Access to Higher Education, for his approval, pursuant to Regulation 12 for University Composition Fees". The main purpose was therefore to seek the approval of the Regent House to the intention to propose an Access Agreement. The amendments were to impose conditions upon that approval - in other words, they would have allowed the Regent House the option of saying 'we will approve the seeking of £9,000 fees, but ONLY IF, whatever the specifics of the Access Agreement you are asking us to agree to in advance, certain conditions are respected'. This is manifestly not "incompatible" with the main purpose of the Grace - they are just conditions that the Old Schools doesn't like.

Regents or others interested in challenging this with us, please offer thoughts below, and/or get in touch with us: grace@cusu.cam.ac.uk

What is going on?

As you are all probably aware, the whole issue of Higher Education funding is very much up in the air, with the increase in fees, cuts to teaching grants and the (now-delayed but infamous) White Paper.

As a result, the University is not only considering what fee it will charge from October 2012 for UK/EU undergraduate students, but also the financial package it offers to students from low-income families as well as the amount of resources to be put towards widening participation initiatives run by the University.

Cambridge is at a cross-roads with regards to what type of commitment it makes to widening participation and supporting students from the poorest backgrounds who receive a place at Cambridge; it can either maintain the status quo or even take a backwards step, despite the increase in tuition fees and the potentially drastic knock-on effect that this move will have; or it can stand up and say that Cambridge will remain to be a place for the brightest young minds from all walks of life, and that the financial situation will not be allowed to be a barrier to a student being able to benefit fully from what Cambridge has to offer.
As Cambridge students and staff, we have one chance to show the University our commitment to access and financial support for the poorest students.

The University's Proposals

The University Council (principal executive and policy-making body of the University) has put forward its proposals on the issues, and there are a number that CUSU strongly objects to:

1. The maintenance bursary (money available to students to spend on the costs of living in Cambridge) will be reduced by more than 50%. This means that for the poorest students, instead of receiving around £3500 a year, they would receive around £1500 (with the money going towards fee-waivers).

Cambridge has historically struggled with a perception that as 'it is Cambridge', it costs much more to study here than at other universities. One of the fundamental reasons why this is simply untrue is because of the amazing financial support that is available to the poorest students, which comes in the form of the most generous maintenance bursary in the country. The current proposals would mean that this is simply no longer the case.

2, In coming to such an important decision, which will undoubtedly risk undermining the great Access work being done, the University has failed to consult with the Regent House (overall Governing Body, made up of around 2800 academics) and has not provided detailed information on how they reached their analysis of the financial situation. Having interrogated the University's data, CUSU does not have confidence that the figures provided represent an adequate or detailed analysis of the real financial situation, especially given the lack of transparency.

3. Given the dramatic increase in tuition fees, CUSU is seeking a fairer allocation of resources to be spent on widening participation measures. This is imperative given the scrapping of Aimhigher and the shifting of the financial burden from state to student.

What is CUSU trying to do?

The Council is proposing a grace to approve the decision to charge £9000 a year in tuition fees and to propose an access agrement to the Director of Fair Access. CUSU is proposing an amendment to this Grace, as well as bringing its own grace:

'25 member' Amending Graces (Deadline - FRIDAY 4th MARCH at 4PM)

CUSU's amending graces would result in 2 things if it is approved:

1. The University would continue to provide maintenance bursaries of at least the present levels as part of any funding package (with fee waivers also forming a part of this).
2. The Council would need to produce all relevant data and figures to demonstrate the financial need for a fee level of £9,000 (through a detailed Report to the Regent House).

'50 member' Initiated Graces (Deadline - WEDNESDSAY 9TH MARCH AT MIDDAY (12PM)

In addition to proposing an amendment to the existing Grace, CUSU is seeking to initiatiate its own Graces which would result in the following extra outcomes:

1. The University would make a fairer allocation of its resources to widening participation initiatives (in the forms of maintenance bursaries, widening participation activity, and fee waivers), giving a minimum total spend of £14 million, instead of the "approximately £10million" figure proposed;
2. In the event that the first proposal is not accepted, then the minimum spend would be set at £12million;
3. The final balance between the funding of maintenance bursaries, Widening Participation activity & fee waivers would be subject to approval by the Regent House.
4. In addition to the benchmark target on the proportion of students from the state sector to be admitted to Cambridge, which will be included in the access agreement with the Director of Fair Access, the University will set a higher internal aspirational figure that it will aim to make progress towards.

How can I get involved?

CUSU needs at least 25 signatures from members of the Regent House for our amendment to go to a vote, and at least 50 signatures for our graces to go to a Vote.
But 25 and 50 numbers are the minimum, not the target! If we want to have any chance of saving maintenance bursaries for the future generations of Cambridge students, then we need to be getting hundreds and hundreds of signatures and you can help us secure this.


You can see a full list of the Regent House members at http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/ reporter/2010-11/special/05/ section2.shtml, but it is much pretty much every fellow in the entire University - so whether its your tutor, your DoS or your supervisor, we need their support and we need you to help get it!

Helping the campaign can hardly be easier, all you need to do is to print off the 25 member grace and the 50 member grace and then take them to any Regents you know and ask them to sign it. We have some of the main arguments covered below, but there is also an accompanying flyer for each grace (25 member and 50 member)

Once you've got signatures on a Grace sheet, it needs to get back to the Old Schools Reception (just opposite Clare Old Court's P'lodge on Trinity Lane) within the timescale the Grace sheet says at the bottom.

For the 25 member grace, the deadline was Wednesday 2nd March at midday, but we have now successfully challenged the University on the deadline, and have made them back down to the deadline of FRIDAY 4TH MARCH AT 4PM. Your JCR/MCR or your Faculty Rep should be able to help collect sheets and deliver them, potentially via CUSU, to the Old Schools, if taking them yourself is problematic. If you really can't find someone to deliver them, then e-mail grace@cusu.cam.ac.uk and the CUSU Access and Funding Officer (Andy) will come and personally collect it.

Winning the Arguments

Below are just some of the arguments that you might come up against, and the answers that you need. If you come up against an argument that you can't respond to, please get in touch with us and we'll do everything that we can to help!

Argument 1: 'We don't need such a generous maintenance bursary'
Answer 1:
- As has already been mentioned, Cambridge has long struggled with numerous misconceptions, one of them being the cost to study in Cambridge. This is an example where our reputation precedes us, and the maintenance bursary is one of our most powerful tools to show that actually Cambridge is just as cheap, if not cheaper than many other universities. Cambridge should not be aiming for the status quo, but should continue to lead the field in the area of financial support.

- Many students from the poorest backgrounds worry about their inability to have a part-time job because they know that many students have a part-time job whilst at university (a recent survey by Natwest showed that around 1 in 2 students had a part-time job). Having such a generous bursary helps counteract that argument.
But it is clear that even with the bursaries and more general financial support available, there are Cambridge students having part-time jobs without their college knowing. Slashing the maintenance bursaries available risks even more students trying to balance their academic work and social lives with a part-time job.

- Some academics have said that students can work as much as they want in the short vacations if they need extra income. Whilst it is true that they are allowed to work, this presumes firstly that they are actually able to find a job. In addition, it would be misleading to imply that you do not have to do any work on your studies during your short vacations, in fact it would seem to be quite the opposite. Supervisors often set large amounts of work to be done during the vacations in addition to the 'consolidation of notes' exercise that everyone needs to do and the revision that students are expected to do. Numerous students have received messages such as "the only difference between term-time and short vacations is that you are not in Cambridge in the vacations, the workload should be the same"; this sort of work-load is simply not possible on top of a full-time job.
CUSU is seriously worried about the detrimental effect that slashing could have on the academic performance of students from the poorest backgrounds. The current generous bursary allows students to stay in Cambridge for that extra week to work on their dissertation or to catch up on work missed during term. Having such a reduced maintenance bursary risks leaving this as an option available to those who have the financial income going spare to do this.

- CUSU accepts that no student will starve with the proposed bursary provision and they are not disputing that fact.
However, what it will do is generate a two-tier system in Cambridge, between those who can afford to take part in the Cambridge lifestyle, and those who may be restricted because of their financial situation.

We are not advocating that every student should be able to go to two May Balls as a right, or that students should be able to have 3-course meals every night of the week; but what we do want to see is that students are able to buy that core text book which they use every week of term but which costs £50; we do want students to be able to go on the field trip that is a highly valuable part of their course. Some colleges have deposits of nearly £1500 (the amount of The Council's proposed maintenance bursary), and there are many other costs which are part and parcel of being a student.

Argument 2: "Why can't hardship funds be used if students don't have enough from their bursary?"
Answer 2:
- Quite simply, we do not believe that hardship funds should be regarded as the norm. Maintenance bursaries should cover the costs for a student to live in Cambridge, with hardship funds being for those who are ineligible for financial support from the University and in need of help and for unexpected cases of financial hardship.
- CUSU would not feel comfortable with advocating that the poorest students could not afford to live in Cambridge even with the maintenance bursary, especially given some students do not feel comfortable about applying for extra help, especially if they are in receipt of a bursary already.


Argument 3: "The University is facing unprecedented cuts, we cannot afford to spend more on bursaries, no matter how much we want to"
Answer 3: CUSU has spent a long time going through the University's finances, looking at its income and its expenditure as well as picking apart each model that has been put forward. CUSU has come up with a fair package of financial support which is also affordable for the University, even at the highest level of support that CUSU proposes in their 50-member Grace.

Argument 4: "Bursaries are not effective at widening participation; fee waivers are where the focus should be"
Answer 4:
- Whilst small, tokenistic bursaries may well not impact upon a student's decision as to what university to go to, it is clear that Cambridge's generous bursary is a strong selling point and helps counteract the misconception that only rich students can afford to study here.

- Fee waivers do have a role to play in any financial support package, but the rationale behind these is not for economic reality, but to deal with the worry about the headline figure that the Government has allowed to come about by shifting the financial burden solely onto students. Fee waivers mean that Cambridge can say that for the poorest students, the headline figure is reduced to £6k-7k a year. It must be remembered that this figure for tuition fees will depend entirely on how much a student earns once that have graduated. Having money in their pocket is something which is of much greater significance to students once they have started at university.

- If students wish to use some of their maintenance bursary to help cover the cost of their tuition fees, then they would be able to do this (as they are currently), but to date CUSU has not been able to find a single student on the full bursary who has used the £3500 for this purpose.

Argument 5: "There are some students who receive a bursary despite being from very wealthy families who just happen to know how to work the system"
Answer 5:
- In any system of financial support which is means-tested, there will always be loop-holes and way to get around the rules; this does not mean that you scrap it entirely or punish those students who would really benefit from the support.
- The focus should always be on those students who need this extra income, not the tiny minority who might play the system.