NUS ATA: Why we need a fairer funding system

Securing a fair Higher Education Funding system is the priority campaign of the NUS this year.

At ATA last week, we listened to a presentation from Aaron Porter, NUS Vice President (Higher Education) on why securing such a system is so vital in ensuring that a university education is available to everybody that has the ability.

The HE funding debate, all began when top up fees were introduced. The biggest threat that we as students will face in the coming year, is the potential lifting of the cap on top up fees, which could see students from 2010 onwards paying even more than they already do for basic tuition.

The political landscape has changed significantly since the last time we had this debate back in 2006 (see picture of the national demo on the right). We now have a new Prime Minister and all political parties are reviewing their stance on HE funding.
Devolution also means that we now have different funding arrangements across the British nations.

In line with these developments, NUS National Conference this year decided to focus it's argument on securing a fair funding arrangement for students, rather than pursuing the battle for free education- which in the current political climate, is neither suitable, nor realistic.

The 2009 review on top up fees will consider how graduates should contribute to the HE sector, and additionally how the HE sector should be funded. It shall also consider International student and postgraduate student fees.

-> The current funding system is regressive in nature
-> The more you earn after graduation, the less you contribute to repaying your student loan
-> England needs a fairer funding system

As Aaron so rightly said, higher education- one of the best drivers of social mobility should not transform into a market where there are winners and losers.

The student movement this year, will therefore focus on keeping the cap on tuition fees, and opposing the marketisation of education.We must also recognise that HE in this country, is significantly underfunded.
The NUS are calling on...

-> The English % contribution of GDP on HE should be in line with the OECD average
N.B- We spend 1.1% of GDP on HE, the average for the OECD is 1.4% and the highest contribution within the OECD is 2.2%
-> There should be a structured business contribution to the HE sector
-> Commercial rates should not exist on student loans
-> Part time students should be entitled to a more proportional amount of student loan

We were shown a graph on the amount of money spent per student, per year from 1948-2008 (and beyond) ------------------------------------>

As you can see, when state contribution was at its highest, in the 1970s, up to £11,000 was spent per student per year.

By 1998, just £5,700 was spent per student per year. The rationale behind tuition fees was to decrease the level of state funding.

Since the introduction of "top up fees", the level of state contribution has been stable.
The key question in this debate is where the money is going to come from in the future?

Keep checking back for more information regarding the national campaign on HE funding on the 5th of November....

NUS APL: Why HE is so Unfair

Myself, Tom (VPEA), Oggy (VPHC) and Sparky (VPS) attended NUS Active Political leadership (APL) training this week.

Throughout the course we watched many presentations, but the one that touched me the most was "Why Higher Education is so unfair" delivered by a member of NUS staff. The figures that I am about to mention are just a few examples and really highlight how far we have to go to achieve true equality with regard to the accessibility of our institutions.

Students under the top up fee system if the cap is lifted, will be facing roughly £9k a year debt, which will add up to £27k by the time they graduate.

Graduates with a degree in arts will earn, on average £34,104 p/a. This on initial reflection appears to be substantial. However, graduates with arts degrees will only earn an extra £8k in a life time, once their student debt is paid off, than students with 2 A Level qualifications.

This is what we refer to as graduate premium. The graduate premium for a degree in arts therefore is low. Statistics suggest, however that graduate premium is significantly higher in courses with the lowest growth levels.

50% of students from independent schools continue their education in Russell Group universities, where as only 10% of students from FE colleges do the same.

Ethnic Minority Students are massively underrepresented in the Russell Group, with Black Carribean students only constituting 7% of the student bodies. In fact, there are more Black students at London Metropolitan University than in all of the Russell Group Universities combined.

One of the biggest problems for students are additional costs. Accomodation is a key barrier to education, with high costs meaning that many students are forced to study at home, or are put off from entering higher education all together.

The above are just some of arguments presented to us.
The presentation really rang true how far we have to go to ensure that higher education is available and accessible to anybody who has the ability.