Top-up Fees
Dear Felix,
I don't doubt that many readers were alarmed by your leading article last week, and many of those who initially opposed top-up fees would also express opposition to further increases. Whilst Sir Howard Davies' comments may not have been formed into a concrete proposal at present, experience from the previous top-up fee proposals would suggest that student bodies should prepare a response from the very first hint of further increases.
However, there is another reason why further increases of the level suggested give significantly more cause for concern than the first phase of top-up fees, which is that further increases in undergraduate tuition fees would bring them above the current level for most taught postgraduate courses. I cannot imagine postgraduates being cheaper to teach, or colleges wanting to continue to build up portfolios of Masters courses that bring in less money per student than undergraduates; and so sooner or later it is likely that the option of increasing taught postgraduate fees, at least in line with undergraduate fees, would be considered.
There are two reasons why this is of particular concern. Firstly, whilst increases in expected debt will never be welcome to students, increased undergraduate fees do mean just that: increased expected debt for the graduate, not immediate costs for the student. This debt is in the form of an effectively interest free loan, only requiring repayment when graduates are earning enough to pay it; the main saving grace of top-up fees is that nothing will be paid upfront.
For taught postgraduates, student loans are not available and fees are paid upfront. For those taught postgraduates not lucky enough to receive research council funding or employer sponsorship- both of which would stretch to ever fewer students as fees increased- the closest equivalent to a student loan is the Career Development Loan. Even these loans are designed for vocational courses, and so they are hardly tailored to Masters students: they will only pay 80% of fees unless the applicant has been unemployed for the last three months and in any case will only pay £8,000 in total for fees and maintenance for a full 12 months of study, leaving many relying on parental support or personal savings for the remainder of the fees, and repayment (and interest rates above inflation) must begin two months after graduation regardless of earnings.
This is especially worrying when put into the context of increasing participation targets: as you mentioned last week, `degree inflation' is a very real phenomenon as student numbers rise, and jobs (and PhD studentships) that once needed only an undergraduate degree increasingly require a Mastersespecially if the Bologna process refuses to recognise undergraduate MSci and MEng courses- and the Government's aim of increasing social mobility through University attendance could well become self-defeating.
Therefore it would seem that tuition fees and University participation are rapidly approaching the point beyond which the question of Masters student funding will need to be thoroughly re-assessed.
Yours sincerely,
Nichola Hawkins
Life Sciences Taught Postgraduate Representative
