The number of university occupations in protest at cuts and rising tuition fees shows a marked shift in student politics in this country. Not since the late 1960s have such student protests been seen.
The increase in fees and the cutting of education maintenance allowances (EMA) for 16, 17 and 18-year-olds have been the main areas of contention, with university students horrified at the prospect of paying up to £9,000 a year in tuition fees.
This would mean that for a student getting eight hours contact time (the average at the London School of Economics), every class would cost around £50. In London, a student can expect to pay not only £9,000 in tuition fees, but a further £5,000 a year for accommodation and another £5,000 a year in living expenses.
Total debts at the end of a three-year degree course will be at least £40,000.
The main fear among students is that increased fees will make higher education unaffordable. Many from lower-income will no longer be willing to go to university if they are saddled with such huge debts. It is very difficult to convince someone whose parents earn around £20,000 a year to move into higher education. It is impossible to convince someone, as the Government hopes to, that this is not crippling debt when it is their household’s entire income for two years. Despite what the coalition claims, the increase in tuition fees will hit the poorest hardest.
Before the fees increase was announced, the Sutton Trust carried out a survey which found that, if fees were increased to £10,000, only 26 per cent of secondary school students would think of going to university, compared to the then level of 80 per cent.
According to one former senior academic: “Mature students, in particular, will find university fees prohibitive. How can a married man or woman embark on a university course when they will be lumbered with such massive debts at the end of it?” He also has a warning about postgraduate studies: “Why add another £12,000 a year to your debt by doing an MA? And who for heaven’s sake is ever going to do a PhD?” The answer is only the rich.
The Government claims it will counteract this by making universities offer larger and more bursaries. However, given the scale of the cuts being made to university budgets, it is hard to see where the money is actually going to come from.
An academic at a former polytechnic says: “Universities which are not in the Russell Group will have to review their widening participation policies, and may not be able to be so generous with their bursaries in the future which might deter students from poorer backgrounds from applying.”
Inevitably, it will mean more students will live at home and miss out on the life experience of going away to university.
Despite Government claims that grants will still exist, many universities and especially those who admit more low-income students, will be unable to offer them. Universities such as the LSE and Oxbridge may offer grants, but their proportion of students from poor socio-economic backgrounds is so low that it will not lead to them offering more money.
Ministers’ other major claim is that they are raising the threshold for paying back loans from £15,000 to £21,000. Many in support of higher fees –and particularly the Lib Dems – say this is a great stride forward. But they not entirely right. By the time those having to pay these crippling fees graduate, the starting salary will be higher than it is now, thanks to inflation.
Fewer people will actually fall under the £21,000 threshold – meaning that those who are supposed to be spared the huge payback won’t be.
The scrapping of EMA has prompted considerable anger. LSE student Emma Clewer says: “Coming from a single-parent family where my mother earns a very low wage, had I not had EMA support, I would not have been able to go college to do A levels and would not be at university now.” The scrapping of EMA will deny such students the chance to gain A levels and prevent some of the brightest from going onto university. Inevitably, universities will close courses that fail to attract students in sufficient numbers. Arts and humanities degrees will suffer, with a shift to science or vocational degrees. As students become consumers paying ever-higher prices, their demands and expectations will increase.
The battle over fees has changed the landscape of student politics. Students who have never been involved in any sort of campaign can now be seen on weekly marches. And despite the “kettling” of student demonstrators, they haven’t become demoralised, as many assumed they would, but more dedicated.
The Liberal Democrats are likely to suffer at the polls as a result of student anger at the broken pledge on increased tuition fees. If Labour gave stronger support to student protests and promised not to increase fees, the party could boost its chances of a comeback – particularly in marginal seats won by the Lib Dems in 2010 as a result of their stance on fees.
Ed Miliband must become the champion of the student movement. His late father Ralph, an LSE legend, would no doubt have been leading student protestors. If the Labour leader resists the fees increase and promises to restore EMA, he might just gain a new army of followers to help put him into Number 10 Downing Street.
