This week Imperial College Union Council accepted Union President Alex Kendall’s Higher Education Funding Policy paper. The paper broadly supported the Browne Review, with Kendall warning against “reactionary” behaviour similar to that of the NUS, suggesting that students should be prepared to “work with universities, not against them”.

The Council did, however, recognise some problems with Browne’s report. Kendall specifically thought that “postgraduate students should be included in a government spending review”.

Much was also said about the psychological impact of greatly increased fees on poorer students. Kendall argued that “what matters is what you’ll actually pay, not the maximum possible fees”, pointing out that under Browne’s proposals the amount students pay will be tied to their income, which will be especially helpful to those who wish to go into “socially useful” but low paid jobs such as teaching. Indeed it is estimated that more than 30 percent of people will never have to pay back the full amount they owe. He did, however, agree that many potential students are not aware of this, and that there is “not enough information about bursaries” and other means of support. The Council agreed that “getting information to schools” should be one of Union’s and Imperial’s biggest priorities. It also agreed to campaign for students’ means to be calculated based on family size as well as total income, to help ‘medium income’ families from which many children go to university.

The discussion then turned to the possibility that better universities, such as Imperial, might charge more for degrees than less academically accomplished ones. Several council members argued that universities are not purely capitalistic systems, and that increasing fees would not lower student numbers, (which might be a disincentive), but simply increase the proportion of richer students. It was, however, pointed out that if Imperial was to gain a reputation for attracting mainly rich students, the loss of highly able but less well off students, would in itself act as a disincentive. Browne’s suggested levy on universities charging excessive fees was also mentioned as a reason why Imperial’s fees would not become unreasonable. The general consensus was that while we must “accept different rates for different universities”, these differences will not be as great as feared.

The general consensus was that while we must “accept different rates for different universities”, these differences will not be as great as feared

The impact on EU students, however, was recognised to be possibly greater than on UK students, because they have less access to support. Imperial’s increasing fees might drive them to cheaper UK universities, or universities in their own countries (where higher education is often free), causing the College to lose its reputation as an “international university”. Kendall, however, rebutted that “Imperial runs on reputation more than money” and that increased fees would be invested in improving this reputation, therefore maintaining student numbers.

The higher education funding situation was ambiguous at the time of the debate, so Council was very clear to state that by accepting Kendall’s paper it was not setting a permanent Union funding strategy. Amendments to its policies are likely after the government finalises its plans.