The Review is right

The Browne Review aims to advise the Government on changes to the system of Higher Education Funding. Although the headline proposal has been to allow universities to set their own fees, the proposals in the review would, if enacted, mean that anyone could go to university regardless of wealth. It would provide more money for students to live on whilst at university. It would also mean that no one would have to start paying off their loan until they were earning £21,000, and that until then, there would be no interest on it. Why are the NUS against these proposals? For one reason: perception.

The NUS have to be seen to be justifying themselves, and so have picked up on the fact that universities could charge unlimited fees to say that students could be priced out. Under the proposals, Imperial could charge whatever it wants, but if the Government pays this for you up front, if you only pay it back when you’re earning, and if the debt is wiped after 30 years, is there really an issue? By saying that students will be priced out, the NUS is doing more damage to the expectations of school children looking to apply to university than any rise in fees. By focusing on this, and ignoring the benefits of what Browne proposes, they have shown they are more willing to follow ideological points than engage with the problem.

And the problem is that universities are underfunded; university funding per student has dropped with increased participation over the last two decades. universities need more money to enhance teaching, invest in new facilities, fund research (and it is research-led-teaching that makes universities so excellent) and increase bursaries for poorer students. Imperial, like other universities, has an extensive bursary scheme to help students with living costs. 40% of Imperial students receive some kind of payment from the College. And Imperial want to provide more help with living, and reduce fees for all but the most wealthy. In fact, they’re doing it; building up the endowment so that students get a fairer deal.

It begs the question; what all the fuss is about? Sciences are more expensive to teach and fees may be higher than for Arts subjects. But the potential earnings are also greater, and for those of us who want to go into low paying jobs such as teaching or research, Browne proposes more help for universities which provide the graduates which choose these paths. Crucially for us, the new £21,000 threshold means that if you do a PhD, you are very unlikely to have to start paying off your undergraduate loan until you finish.

We are at a university which aims to ensure that students can come here regardless of their ability to pay. But it is not just out of kindness; it is in every university’s best interest to attract the brightest students, regardless of their ability to pay. They can only do this if they have the money to do so. The other source of money is the Government. I hear the economic argument for free education, that it benefits the economy to have highly skilled graduates, so let the Government pay... but doesn’t that sound selfish? After all, graduates benefit more individually than non-graduates. Are we really attending university out of self-sacrifice for the rest of the economy? I would feel embarrassed saying to someone who didn’t have the academic background, inclination or circumstances to go to university, that we help the country more than them, so deserve their tax money. We need to start taking responsibility for our education. Paying for it is a start.

We should support the Browne Review, and all attempts to get universities the money they need, whilst keeping in mind that access for all is a worthier goal than free education.