Higher fees will rescue our universities

In mid September, Europe began to howl. Guttural, deep, pained. On one day, Spain joined Italy, France and Ireland in staging a General Strike. The hot streets of Cadiz thronged with protesters; shops had doors glued or taped shut. Europe had arisen to protest austerity measures imposed to combat massive national debt (16% of GDP in Spain’s case). Their people faced lowered minimum wage, mass unemployment (peaking at 20%) and stark cuts in order to meet Prime Minister Zapatero’s aggressive plan to reduce debt.

In November, students across the UK began their own revolt, staging mass demonstrations against the perceived injustices of the upcoming increase in tuition fees. I did not join these crowds, nor was I at home too afraid to join in. I did not go, simply, because I support the rise in tuition fees. I fear that by not supporting these rises we doom ourselves to real national pain, real crisis, real unavoidable pain that blights so much of Europe. It may not be the best possible solution: simply it is the best viable solution.

There will be many who argue that I have nothing to lose by backing the fees, or who may assume that I could easily have afforded the increased fees. On the contrary, I struggle as it is: like everyone, I can make a meal for under a pound and would rather put on an extra jumper than turn on the heating. It is not churlishness or superiority, then, that makes me back the fees. Ultimately, I back the fees for a number of reasons, all centred on the fact that I believe the university system currently falls far short of what it can offer students and the country’s recovery.

A key argument against the increase is that “students are the future-they are vital for future economic growth”. Obviously, I agree with this, or I wouldn’t bother being a student. However, I find it irrational to argue that we shouldn’t face cuts in our budget when almost every other sector faces wage-freezes, mass redundancies or unemployment. My cousin is a midwife and health visitor. She has been unemployed for two years. Several relatives working in science face regular risks of redundancy. It is unfair, it is hard: it is the same story across the country. I cannot find an argument which can convince me that, in this atmosphere, we should be exempt. Universities face a funding crisis as the government struggles to finance further subsidies for ever-increasing numbers of students. In order to continue to subsidise poorer students and socially responsible degrees (nursing, teaching, medicine, etc) some funding must be found or the scheme abandoned. To argue then that financially comfortable students should not face any worsening of their situation is insulting both to students who rely on government help and to the public at large.

Another popular argument is that an increase in fees will deter many students from University education: I find it hard to believe this. On the whole, the new funding system allows for greater subsidies and grants, ensuring that students have in fact a greater access to learning. The repayment plan should also ensure that any student earning below an average of £30,000 pa for 30 years after graduating will never in fact pay back their entire loan. It seems hard to argue, then, that students will be barred financially from entering university.

I stated in the beginning of this article that I believe the proposals will improve the university system as a whole, as well as simply plugging a yawning funding gap. A large amount of what is wrong with universities today lies in the chasm between what students require and what universities actually provide. It is sadly commonplace to hear tales of Freshers discovering that they have four “contact hours” a week at their top twenty university, studying what should be an academically rigorous course. By increasing tuition fees the covenant between student and university should be strengthened, with students demanding more from their courses and universities more accountable to their students. This can only be a good thing.

The plans also include increasing equality of payment plans for part time and full time students. Currently, part-time students are required to pay up front, which effectively bars access to these courses, many of which combine working and studying, for a large number of students. Creating a level playing field here may be an under-publicised area of the government’s plans but is nonetheless a laudable one and one which shows commitment to providing students with greater choice over their education.

There are many who see the protests in London as a true standard of courage, of bravery, of revolution against an unfair system. More daring, however, are those who choose to support the fees. It will mean higher debt; it will mean harsher standards of living. It will be worse, in the short term. In the long term, we may have a chance to rescue the system before it is corrupted and crippled. It may be brave to stand in the snow and protest for lower fees: it is braver to stand by these changes and suffer slightly for the greater good.