The coalition’s plans are ideological

Those who support the government’s cuts claim that people haven’t looked up or understood the propositions, and that there are no other viable options. I find this insulting and naive.

While student campaigners are vocal about the rise in fees and scrapping of EMA, at the heart of these issues is that the government has announced an 80% cut in state funding to university teaching which would see courses no longer being offered, departments close, student to staff ratios increase and universities cutting the resources required for their courses. To meet the funding gap the cost will be shunted onto the students in terms of increased tuition fees.

The cuts to higher education are more like an amputation. I feel these reforms are an ideological attempt to privatise our university education. While savings of public money may be a decent goal, and the argument that non-graduates should not pay for the university education of others is fair, there is a risk that the future cost to the taxpayer would be greater than under the current system. With an increasing number of students entering higher education the government will have to procure greater funds to loan out. While the proposals assume that not all universities will raise their fees, the Higher Education Policy Institute argue that in due time most courses will be charging £9000. As university funding decreases it makes sense for the establishments to charge as much as possible. While Browne suggested monetary disincentives for this, the proposals do not. With the proposal’s inaccuracies of lifetime earnings for female graduates and introduction of real rate of interest it’s unlikely a graduate will pay back the entirety of their loan. The Treasury are going to make a loss from the inevitable writing off of debt after 30 years.

Our own Union survey shows that current students would be dissuaded from applying to Imperial if higher fees were introduced, and Ipsos Mori has shown that increasing of fees to £5000 or above would dissuade those from the lowest earning background from applying to university, which flies in the face of the so called fairness inherent in the new system. While some say student debt isn’t like real debt, with the introduction of real interest rates payable on loans, it will be very much like real debt that will linger on a student for decades after they graduate, and there is a fear of having that when in the foreseeable future there is little guarantee of graduate jobs or that these will pay as well as in the past.

The main benefactors of the new changes, according to the Institute of Fiscal Studies are most likely to be universities charging the highest fees, while students will suffer as well as, if universities opt for £9000 fees as expected, the taxpayer. This will leave a chaotic legacy for future governments and students and a higher education system incomparable to the one we have today.

In the deficit ridden time that we are in there are two ways of reversing the problem: lower spending or increase taxation. If we increased income tax for high earners, this would affect graduates who benefited from grant maintained education and also cause current and future graduate to enter a system where they pay back their fair share. If students are going to higher education as our Union survey shows because of a passion of their subject, and presumably aim for a job likewise, it shouldn’t be too unpalatable.

I am disappointed and surprised that the Union passed their opinions before the results of their own survey were published. Council should pass papers based on the student population’s views. Despite the low turnout for the survey it was clear that current students want to maintain the current system, disagree that different institutions and courses should pay different fees and would have been put off applying to university if the fees were higher. Just 5.3% of students thought leaving university with greater than £30,000 of debt was acceptable, yet an increase to £6,000 fees would see student debt for a 3 year course at this level, with longer courses and higher fees being worse. I hope the Union Council reconsiders its stance and comes out against the proposals, and at the very least lobbies college against £9,000 fees. Never before have I come across so many people talking in lectures against an issue. It's time for us all to make it clear to the Union and College we oppose the changes and introduction of higher fees.