by Liz McGinn
–UK–
My eldest daughter is going to university in 2012. She is academically gifted and wants to study mathematics and French. She has no idea what she wants to do with her degree, but she wants to study subjects she enjoys and is good at. Her choice of degree course should open doors for her in years to come and give her a head start in the working world. Instead, she is heading for a potential lifetime of debt courtesy of the U.K.’s coalition government.
Beginning in 2012, students will be facing rises in tuition fees from £3,290 ($5,187 USD) per year up to a maximum of £9,000 ($14,190 USD). This means that a student on a typical three-year degree course faces tuition fee debt of £27,000 ($42,571 USD).
Factoring in student loans for living costs, which can be around £3,500 ($5,518 USD) per year, this means the average student will face debts of approximately £38,500 ($60,707 USD).
For students studying medicine or veterinary courses, fees could start at an eye-watering £45,000 ($71,000 USD). Potentially they could leave university with debts of £62,500 ($98,556 USD).
This is a staggering amount of money for any young adult to contend with, and one that will follow them for the next 30 years – at which time any outstanding monies will be written off. Prior to 1998, attending a British university would not cost a student – or their parents – a penny. Students graduated with a good degree and equally good prospects, and were off into the big, wide world without financial worries.
Realising that free education was unsustainable, the previous Labour government decided that students needed to contribute toward their education. From 1998 they introduced tuition fees for students.
Until 1998, only 200,000 students were registered in undergraduate courses. By 2009, this figure had risen to nearly 482,000. This rise was attributed to the Labour government’s push for all to have the opportunity to attain better qualifications and increase their employment opportunities. They claimed that 75 percent of young people should go on to higher education. This attendance level, combined with the country’s economic crisis, meant that university funding needed to be re-evaluated.
Recent student protests against the rise in tuition fees have degenerated into violence. Protestors stormed the Conservative Party headquarters, smashing windows and frightening trapped and terrorised office staff. One of the protestors has been jailed for throwing a fire extinguisher from the roof.
Another incident caused uproar when a student climbed on the Cenotaph War Memorial in central London and defaced the Union flag. Other protestors attacked a car carrying members of the royal family.
The National Union of Students “condemned violent protest as not only morally reprehensible but also counter-productive.” They added that because students felt politicians had lied to them, the protests were just the beginning in a new form of activism.
Protestors felt that the government had not thought the policy through and was not investing in the country’s future by providing access to the education needed in order to allow economic recovery. Indeed, they were making U.K. universities some of the most expensive in the world.
Student protest has not been limited to the U.K. Students have been protesting about similar educational reforms in other European countries, such as France and Italy. Protests have erupted into violence in cities across Europe because of fears that today’s students will be paying the long-term costs of profligacy by their respective governments.
In a European-wide Gallup survey, 65 percent of 19 million students believe that higher education should be free because they are the future leaders, innovators, and business people. Respondents see free education as a cornerstone of investment in their countries’ futures.
The U.K. government, meanwhile, stated that its proposals are fair. Universities need extra funding and the proposals are reasonable in that no one would pay anything up front, and graduates would only start repaying their debts after graduation and not until they were earning at least £21,000 ($33,112 USD). This threshold would rise from the current level of £15,000 ($23,652 USD) meaning that graduates would proportionately keep more of their earnings.
The government also claimed that only a few universities would charge the full £9,000 ($14,190 USD) with most charging up to £6,000 ($9,461 USD). Any that charge the full amount would be expected to participate in the national scholarships program and various outreach initiatives that aim to widen participation and ensure fair access for all. In particular, they will actively target students from disadvantaged backgrounds by offering a tuition-free first year.
Universities were somewhat cautious in their response. Most welcomed the government’s approach to the funding issue. Dr. Wendy Piatt, director of the Russell Group, the representative body of the top 20 leading U.K. universities, stated that changes to funding would “represent a comparatively welcome outcome for our members.” However, no universities were willing to commit themselves to making a definitive statement about how much students would be expected to pay.
The current government seems to have agreed with the previous government in that all students should have the right to higher education, thereby enabling social mobility. The proposals aim for fairer education for all.
Rich students can afford to pay fees, and poorer, disadvantaged students will get a small amount of help, but what about those in the middle income bracket? They will get little, if any, help. Surely, if the government wants to provide access for all then it could start with taking the parents out of the financial equation.
At the moment, government policy states that students from families with income of up to £25,000 ($39,427 USD) will be entitled to a full maintenance grant (not repayable) plus a student loan (repayable). Students from families with incomes up to £42,000 ($66,237 USD) will be eligible for a partial grant and a loan. Families earning up to £60,000 ($94,630 USD) will be eligible for maintenance loans only.
Will a potentially huge debt frighten off a large number of students, denying them the chance to make their mark on the world? Is this government, traditionally allied with the rich, steering higher education toward the well off? Is the government, in its rush to rescue Britain from economic doom, failing to see the bigger picture?
If university fees are now the way forward, then surely the fairest way for all concerned would be to consider a young adult student as just that – a young adult. In fairness all young adults should be offered the same chances and also the same fees and loans.
After all, if a degree makes a person a professional with access to higher paid jobs, why should certain students be disadvantaged over others when it comes to receiving financial help? Is the government aiming to equalise opportunity for all, or has it found a new way to discriminate against certain elements of society? That is a question that will be answered over the next few years.
As my daughter tells me, “I guess I’ll have to deal with the debt. University is my only option. There are no jobs out there anyway so what else will I do?”
About the Author:
Liz McGinn was born in London, England. She moved with her family to live in Northern Ireland in 1999, just after the peace process had come into force. For the past few years she has worked in the educational sector providing academic support to special needs students so that they can access mainstream education. Liz’s interests lie in education, technology, politics, and the Arts.
Thank you for such an interesting article, Liz. I have to say that I empathize completely with your daughter. Coming from a middle class family, I had to make the same decision when I decided to go to university. It was before the recession, so I opted to attend a private liberal arts college that left with me with an excellent education, on top of a severe pile of debt. Upon graduation and in the midst of the US recession, I decided it was in my best interest to continue my education and add to my debt. It became obvious that I was under-qualified for those jobs that would supply a livable wage after paying my bank each month.
I did not realize that students in England, and other European countries, are dealing with the very same trade-offs and dilemmas that many American students and young adults are facing. I agree that, “we are the future” and should be properly educated and trained to try and find the solutions to the problems that our parents and grandparents have left for us. But it seems that these very problems are the reason we will have to pay back enormous amounts of money.
It appears to be a vicious cycle. Considering how important education is to our current and future livelihoods for each nation and the global community, I am curious what some of the solutions will be? What can we do to prevent higher education fees from increasing even further while at the same time reducing deficits and debts? Is this a chicken and the egg problem?
Dear Liz,
Thank you for so clearly articulating how educational reforms such as these can be not only discriminatory but reflect a a shortsighted lack of investment in our future by governments who spend ruthlessly and wastefully in other sectors.
You write in the article that after 30 years outstanding debt will be “written off.” Is that part of the new law that will go into effect in 2012? That outstanding debt just disappears after a 30-year period?
-Kate
Liz,
Thank you for this perspective!
Having just finished a master’s degree in December, I know that here in the U.S. the cost of higher education is staggering. Really, it’s scary, especially given the state of the economy.
Personally, I chose to pursue a master’s degree because it was required for the jobs I wanted. My bachelor’s degree was not enough to pursue a career in my field, international relations. Now more doors are opened to me, but I am responsible for a significant amount of debt. It’s like having a mortgage, but without the place to live!
Heidi
Thank you for your comments.
It’s something I feel very strongly about. Why should the students of today be penalized for the profligacy of governments and bankers? Most of those in charge of the U.K. today received their education for free. Yet my daughter and other children will face a lifetime of debt! As djohnsonak said they are the future. But only as long as they pay for it.
Another valid point made is that degrees do not seem to be valued very highly any more. To get a decent job one needs a Masters or a PHD, or to have trained in a very specific field. I studied for my degree as a mature student and want to train as an English teacher. I cannot do that in Northern Ireland as places are scarce on teacher training courses. My only option is to move to England which means uprooting my whole family and disrupting their lives. It seems that the whole system is unfair. But I guess that’s another story.
And Kate, the part about the 30-year write-off of the debt; that is going to be the law (at the moment). By 2012, they will probably have changed their minds again. The way it currently stands is that if a student never earns the minimum of £21,000 then they never have to re-pay the debt. Guess that’s another option – just get a low-paid job and don’t re-pay.
Anyway, thank you for your comments. All views are most welcome.
Liz
Dear Liz:
I congratulate you for this column, and undoubtedly encourage British students to continue protesting for their rights.
I’m from Peru and South America occur similar situations at different scales. At least in Peru is the university education is almost free, but governments always want to give a cost. Even with a corrupt Parliament, they can’t start it because owing to student’s protests, then the Government give way to the social pressure.
As soon as your country, why on one hand the British Government spends astronomical amounts of money on a Nuclear Submarine (two billion dollars) and on the other hand cut benefits to students who are the future and present of his country ?. That is unfair!
Fernando Castillo
An important perspective on a growing problem in the UK. Another, related issue is what happens to graduates once they get out of Uni, laden with debt but in an economy that is far from healthy and, with the massive government cuts about to kick in, looks like it could turn into a ‘double-dip’ recession. One disturbing trend that’s worth noting for a the readership of a site like this, as it’s particularly relevant to both the NGO and media communities, is the mushrooming of unpaid internahips in the UK. Increasingly, jobs in NGOs, campaign groups and media outlets (be they newspapers, magazines or high-end websites) go to people who’ve been able to work there for free, as unpaid interns. By definition this means they’re often white and either have parents well-off enough to support them in the outrageously expensive London property market, or are from London and can stay at home post-University. So the already white, middle-class, socially dislocated and ignorant NGOs and press just gets even more so, because these are the only people who can afford to put in months of free labour to get a foot on the ladder. There are some good student and youth campaigns around this subject but I don’t think I can post links in comments on this website?
Hi, Sarah – Thank you for sharing this trend – one I agree is problematic. You can use HTML in your comment or just send them to us at info@thewip.net and we will add them to your comment. We’d love to see them.
In the last 8 years Higher Education in the US has also left a whole generation as indentured servants, those who had to borrow against their future, like those who immigrated to America and had to work off their passage by being a servant for years to the “owner” who paid their fare.
The federal government under the Bush Administration created and expanded the student loan program, allowing private banks to participate with federal loan backing. Within two years scandals rocked the higher education student loan directors as banks and other lenders paid for free trips for university/college Directors of Student Loans to place their banks names first on the online lists of lenders.
At the same time, private, for-profit (and online) universities and colleges, which were created with the development of the Internet (1994), also saw a ready source of students/revenue/profit via student loans. Getting students verified as eligible for student loans was and is the first priority in the recruitment process. The federal government had promulgated regulations that made it illegal for colleges/universities to pay recruiters based on number of students recruited, because the temptation to not provide complete disclosure of loan details would be too great. But the student loan gold rush over-ran the country.
The University of Phoenix was sued in 2003 and paid the US Department of Education $9.8 million in 2004 “to resolve administrative claims that it was paying improper incentive compensation to its recruiters.” Recruiters were being paid incentives (which is illegal) for the number of students they enrolled. A settlement of $78.5 million is being sought to settle the claims against the University of Phoenix.
A snapshot of the reality the “cost” of higher education in the US in the last 10 years leaves more disturbing images and consequences. Here are a few salient points:
• American students have borrowed over $150 billion dollars from 2004-2009. That will be a lot more than $150 billion dollars out of the US consumer economy over the next 20 years.
• Many “students” are borrowing money to live on in these financially challenging times, and are not really going to school.
• Many have “educations” from for-profit technical schools that provide little or no real education for getting a job, especially in a low employment era… but they still have the student loans to pay.
• Students have sued for-profit “colleges/institutions” claiming their “education” did not qualify them to get the jobs the institutions claimed, have not prevailed. In addition, suits against accrediting bodies who accredit institutions for various programs and fields have also not prevailed. The system has left the most vulnerable, the less educated/informed, unprotected in an era of “buyer-beware” in higher education.
• When the federal loan program was expanded under the Bush Administration in 2005 the law also made it illegal for student loan indebtedness to be relieved by bankruptcy. “Students” cannot seek bankruptcy relief from student loan indebtedness, they can also have their social security garnished for payment.
• At the same time salaries for university/college presidents has accelerated. The annual salary of over 30 private college presidents exceeds $1 Million dollars per year. Presidential salaries of public colleges and universities range from more than $300,000 to several million per year. The President of Kaplan (a for-profit university) last year was over $30 million dollars.
In the last two years of the 19th century over 60,000 men climbed the Chilcoot pass in Alaska to get to the Gold Rush in the Yukon Territory. Only a very minute percentage returned with gold. In our current era of our Education Gold Rush, a much larger percentage will return with the gold that their education has provided for their passage, but they will be paying a good percentage of that wealth each month to those who created the financial gold rush that paid for their passage.
“FOR PROFIT”… HIGHER EDUCATION: INDENTURING THE POOR to Profit the Rich?
The Chronicle of Higher Education reported today that the For-Profit college student loan default rates account for (under the new three year standard) 47% of all student loan defaults (466,000 students). Student loan defaults are running about 11.3% of the 3.4 million student loans made over the last three years. Under the new 3 year calculation, those colleges that have a default rate of over 30 percent for three consecutive years will not be eligible to participate in the program… which means that some for-profit colleges will not have access to the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow that they have had such easy access to in the past.
All this means better protection of those who seek a better job and financial future through education. Whether this will slow the raid on public funding by those who seek personal wealth at the expense of the everyone, by siphoning money out of the back pocket of Uncle Sam, is still to be seen.
A sortable database that sorts institutions/companies by name is also available on the Chronicle’s website below:
http://chronicle.com/article/Loan-Default-Rate-at/126250/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en