University Challenge for local students

The Browne report which recommends that students pay more for their university education makes life even tougher for those teenagers making decisions about their future. As a seventeen year old heading to university next year, I'm one of them. But what do the professionals in education think? And how are university undergraduates reacting to this report?

Lord Browne's review, published recently, highlights an alarming lack of funding in the university sector and largely places the responsibility of filling that hole with university students, rather than the state as has previously been the case. In practical terms this has meant a recommendation that the current cap on tuition fees – £3290 a year – should be removed.

The majority of universities would likely charge around £7,000 a year if the cap were removed, whilst the most prestigious universities could potentially raise their fees almost fourfold to £12,000 a year.

DebtsThe report has angered many students who are currently at, or have aspirations to go to, university who feel it unfair that they would be burdened with debts of up to £68,000 upon graduating.

Nick Burd, Lancaster University undergraduate from Willaston, believes the notion of raising tuition fees is "ridiculous... more students will be put off going to university because families and individuals cannot afford it any more".

This concern is also raised by Daniel Robinson, the former Head Boy at Malbank Sixth Form now studying at Liverpool University, who adds that alienating potential graduates would be a "short-sighted" decision and would "cost the economy in the long run".

ConcernsTeachers have also voiced their concerns with the conclusions of the Browne report. Dave Shepherd, head of Malbank Sixth Form, thinks politicians "need to find a better way to fund universities". He says raising tuition fees would "create a divided education system of those that can and those that can't", adding that the current fees system "does put some students off higher education".

In harbouring these concerns, Shepherd is not alone: according to a poll conducted by The Sunday Times, 73% of British adults believe that rises in tuition fees will deter potential graduates from higher education.

However, alternatives to university are available. Shepherd also believes that "too many students are being forced into university by government expectations", highlighting the 289% rise in students going to university nationally between 2002 and 2010, and emphasising the advantages of apprenticeships, which "can be specific to careers to and give students a fast track into employment" whilst earning money.

Andrew Cliffe, headteacher at Brine Leas High School, which this year opened the doors of its own brand new sixth form, agrees that university is not necessarily the best start in life after leaving college. "I would advise students to look carefully at all routes... the decisions of students leaving college have to be linked to their own ambitions. University is not the only route."

Vince CableThe government's Business Secretary, Vince Cable, has also spoken out against the idea that the only valued option for an eighteen year old is a three year degree course: "vocational training, including apprenticeships, can be just as valuable as a degree, if not more so".

But for college students with their hearts set on university, is the report really going to put them off the prospect of higher education? Not according to Nik Arterton, a local former college student now at Nottingham Trent University. "The life skills you learn, the experiences you have and the degree you come out with in the end more than outweigh the financial cost of university".

Politics student Daniel Robinson agrees: "I am worried about the amount of debt I'll leave university with but I feel it's an investment in my future... the possibility of greater career opportunities outweighs the problem of debts".

These views beg the question: is the Browne report really as bad as sections of the media, and student groups, have made it out to be? Supporters of the bill have pointed to the fact that the review proposes raising the threshold at which tuition loans are paid off from £15,000 to £21,000, and according to Cable, 30% of graduates "would pay less from their lifetime earnings than they do under the existing system".

Final nail?So why are the University and College Union (UCU) labelling the report "the final nail in the coffin" for affordable higher education? The answer appears to be that it is a radical privatisation of university, unnecessarily heaping increased costs on students. The UCU themselves support a Business Education Tax on the top 4% of companies, increasing tax rates from 28% to a little under 33% (the current G7 average) which would, the union claims, allow the government to abolish tuition fees altogether.

The National Union of Students (NUS), meanwhile, believes the 'graduate tax' idea that Cable has recently shelved is the best way forward, with the amount paid back into the treasury proportionate to a graduate's earnings. Both these options may become more attractive to Liberal Democrat MPs as they find themselves increasingly unpopular with their grass roots members for breaking a pre-election promise to abolish tuition fees.

CriticalOverall, the voices from the education system – students and teachers alike – appear to be largely critical of the conclusions of Lord Browne in his report. If university has opened its doors to a far greater proportion of talented but underprivileged eighteen year olds in the past two decades, Browne's aim of removing the cap on tuition fees threatens to undermine and even reverse that progress.

If the proposals are realised by the government, the inherent elitism of Britain's most prestigious universities that 'Access' groups have fought hard to break down could swell once again. Regardless of the advantages to the report, this would serve as a huge blow for equality of opportunity, as many underprivileged students would undoubtedly miss out on many opportunities taken for granted by those in well off families.

Those that could afford to go to university, particularly the top institutions, would either be very well-off or faced with huge debts upon graduating. If the coalition is enforcing cuts to the economy to prevent saddling the next generation with debt, why are they planning to do exactly that with this proposal?

As for me personally, what have I decided? A History, Politics and Philosophy degree at Durham University is simply too tempting to resist, and I start next October. I'll have to accept the costs and take the risk of being burdened with tens of thousands of pounds of debt upon leaving. I just hope I've made the right decision!

This article is from our news archive. As a result pictures or videos originally associated with it may have been removed and some of the content may no longer be accurate or relevant.