European Conference for Education Research,
University of Hamburg
17-20 September 2003
A comparison of the extent to which financial status affects the student experience in England and France
Susan Curtis
Senior Lecturer
Department of Business and Management Studies
Manchester Metropolitan University
Crewe Green Road
Crewe, Cheshire, CW1 5DU
Email:
Telephone: 0161 247 5238
Rita Klapper
Associate Professor
Ecole Superieur de Commerce de Rouen
Bd Andre Siegfried
76825 Mont Saint Aignan
France
Email:
A comparison of the extent to which financial status affects the student experience in England and France
Introduction
Recent publicity in the UK has highlighted severe problems some students are now facing regarding their financial status and their levels of debt upon graduation (Christie, 2001), and the increased likelihood of students dropping out of university due to financial problems, (Bennett, 2003). There has also been research indicating that prospective students may not choose their preferred course and university due to lack of funds and fear of debt in the UK (Forsyth and Furlong, 2000). British students are increasingly taking on paid work during term-time which is also being met with disapproval from those who foresee detrimental effects on academic studies from this dual role (Goddard, 2003). Despite this adverse publicity, some commentators are advocating that the rest of Europe should go over to the UK-style loan system on the grounds that it is more equitable and efficient for the economy than a grant system (Guille, 2002). Europe-wide research has found that the UK is actually one of the lowest-cost countries to study in, in terms of student monthly spending, (along with Spain, Ireland and Portugal) and that France, the Netherlands, Denmark and Switzerland recorded the highest student expenditures (Daniel et al, 1999). This study intends to investigate student finances in two countries with high and low student expenditure - England and France - in order to explore the differences of the student experience in more detail.
The financing of higher education
Participation in higher education yields national economic gains, improves personal economic life chances and spreads wider social benefits (Bynner and Egerton, 1999). In France currently, and the UK under previous funding arrangements, the governments made an investment in HE on behalf of taxpayers in order to benefit the economy and society. Personal benefits to the graduates are numerous and came almost free of cost. The current system of funding in England aims to redress the balance somewhat by making students invest in their own education. The focus on student 'investment' as the main new source of funding grew out of a government requirement to expand higher education numbers, coupled with a refusal to increase public sector funding for it. The idea of student investment was crystallised in the Dearing Report (1997), which noted 'the greatest benefit accrues to graduates themselves. On average, they receive an excellent return for their investment in higher education' (quoted in Williams and Light, 1999). The role of student as investor in their future has been placed at one extreme of a model by Daniel et al (1999).
Daniel et al (1999) proposed that the major rationale of student support in European countries in the past has not so much been to steer study behaviour in a narrow sense, but rather to shape the social role of students:
· The student as a learner and young citizen is envisaged notably if substantial grants are provided regardless of parental financial resources;
· The student as a child in a family social system is taken as the prototype if hardly any public support is provided for covering direct student expenditures;
· The student as a child in a family social system with a strong welfare component is reinforced, if student aid depends on parental resources, but financial aid is provided to a large number of all students;
· The student as an investor in her/his future is clearly borne in mind when establishing
loan components in student aid systems.
Daniel et al added that tuition and other fees seem to play the most ambiguous role in shaping and reinforcing the social role of students.
Compared to other European higher education systems, the French one seems to be more complex. In fact, we find a three tier educational system with universities, Grandes Ecoles and a range of training providers such as lycees and private schools. The first two epitomise the longest tradition in France (Tregaskis and Dany, 1999). Whereas French universities are open access institutions, the Grandes Ecoles system (these are either management or engineering schools) is very selective, and tuition fees are charged. However, bursaries are available from the state and public sector organisations and the Grandes Ecoles themselves. There is little doubt, however, that diplomas awarded by the Grandes Ecoles function as an 'ascenseur social' (Jallade, 1999) - a social elevator that catapults students to highly demanded senior management positions in French society. Holding a degree from a Grande Ecole has become a 'source of legitimacy in France for gaining access to the most prestigious positions' (Tregaskis and Dany, 1996, p22).
In contrast to the Grandes Ecoles French universities charge no tuition fees, students only pay a registration fee. Support is exclusively a grant system in France, and the aid system covers roughly 30 per cent of the costs incurred even by the students defined as most needy. This can be considered only as a subsiding system for the most needy students. Grants or loans provide for 22 per cent of French students' total expenditure and 44 per cent of UK students' total expenditure.
The funding of higher education in the UK is the subject of radical and dramatic change, following the report of the National Committee of Enquiry into Higher Education (the Dearing Committee) in July 1997. While the proposal to introduce fee payments by students was not unexpected and had been 'the culmination of many years of debate' (Williams, 1998, p77), the new Government's swift acceptance of the principle of Dearing's proposals to introduce tuition fees of £1,000 per year and maintenance grants of up to £4,370 per year caught many unprepared. Tuition fees of £1000 per annum were introduced by the UK Government in September 1998, and all remaining grant entitlements were abolished. The fees were means-tested, however, and only those students whose family incomes (parental, husband or wife) exceeded a certain means-tested threshold were required to pay the full amount. Loans from the government-backed Student Loan Company (SLC) were made available to contribute towards students' living costs, and special 'hardship' loans could be obtained in specific circumstances. In addition to SLC loans, students could also borrow from the high street banks. Fees in the UK are primarily viewed as part of an investment in the future, yet the UK has not achieved adult status for the undergraduate investor due to the means-tested tuition fees and loan entitlement, which depend upon parental resources. The UK system would therefore appear to straddle the 3rd and 4th components of Daniel et al's model. Despite the provision of student loans, bank overdrafts and other sources of finance, it would appear that many students' expenditure is greater than their income.
In France the state has not engaged in a reform to increase the financial participation of students by raising fees and developing loans. Public financial aid directly provided to students is then limited to grants which are means-tested and attributed to 19 per cent of the first and second cycle students (undergraduates). They exempt students from paying fees and serve to cover part of their living costs. The amounts vary according to different criteria, such as parental resources or number of siblings. Indirect aid is important in France. The State provides a subsidy to student social security, tax deductions for parents, meals (canteens), discounts for travelling costs and social housing. These indirect subsidies are often omitted in international comparisons. Taking into account this part of the French public aid to students would lead to a two-fold increase in the amount given (Guille, 2002). Given this sitution it may be suggested that the French HE system fits into the third category of Daniel’s model given the role of the French student as a child in a family social system with a strong welfare system that provides further student and parental support.
English students also benefit from a range of social concessions. Full-time students are entitled to free medical prescriptions, discounts with respect to rail and bus travel and some forms of entertainment (eg theatres) offer concessions to students. Some banks also permit free overdraft facilities up to a limit, which, while useful for budgeting, probably do not average more than £20 per year in interest waivers (Williams and Light, 1999).
The gap in English students' income and expenditure is estimated to be in excess of £2,000 (NUS, 1999; Callender and Kemp, 2000; Christie et al, 2001), which means that students must obtain additional sources of income. This has resulted in many students taking paid work on a part-time basis whilst studying full-time. The Select Committee Report on student finance and retention recognised the potential impact of part-time employment on both studying and retention, and thus recommended that insitutions should provide guidance to students that they should not work more than 12 hours per week (reported in Thomas, 2002), a 12-hour limit was also recommended by Cubie, (The Independent Committee of Inquiry into Student Finance, 1999). There is a contradiction here in that, on the one hand students are treated as rational adults investing in their futures, and on the other are told how and how not to make that investment. This tension of child/adult, dependent/independent role is reflected in many students' current experience of university, juggling their roles of part-time worker/full-time (or half-time?) student with varying degrees of success.
Whilst Daniel et al's model is of interest, the theories of equity and efficiency are much more tried and tested as ways of assessing the fairness of a policy. There is a strong case for charging fees based on the concept on grounds of both equity and efficiency. 'Equity gaps' are exacerbated if the students who benefit most from public subsidies are from relatively affluent households. Equitable funding arrangements impose part of the cost of HE on those who may be expected to benefit from HE. This releases funds which could increase the number of places and provide greater financial support to the less advantaged groups to access HE. Thus, the potential for increasing social mobility is enhanced. Economic efficiency is served if individuals pay directly for services they receive and not served by higher rates of taxation required to fund HE expansion. This has the benefit of being able to use the tax collector as the repayment mechanism, thus reducing the potential of defaulting borrowers, providing greater incentive to students to graduate more quickly and inducing HE institutions to produce more effective course structures and methods of instruction (Biffl and Isaac, 2002). Loans, or some alternative means of making graduates pay directly for their education, are more equitable and efficient than grants.
Incidence of term-time working in England
The incidence of English students working part-time during term-time has been increasing over the past decade (Sorensen and Winn, 1993 - 27 per cent; Deacon, 1994 - 38 per cent; Ford et al, 1995 - 30 per cent; Lucas, 1997 - 30 per cent, Curtis and Lucas, 2001 - 44%; Barclays, 2002 - 39 per cent, Curtis and Williams, 2002 - 59%). Participation levels vary between surveys, one of the highest reported incidences of students working in the UK was the TUC's (2000) survey of further and higher education students, which found the figure to be 72 per cent. The incidence of working is spread unevenly across the university sector, students from higher-income families will often not need to work at all during their undergraduate life.
Methodology
Questionnaires were administered during class time in March 2003 to Business undergraduates in two higher education institutions, Institute de Formation Internationale (IFI) in France and Manchester Metropolitan University (MMU) in England. The French institution is part of the ESC Rouen Groupe. The Groupe includes the ESC which is a Grande Ecole which offers predominatly postgraduate programmes, as well as an engineering school, IFI and further education institutes. The French students' course was of 4 year duration, but year 2 were on work placement at the time the questionnaires were administered, 168 responses from years 1, 3 and 4 were gathered in France. English students were on a 3-year course and 325 responses were gathered from all years. The total number of English students on the course was 546, giving an overall response rate of 59%. Numbers of students responding from each year was France - year 1, 27 students; year 3, 59 students; year 4, 59 students; England - year 1, 112 students; year 2, 80 students and year 3, 133 students. Gender division was 39% male and 61% female in France and 56% male and 44% female in England. All students were full-time undergraduates and were between 18 and 24 years of age, although a small minority of English students were mature, the eldest being 38 years.
The questionnaire was almost identical in both countries, the difference being that figures asked for in France were in euros and in England, sterling. Figures quoted in the paper are in Euros, the exchange rate used is £1 = E1.4. The questionnaire contained questions on students income and expenditure, and also accommodation, car ownership, part-time working during term-time, debt, class contact time, assessments and social outings.
The overall aim of the study was to investigate student finances in two countries with high and low student expenditure - England and France have very little comparative data available. Part of this investigation was an exploration of the two education systems as well as the financial support system available for students and the differences of the student experience in more detail. The references to English and French students refers to the systems the students are in rather than the nationalities of the students. Both cohorts contained overseas students.
Findings
Expenditure
Student expenditure on higher education can be divided into the academic costs of study and the living costs associated with study. The former is comprised mainly of tuition fees, including library/computer/laboratory fees, and personal expenditure on books, personal computer, and other associated equipment. The latter may be divided into essential and non-essential costs and includes accommodation, food, travel, entertainment, and clothing, etc.