What Price Fairness?

The Impact of finance & cost on young people’s views on Higher Education Participation

December 2010

By

Dr Graeme Atherton, Jo McNeill & Judith Okonkwo

Executive Summary

Introduction:

In response to the Browne Review, Aimhigher Greater Merseyside and the Aimhigher London West, Central & North Partnership (WECAN) have collaborated on a piece of research which will determine how young people from 15-17 will respond to the proposed changes in higher education (HE) support cost arrangements.

Aimhigher is a government funded initiative to widen participation in higher education in England through activities that raise the aspirations and awareness of young people. The programme works as a partnership between schools, further education (FE) colleges, HEI’s and a range of other learning providers and community groups. Aimhigher targets young people who would not traditionally progress to FE and HE. Aimhigher funding is due to end in July 2011.

The Browne Review proposes increases in the current HE tuition fee system which the Coalition government are looking to implement. The Coalition is proposing a movement of the current cap on fees from £3290.00 to £9000.00.

Methodology

In London a questionnaire survey was delivered to over 400 young people and in Merseyside focus groups were conducted with 36 young people and 6 parents.

Findings:

These are grouped into two sections – those from the quantitative work in London and those from the qualitative work in Merseyside.

London

  • Over 75% still want to go to university however less than a third would pay up to £9000 (see table 1 below).

Table 1: How much young people would pay to go to university

Amount / No Response / About £3000 / About £5000 / About £7000 / About £9000 / £10000 or more / Don't Know
Frequency / 24 / 80 / 72 / 46 / 109 / 28 / 77
Percent / 5.5 / 18.3 / 16.5 / 10.6 / 25.0 / 6.4 / 17.7
  • Only 20% of young people on free school meals are willing to pay over £5000.
  • Young people are confused about how much university costs. 36% think it costs £3000 per year – but 20% think it costs £9000.
  • Young people rank courses and universities by worth, and expect their costs to reflect this. For example, on average they will pay up to £8000 to go to Oxford or study medicine; but only £4000 to study English or go to ManchesterMetropolitanUniversity (see tables 2 & 3 below).

Table 2: How much young people would pay to go to different universities

University / About £3000 / About £5000 / About £7000 / About £9000 / £10000 or more
Oxford / 9.6 / 10.8 / 17.0 / 29.8 / 25.0
U of Liverpool / 32.3 / 31.0 / 21.6 / 4.6 / 1.6
UCL / 18.6 / 27.1 / 26.8 / 13.3 / 6.0
Lancaster / 42.0 / 31.7 / 13.5 / 3.0 / .9
QMUL / 27.5 / 26.8 / 25.2 / 8.5 / 2.8
Liverpool JMU / 42.2 / 29.1 / 15.4 / 2.3 / 1.8
Manchester Met / 40.4 / 29.6 / 14.9 / 4.1 / 2.1
London Met / 36.5 / 26.8 / 17.7 / 6.9 / 2.3
U of Central Lancashire / 42.2 / 30.5 / 13.3 / 2.8 / 1.6
Liverpool IPA / 47.5 / 23.4 / 14.9 / 2.1 / 3.2
U of Winchester / 43.6 / 30.5 / 11.5 / 3.2 / 1.4
Westminster Kingsway College / 39.4 / 26.6 / 17.2 / 5.0 / 2.5

Table 3: How much young people would pay to do different courses

Course / About £3000 / About £5000 / About £7000 / About £9000 / £10000 or more
Medicine / 16.5 / 19.5 / 23.9 / 21.1 / 11.9
Business Studies / 33.7 / 35.3 / 17.7 / 4.6 / 1.4
Physics / 28.7 / 29.4 / 21.3 / 9.6 / 3.2
Law / 17.9 / 20.6 / 25.5 / 19.5 / 8.7
Vet. Science / 31.9 / 25.9 / 20.0 / 10.1 / 3.7
Media studies / 49.8 / 22.7 / 10.1 / 4.8 / 2.1
English / 41.3 / 31.4 / 13.8 / 3.9 / 2.1
Engineering / 31.0 / 29.1 / 19.7 / 9.6 / 3.0
Dev. Studies/Intl Rel. / 49.5 / 23.9 / 11.0 / 5.3 / 1.8
  • More flexible HE will need selling to young people. Only 25% would consider studying part-time or shorter HE courses.
  • A graduate tax would also need selling. Only 20% would prefer a graduate tax over paying a tuition fee.
  • At this point earnings & unemployment are not the major factors in influencing university or course– only approx 30% see it as important.
  • Most young people still intend to choose the course they want – but 40% see earnings at the end as important.
  • Half are more likely to live at home due to financial pressure but there may be a London factor at play – the majority of London young people also study in the capital.
  • Young people are underestimating the debts they will accumulate. Only 35% would be put off going to HE by the level of debt involved, but only 12% are willing to accumulate over £10,000 of debt.
  • Levels of future earnings are less important to young people than understanding what HE costs & how to access the support available.
  • The opportunity to visit universities and speak to students is more important than speaking to teachers or careers advisors or having information provided via websites.

Recommendations

  • Comprehensive, impartial IAG is essential. Aspirations are high but there are significant gaps in knowledge regarding different universities and what they can offer as well as what the new finance regime will offer in terms of support.
  • It is imperative that the government in formulating what this IAG is going to be actually does some work directly with young people from different schools, colleges, social groups and geographical areas to provide the support they want; not what the government thinks they want.
  • A neutral service is the only way to provide this advice. The research shows the challenges that many universities are going to have recruiting students to many courses. How will they be able to impartial when they face departmental closures, radical re-organisation and possibly bankruptcy?

•Detailed, sophisticated modelling with larger samples is needed that actually asks young people their views on finance, cost and high participation.

•The proposed new regime is too high a risk:

for individuals

for universities

for the UK economy and society

Merseyside

  • The main reason for choosing to progress to HE was career orientated.
  • A thorough knowledge of the current tuition fee amount was demonstrated by focus group participants yet an overwhelming majority opted in favour of more specified information, advice and guidance (IAG) on what financial support may be available to them in HE.
  • Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) was determined to be pivotal in enabling equal access to all young people regardless of their families’ financial status.
  • Issues were raised around Lord Browne and his sample group. Who did he ask?
  • What’s the alternative? Labour’s targets have driven young people so much to think that university is the way forward that there is now a problem with places – but what’s the alternative?
  • Concerns were raised about graduate level employment.
  • 6th Formers are very knowledgeable about the current financial system and the repayment model. It is a regular topic of peer conversation amongst those who have clearly expressed a desire to progress to HE.
  • Year 10 and 11 pupils are less knowledgeable and do not really talk about the topic with their peers although they do largely demonstrate an overall awareness of the current fee amount.
  • Focus group participants of all ages demonstrated a clear understanding of the concept of interest on loans. Interest in economic terms is widely understood by young people from working class families.
  • Worry is a very prevalent theme throughout all of the focus group findings. Throughout the focus group transcripts, the words ‘worry/worried’ were used 182 times in relation to increased fees, repayment terms and the impact a large debt will have on their future lives as well as on the wider society.
  • Concern about choice was repeatedly raised. Course cost and institution location/prestige will definitely be major factors in choices made about HE.
  • Different courses, different universities: In discussing how cost will impact on choice further, loss was raised as a theme. Loss in terms of potentially good doctors, teachers, dentists, vets etc. being lost to society as the people ‘born’ to fill those roles could not afford the right course in the right university.
  • Student mobility: higher fees incurring large debts will influence other choices related to financial outgoings such as moving away to study.
  • Discussions about social class dominated each of the focus groups with young people highlighting their ‘worries’ that more affluent students would lack some of the attributes they possess such as social skills and the ability to empathise with the less fortunate.
  • A graduate tax option was chosen by the large majority of participants, this was identified as a ‘fairer’ approach.
  • The large majority of focus group participants were adamant that they would make it to university, some identified this determination as ‘their only way out’ and many cited Aimhigher interventions as being a key influencer in their thinking.
  • In all of the focus groups with young people, the emerging themes were very negative. They demonstrated a keen interest in the topic being discussed and were largely disappointed that the fee increases are highly likely to affect them. They overwhelmingly highlighted the level of unfairness this presented.
  • One focus group was conducted with parents. Parent participants were very vocal in identifying the reasons why they feel such a drastic fee increase will impact negatively on their children.
  • All parents stated that they wanted the very best for their children. They do not however, believe that advising their children to progress to university where they will incur a large debt is the best for their children.
  • Parents felt their children did not fully grasp the actual impact such a large debt would have on their adult lives.
  • Parents highlighted that they had brought their children up to be debt averse and were now expected to dismantle that approach and push them towards a massive debt.
  • The parents group were very clear in identifying that the current government are only looking after the interests of an elite few and do not feel their children are being given a chance.
  • The most disturbing theme to emerge was that parents stated that they will think twice about advising their children to progress to HE.

Recommendations:

  • Abandon Thursday’s vote in favour of a full review of student financing using actual working class pupils and their parents as the sample group.
  • IAG about changes to the funding system should be targeted at the currently under-represented groups and their parents/carers – remove the jargon!
  • Re-assess the systematic approach to progression to HE. Participation did not drop after the last fee increase because there was a support framework in place, namely Aimhigher and EMA.
  • Raise awareness that there will be a significant cultural change in working class families. Scholarships will not be applied for if parents say ‘University isn’t for the likes of us’.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ON THIS RESEARCH PLEASE CONTACT:

Graeme Atherton

Executive Director

Aimhigher London WECAN

Jo McNeill

Research Monitoring and Evaluation Manager

Aimhigher Greater Merseyside