This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/27/higher-fees-dont-mean-fewer-working-class-students-look-at-the-uk-for-proof

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Higher fees don't mean fewer working class students - look at the UK for proof Higher fees don't mean fewer working class students - look at the UK for proof
(3 months later)
Since the federal budget outlined radical changes to higher education in Since the federal budget outlined radical changes to higher education in Australia there has been a blitz of commentary decrying the deregulation of tuition fees. The most alarming claim levelled against the proposals is that they will deter the most disadvantaged from attending university. Education minister Christopher Pyne has countered that students from disadvantaged backgrounds would get even more support under the new system. So just who is right?
Australia there has been a blitz of commentary decrying the deregulation of A definitive answer is impossible, but examining the impact of the United Kingdom's similarly ambitious tuition fee reforms can offer some clues.
tuition fees. The most alarming claim levelled against the proposals is that In 2011 the UK's governing Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition announced substantial reforms to higher education funding. Following the recommendations of a review into higher education funding commenced by the prior Labour government, the cap on student fees was almost tripled to £9,000 ($16,400) and public funding significantly reduced.
they will deter the most disadvantaged from Students were livid. Effigies of government ministers were burned, mass marches and sit-ins occurred across the country and the commentariat was rife with predictions that the poorest would be priced out of university. The additional funding for students who were traditionally less likely to attend university barely rated a rated a mention, and when it was brought up "fig-leaf" was the prevailing descriptor. Sounding familiar yet?
attending university. Education minister Christopher Pyne has countered that students from disadvantaged backgrounds would get even more support under the new With the UK now two years into its tuition fee experiment, just how decimated are the ranks of disadvantaged background students in English universities?
system. So just who is right? The Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) produce an annual analysis of student applications, acceptances and university entry rates for England (where the fee and student debt changes took affect) and the wider UK. The most recent 2013 report deals extensively with the equity impact of the fee rises. The report is rather clear-cut:
A definitive answer is impossible, but examining the impact of Compared with entry rates in 2011, the year before the introduction of higher tuition fees in England, 18 year olds in disadvantaged areas in England are 12 per cent more likely to enter in 2013.
the United Kingdom's similarly ambitious tuition fee reforms can offer some Not quite the culling of the working class that was expected. But perhaps the changes have led to the well-off buying their way to an even greater share of student places? Alas, not so. Though still alarmingly low, the share of disadvantaged background students entering university is now at its highest in a decade.
clues. This is not to say the changes did not affect enrolments. Between the policy's announcement (2011) and commencement (2012) a window of opportunity to be charged under the old fee system tempted many school-leavers to ditch gap year plans, hence the anomalouslow deferral rate in 2011. In 2012 student entry and application rates fell, but just one year later they were bouncing back, with 2014 figures (not included below) reaching record heights.
In 2011 the UK's governing Conservative-Liberal Democrat So university enrolment is growing and disadvantaged students are now more likely to attend university. Perhaps another oft voiced fear was realised? Is there now a two-tier system in which the most elite institutions are becoming evermore the preserve of the rich?
coalition announced substantial reforms to higher Again, the numbers will disappoint the doomsayers. Though still quite inequitable, the figures are improving since higher fees were phased in.
education funding. Following the recommendations of a review into Readers should be cautioned against drawing too much inference from the UK experience. Alongside generous income-substitution loans, the UK still maintains a fee cap, charges a progressively indexed interest rate only when graduates are earning an income and writes off any unpaid debt after 30 years. An Office for Fair Access was also created to negotiate equitable student access targets with universities and monitor compliance.
higher education funding commenced by the prior Labour government, the cap on It is troubling that these are not features of Pyne's reforms. With the exact consequences of fee deregulation hard to predict, incrementally raising the fee cap could offer a period of evaluation. However, with the full package unlikely to get through the Senate unamended, there is a high chance some of the more dubious changes will be throttled back.
student fees was almost tripled to £9,000 ($16,400) and public funding That aside, just how is it possible that raising fees in the UK did not deter students? Back in 2012, the Institute for Fiscal Studies concluded that the impact of student fee changes would come down to student knowledge about the fee repayment system:
significantly reduced. "The progressive features of the repayment system should provide some grounds for optimism: as long as students are well informed and not averse to the kind of debt involved - repayments of which only depend on one’s ability to pay - participation rates should not suffer."
Students were livid. Effigies of It appears the efforts of the UK government, universities and student finance gurus like Martin Lewis were able to reach students who might have reconsidered attending university had they listened only to the media furore surrounding the fee increase. This is a good thing. Graduating from university in both the UK and Australia arms young people with a significant income-earning premium. For male graduates in Australia this amounts to more than $1.1m over a lifetime.
government ministers were burned, mass marches and sit-ins occurred Most critically, research suggests it is poorer results in secondary schooling and not high fees that prevent disadvantaged background students from attending university at a more equitable rate. Helping such students in early years and during high school is potentially a more beneficial way of promoting equitable participation than keeping university fees low for all.
across the country and the commentariat was rife with predictions that There are also lessons in the UK experience for the students and politicians fighting these changes. Though they may well have the best interests of students at heart, constantly declaring that students from poor backgrounds will be unable to afford university if fees rise is a dangerous card to play.
the poorest would be priced out of university. The additional funding During the heated debate over tuition fee changes in the UK a study conducted by the Centre for the Economics of Education found that students from more disadvantaged backgrounds were the most likely to adopt a belief that they would be unable to afford university. That is a tragically incorrect notion in any nation with a deferred fee payment system, and a reckless one to promote.
for students who were traditionally less likely to attend university barely Indeed it would be a cruel irony if the efforts of deregulation opponents did more to dissuade would-be students to ditch plans for university study than Pyne's reforms ever could.
rated a rated a mention, and when it was brought up "fig-leaf" was the
prevailing descriptor. Sounding familiar yet?
With the UK now two years into its tuition fee experiment, just
how decimated are the ranks of disadvantaged background students in English
universities?
The Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS)
produce an annual analysis of student applications, acceptances and
university entry rates for England (where the fee and student debt changes took
affect) and the wider UK. The most recent 2013 report deals extensively
with the equity impact of the fee rises. The report is rather clear-cut:
Compared
with entry rates in 2011, the year before the introduction of higher tuition
fees in England, 18 year olds in disadvantaged areas in England are 12 per cent
more likely to enter in 2013.
Not quite the culling of the working class that was expected.
But perhaps the changes have led to the well-off buying their way to an
even greater share of student places? Alas, not so. Though still alarmingly
low, the share of disadvantaged background students entering university is now at
its highest in a decade.
This is not to say the changes did not affect enrolments.
Between the policy's announcement (2011) and commencement (2012) a window of
opportunity to be charged under the old fee system tempted many school-leavers
to ditch gap year plans, hence the anomalous low deferral rate in 2011. In 2012 student entry
and application rates fell, but just one year later they were bouncing back,
with 2014 figures (not included below) reaching record heights.
So university enrolment is growing and disadvantaged students
are now more likely to attend university. Perhaps another oft voiced fear was
realised? Is there now a two-tier system in which the most elite institutions
are becoming evermore the preserve of the rich?
Again, the numbers will disappoint the doomsayers. Though still
quite inequitable, the figures are improving since higher fees were phased in.
Readers should be cautioned against drawing too much inference
from the UK experience. Alongside generous income-substitution loans, the UK
still maintains a fee cap, charges a progressively indexed interest rate only
when graduates are earning an income and writes off any unpaid debt after 30
years. An Office for Fair Access was also created to negotiate
equitable student access targets with universities and monitor compliance.
It is troubling that these are not features of Pyne's
reforms. With the exact consequences of fee deregulation hard to predict, incrementally
raising the fee cap could offer a period of evaluation. However, with the full
package unlikely to get through the Senate unamended, there is a high chance
some of the more dubious changes will be throttled back.
That aside, just how is it possible that raising fees in the UK did
not deter students? Back in 2012, the Institute for Fiscal Studies concluded that
the impact of student fee changes would come down to student knowledge about
the fee repayment system:
"The
progressive features of the repayment system should provide some grounds for
optimism: as long as students are well informed and not averse to the kind of
debt involved - repayments of which only depend on one’s ability to pay -
participation rates should not suffer."
It appears the efforts of the UK government, universities and
student finance gurus like Martin Lewis were
able to reach students who might have reconsidered attending university had
they listened only to the media furore surrounding the fee increase. This
is a good thing. Graduating from university in both the UK and Australia arms
young people with a significant income-earning
premium. For male graduates in Australia this amounts to more than $1.1m over a lifetime.
Most critically, research suggests it
is poorer results in secondary schooling and not high fees that prevent
disadvantaged background students from attending university at a more equitable
rate. Helping such students in early years and during high school is
potentially a more beneficial way of promoting equitable participation than
keeping university fees low for all.
There are also lessons in the UK experience for the students
and politicians fighting these changes. Though they may well have the
best interests of students at heart, constantly declaring that students
from poor backgrounds will be unable to afford university if fees rise is a
dangerous card to play.
During the heated debate over tuition fee changes in the UK a
study conducted by the Centre for the Economics of Education found that students from more
disadvantaged backgrounds were the most likely to adopt a belief that they
would be unable to afford university. That is a tragically incorrect notion in
any nation with a deferred fee payment system, and a reckless one to
promote.
Indeed it would be a cruel irony if the efforts of deregulation
opponents did more to dissuade would-be students to ditch plans for university
study than Pyne's reforms ever could.