Raising the cap

One might reasonably ask how we could possibly be asked to pay higher tuition fees, but university heads say a £3,000 cap is not providing their institutions sufficient funding.

However, rather than extra money being provided by the government, it will be students themselves having to find it, with a rise of at least 100% anticipated.

On April 21st, Higher Education Minister Bill Rammell took part in a University of Leeds debate, 'The Bill's Too Big!', defending the proposals.

He began by underlining the government's dedication to "unlock vocational talent", and defended a rise in tuition fees (themselves something Labour introduced in 1998) by adducing the £100,000 which a degree will supposedly add to one's salary over a lifetime.

Mr Rammell added that from September this year, two-thirds of students will have access to non-repayable grants, and that students who received EMA while studying for their A levels will have guaranteed HE funding.

Nonetheless, students at the debate voiced their concern on several issues, primarily the prohibitive effects higher fees would have, citing the 'Right to Education'.

Addressing this right at the debate, senior lecturer in Law at Leeds Ann Blair pointed out how "countries must provide Higher Education in an non-discriminatory manner", meaning that not to make available to everyone a place at university would contravene this right.

This would mean higher numbers of students entering HE, thus necessitating the hike in fees.

On the matter, Mr Rammell stressed vehemently that "nothing has held us back more as a country than the view that in order to validate your own success you have to see others fail to get through the door."

Another argument against the rise is the benefit which graduates afford the economy and society in general - however, as Liverpool City Councillor Nick Small (also present) stated simply, "people are not clamouring to pay higher taxes for Higher Education."

This is understandable, considering the disproportionately-middle class intake of the Russell Group universities.

Mr Rammell emphasised that the cap rise was not inevitable, and also that institutions would not necessarily charge the maximum fees (though this seems a tenuous position).

If more (many more) grants are indeed made available, the proposed hike may not have the drastic effects some have predicted.

However, with levels of debt among graduates already frightening, and with little measurable improvement of tuition by universities themselves predicted, the case on the cap is far from closed.