University students would accept higher tuition fees for certain degrees, according to a recent government-funded report.
Research by the Institute of Employment Studies (IES) claims that “non-traditional applicants” or students from lower socio-economics backgrounds, would agree to pay more for degrees that allow access to top earning jobs, such as law and economics. However, they would be less willing to accept differential fees for certain universities, such as Oxford University charging higher fees than other higher education institutions.
Australia has already implemented such a system, where students can pay twice as much for a degree in accountancy and law, compared to a course in education or nursing.
“Applicants to HE were firmly set on the idea of studying towards a degree: in hypothetical scenarios, they were not easily dissuaded from HE by the introduction of a range of drawbacks and the prospect of fee increases,” according to the report.
The report cites the continual rise in applicants to University, despite the addition of top-up fees, as evidence that increased fees would not dissuade applicants from applying to high-profile degrees. Applications to universities has reached record levels for the fourth year in a row, with numbers up by a fifth from last year.
According to the report, “Financial factors tend not to dent HE aspirations among those planning to apply. Indeed, they tend to be outweighed by a range of non-financial factors, especially for younger people. Insofar as finance is important in decision-making, it is in determining where to apply and study rather than what to study or whether to study at all.
“This study has found that the effects of fee increases are more likely to be felt in the specifics of applicants’ HE decisions than in the overall intention to study towards a degree.”
The findings were based on interviews with nearly 200 applicants, parents, staff and students.
Kate Little, Academic Affairs Officer for the UMSU, said: “Access to the professions is already heavily weighted in favour of students from more privileged backgrounds. Charging premium fees for these courses would only serve to raise the glass ceiling for poorer families, making careers in law and medicine available only to those who can afford to study them.
“Furthermore, the assumption that all graduates in these subjects will go on to get highly paid jobs is flawed: what about legal aid lawyers, or doctors who work for charities in the developing world? It is ludicrous to suggest that because you might earn more, you must pay more: all courses should be free at the point of entry, and if you actually earn more you pay for your education through taxation. Basing up-front fees on future wage calculations is overly simplistic, and can only serve to strengthen the divide between rich and poor.”
No comments:
Post a Comment