Tuition fees have been back in the news over the past six months. As universities grapple with an acute funding crisis, in September Cambridge formed part of a group of more than 140 universities calling for a rise in tuition fees. In November, the government announced that fees would rise by £285 to £9,535 next academic year. For some, this proves an attack on disadvantaged students’ access to education. For others, it is a necessity to improve the quality of higher education where frozen fees have seen their real term’s value eroded and public finances leave little extra cash for the government to fund universities with.

Labour MP and member of the APPG for higher education, Alex Sobel, described the current fees and funding model as “never going to work,” viewing the rise in fees as a “sticking plaster.” Clearly no critic of the government’s current general approach, he stated, “I know Bridget Phillipson, the secretary of state, is absolutely committed to British universities.” Sobel was adamant that something fundamental was going to have to change, but conceded that “we don’t have a solution yet.”

“The government is expected to continue to link fees to inflation for the remainder of the parliament”

The government is expected to continue to link fees to inflation for the remainder of the parliament, meaning they would rise above £10,000 by the next general election. National Union of Students (NUS) Vice President Alex Stanley opposes this, arguing any rise to tuition fees would simply be exacerbating a system which proves deeply unfair on the student. He described the NUS’ ultimate ambition as “to see an education system that’s free at the point of use for the student.” Stanley argued that, at the initial introduction of tuition fees in 1998, the funding model was intended to consist of a “balance” between the student and the public purse. He continued, “Currently, that public funding sits at just 16%, […] so we’ve got a real imbalance there, and to increase the fee would just exacerbate the issue.”

Nor does this impact everyone equally, as poorer students will always be those saddled with the most debt. Maddie Wills, the Class Act Officer for Gonville and Caius College, said, “I have met a decent number of people who pay their fees privately rather than taking out a loan,” continuing, “the increase to fees only increases the stinging realisation that some of your fellow students can simply pay their way towards a debt-free degree, and are going to start careers without the repercussions of their student loans hanging over their heads.”

“poorer students will always be those saddled with the most debt”

However, seeing universities’ budgets boosted through higher public spending would cost the taxpayer four times the amount a rise in tuition fees would. Stanley justified making taxpayers foot the bill for increased higher education funding by arguing that higher education should be viewed as a “public good.” Everyone, graduate or non-graduate, is able to benefit from an upskilled workforce and cutting-edge research. Analysis by Universities UK has found that, for every pound spent on universities, the government makes, in the long run, fourteen in return.

Economist Tim Leunig, author of a report on fees and funding for the Higher Education Policy Institute, argued that the current distribution of student debt was “unfair.” His report found that, under the current system, poorer students end up graduating with more debt as a result of having to take out maintenance loans, as well as those graduates who earn less than peers but are above the repayment threshold paying more overall as a result of interest payments. The recent increase in the repayment period from thirty to forty years is likely to worsen these problems. He proposed ensuring that the amount of debt students owe never rises, by writing off any interest accrued each year that cannot be paid that year.

“we’re seeing a two-tier student experience where some students…[are] stuck pouring pints behind a bar because they need to make the money up”

In addition, he placed emphasis on the reintroduction of maintenance grants for the poorest students. This would help both reduce the debt burden and tackle financial barriers to university attendance for disadvantaged students. Stanley also felt that the current maintenance system was unfit for purpose. He said maintenance loans had seen a “real terms cut,” claiming that, “the average student has just 50p a week in their bank account once they have paid off their rent and bills.” With a majority of undergraduates having to take up paid work during their degrees, Stanley said, “We’re seeing a two-tier student experience where some students, rather than going and doing those internships, joining clubs and societies, networking and making friends… [are] stuck pouring pints behind a bar because they need to make the money up.”

A recent HEPI report found that the average student outside of London needs £18,632 to reach a “minimum acceptable standard of living,” with the maximum maintenance loan - afforded only to those whose household income sits below £25,000 annually - falling around £6,000 short of this.

Pembroke Class Act Officer Alex Germain argued that in Cambridge, there existed a “disparity between the increase in the value of maintenance loans and the increase in the cost of living.” He continued, “while maintenance loan amounts have increased from 3.1% last year, in line with inflation, at my college, rent prices have increased by 7%, and the affordable meal option has been changed in the servery, driving up the lowest prices disproportionately. This is completely unsustainable, especially for students who cannot rely on other sources like their parents to help with costs.” While many Cambridge students benefit from additional support, like the bursary, he felt that the current maintenance system proved insufficient for the poorest students at Cambridge.

For Wills, the current increase and “increases that have come before […] just exacerbate an existing issue where education becomes a privilege for the wealthy and inaccessible for many people.” Yet a government which seems unable to stop talking about a “black hole” in the national finances seems unlikely to abolish tuition fees any time soon and is likely to increase them even more. If fees persist, it is clear that the current model will need reform to better support poorer students whilst ensuring universities are properly funded.