Has the Government failed on its university policy?

University tuition fees have come centre stage in the past few days, with much debate around whether or not raising tuition fees has or could result in a “fairer system” for students, as claimed by the government.

Having once been so clear on their policy to allow institutions to hike up fees in line with inflation, and eventually performance, the Conservatives were accused of making a hasty U-turn last week, when the newly appointed minister Damian Green suggested a “national debate” was needed around fees.

Universities Minister, Jo Johnson, was quick to ensure there would be no such thing, that the fees – currently capped at £9,250 per year - would not be scrapped because “we know they work”.

1. What are the Tories’ university policies?

   In their election manifesto, the party announced a series of reforms to education.

   Universities were granted permission to raise fees above the £9,000 “in line with inflation”, but will be subject to new regulatory measures under the Teaching Excellence Framework.

   It has been said that those institutions scoring “Gold” will be able to increase fees accordingly, as an incentive for good quality teaching and perceived value for money for students.

   Mr Johnson and his colleagues argue paying a sum through the student loan system is crucial to reducing inequality in higher education, allowing pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds equal access to a degree qualification.

   Funding from tuition fees allows institutions to teach at a high quality level, crucial to maintaining the UK’s reputation as a teaching and research powerhouse, he says.

   Finally, the cost of higher education is shared out “fairly between the individual student benefiting from a graduate earnings premium and taxpayers in general, most of whom will not have attended university.”

2. What do critics say?

   Responding to Mr Johnson’s defence of tuition fees, Shadow Education Secretary Angela Rayner cited statistics from the Office for Fair Access (OFFA) showing the number of disadvantaged pupils dropping out of university was at a five-year high.

   "Jo Johnson wants Labour to look “at the facts” on higher education… I’m sure the minister accidentally overlooked these “actual facts” when talking about his party’s record,” she wrote in the New Statesman.

3. So do tuition fees help to reduce inequality?

   A recent report from the Institute for Fiscal Studies suggests students from the wealthiest 30 per cent of families will graduate with an average debt of £47,000, while those from the poorest 40 percent leave with an average of £57,000.

   The Government argues that the repayments are progressive – meaning graduates only pay back a percentage once they start earning salaries higher than £21,000.

   The problem with this argument is that interest becomes compounded, and the majority of graduates will never end up paying it off.

   Students from poorer backgrounds are statistically more likely to be saddled with more debt, and on top of this they’re less likely to jump straight into a high-paying job than their more affluent, well-connected peers.

   The IFS concluded that “graduates from the bottom 30 per cent are no better off than they would have been had they faced the 2011 systems.”

4. Would the system be fairer if we scrapped fees altogether?

   It’s difficult to say.

   Pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds would likely be more willing and able to go on to further and higher education without the added financial pressures of fees, or psychological barrier of gathering debt –even if it doesn’t get paid off.

   Many labour supporters argue the charges faced by the younger generation are especially unfair, given that their parents’ generation rode for free.

   But analysis from policy makers at Universities UK suggests removing fees will make no difference to low-earning graduates.

   “Under fees and loans, they will not earn enough for repayments to be triggered, and their loans are forgiven,” explains Assistant Director ofPolicy, Julie Tam.

   “High-earning graduates benefit enormously from no fees – while under tuition fees they would repay their entire student loans, under no fees they do not make any repayments.

   Scrapping fees altogether, therefore, only benefits the top quarter of graduates who go on to earn the most – who are more often than not from affluent families in the first place.

5. What about the quality of education?

   Universities argue they’ve suffered under spending cuts in recent years, but at the same time others have pointed to poor business management and overspending, for instance by paying vice chancellors top-rate salaries.

   Either way, it’s vital universities are properly funded in order for them to provide the best teaching, research and resources.

   Without direct income from tuition fees, universities will receive funding through government grants, according to Universities UK.

   This would be twice as costly for the Government, however, and without the help of a magic money tree, it’s likely the cost will be reflected in higher taxes and/or restrictions to overall student numbers – which contradicts Mr Johnson’s aim to get half of school leavers into higher education.