Unsupported browser

For a better experience please update your browser to its latest version.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

University fees shake-up would make things worse, say architecture students

  • 4 Comments

Theresa May’s last-ditch calls for a shake-up of university tuition fees would exacerbate the problems in higher education, according to architecture students and lecturers 

A government-backed report, published today (30 May) recommends measures including re-introducing £3,000 maintenance grant payments and cutting yearly fees from £9,250 to £7,500.

Launching the report at the Policy Exchange think-tank in Westminster, the outgoing prime minister voiced support for the review and admitted the scrapping of maintenance grants in 2015 had not worked.

However, the Post-18 Education and Funding review, led by Philip Augar, also recommends extending repayments for up to 40, rather than the present 30 years, a move which would relieve the debt burden on graduates but see them making higher total repayments over a longer period.

The extended repayment period would see most graduates paying off their student loans until they reached their 60s, argued Fionn Stevenson, a design professor at the University of Sheffield. 

She added: ’Graduates would also be charged at interest rates based on inflation plus 3 per cent, so this would be a highly regressive move, as the poorest students end up paying more, while students from a wealthier background pay less, as usual.’

Harriet Harriss, a principal lecturer in Architecture at Oxford Brookes University, said that reducing fees at the same time as extending the repayment term ‘exacerbates the problem’, pointing out that 77 per cent of poorer students were unable to pay off debt until 30 years after graduating.

She said: ‘Student debt is often wrongly assumed to be a problem for individual students and their families, but it damages our economy, too. Financial analysts are already insisting that student debt will trigger the next big financial crash, following in the wake of the banking crisis.

’There are far less wealthy nations than the UK that recognise free education as an investment in the future economy, not an individual privilege or liability. We need a fresh mindset, one where treating future generations with so much disregard is no longer acceptable, and a new education policy to follow.’

Simon Warren, senior lecturer at Leeds School of Architecture, said the review’s recommendations were ‘tinkering around the edges’, dressed up as ’significant change to support poorer students’.

Our current system fails our young people by turning education into a commodity

He said: ‘Students in the UK pay far more for their education than nearly all students in European countries. In many, such as Germany, France, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Poland, students do not pay tuition fees. Our current system fails our young people by turning education into a commodity.’

Critics have argued that reducing undergraduate tuition fees to £7,500 a year could result in reduced income for humanities and social science departments.

Cutting fees without replacement funding is a concern because it could ‘refocus vice-chancellors minds’ and take away funding from courses such as architecture, according to Simeon Shtebunaev, a PhD student at Birmingham City University.

‘There is a real fear in the university sector about arts and humanities degrees and the impact they can suffer when put to the economic test of a “profitable degree”,’ he said.

‘The loss of fees will target the current estate frenzy in which universities have engaged and – unfortunately, in my view – the cut will be taken from students and not from planned expansions and land acquisitions.

Shtebunaev said the fee reduction was a ‘newsworthy headline and nothing more’ but that the reinstatement of maintenance grants was ‘desperately needed’ by students. 

UWE Bristol Architecture Society president Suleiman Al-Sa’di said the changes would mean architectural education would become even more expensive in the long run, ’which again will exclude those the profession needs more to become more inclusive’.

He added: ’It really makes me angry that people in power today, who did benefit from a free HE system which gave them the education they needed to be in the position of power they are in, dictate that fees should be charged to students of the next generations.’

RIBA president Ben Derbyshire said: ’Rising fees are burdening architecture students with excessive debt, impacting their wellness and mental health. 

’We cautiously welcome the government-commissioned report’s call for a tuition fees cut, but note the extension of the payment period from 30 to 40 years.  A much more radical re-thinking of the current funding system should certainly include reinstating support grants for poorer students, and more besides.’  

Tags

  • 4 Comments

Readers' comments (4)

  • MacKenzie Architects

    I think that you won't get that particular genie back in the bottle.
    Typical Govt misguided thinking. Allow the universities and colleges to become profit centres, with the collegiate real estate boom, then tell them the goalposts are to move.

    You can bet your bottom dollar that the amount of student resi. getting built is relyiant on continued big student numbers with big healthy student loans (or foreign students)

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • When I embarked on my architectural studies in the 80s, as a working class 18 year old, it would have been unthinkable without a maintenance grant and with no tuition fees to pay. If we truly want our profession to be open to all and to represent the breadth of society we must fight these ill conceived proposals. Education is an investment in the future, we must not shortchange our children and grandchildren. I would like to see much stronger resistance from the RIBA, before it's too late.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I would have thought that the pay threshold for repayment would have been the key factor in forming a meaningful new policy - and in the analysis.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Bennie Durbyshyre should not be welcoming this, cautiously, or otherwise...a return to the old system is the ideal. It’s an investment in the younger generation and our country, but it must mean a return to meritocracy, with only the best and brightest attending university, and not just the richest.

    A third of graduates are in sub-graduate jobs (ie over-educated), which suggests only about 20% of the population should be attending university. The sector will continue to be propped up by foreign students paying hefty fees for the privilege.

    The ‘great and the good’ are good at pulling up the ladder, after they have entered the citadel...just look back at Harold Wilson and his ilk, with their ‘comprehensive’ reforms to the educational system.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.