Many students from low-income families are discouraged from attending university due to the large financial strain its puts upon themselves and their families. This could be counterproductive for both universities and the government, as a decrease in students attending university may lead to a shortage of qualified candidates in academic professions.

Generally speaking, top universities have always accepted the largest proportion of their students from higher-income families. This is partially because such students are likely to achieve higher grades in their pre-university academic career due to a greater level of educational support, and also because they have grown up in motivating home environment borne out of monetary success.

A student that does not require financial aid in order to attend university will always be less likely to receive an offer from a university than a student of equal ability that is able to pay the complete value of their fees. Also, it would be wrong to argue that the scrapping of fees altogether would end this problem. By making large donations to the college or university in question, parents would be able to influence universities significantly enough for their children to receive offers.

Currently universities can charge varying amounts for certain courses to UK students whether in undergraduate or postgraduate study up to a certain limit. However in a survey done by the BBC a lot of university vice chancellors have called for the cap to be lifted or at least increased to between £5,000- £7,000, with some calling for fees to rise as high as £20,000 (although this is a minority)^[1]. Unlimited fees would drag students in to further debt and deter prospective students from going to study at uni. Even at the moment it is inequitable because the best universities charge the most so making is much more difficult for poor students to get into them even if they do get the grades they would need to get a bursary as well because they cannot afford the fees.

1. ^ Coughlan Sean "Universities Push for higher fees" BBC Online News Accessed 15.06.09. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7946912.stm

At the moment social mobility in the UK is declining According to a report by former health secretary Alan Milburn "Social mobility has slowed down in our country. Birth, not worth, has become more and more a determinant of people's life chances." This starts in universities and as a result goes on to apply through the rest of life. As a percentage of Cambridge university's undergraduate population, there are fewer state-school students today than there were in 1980. The rest of the top universities are doing little better. Privately educated entrants into university should account for 7% of each universities intake but in the top universities it is often more than four times that. At Bristol it was 38.5 per cent, Nottingham 30.5 per cent, and Newcastle 28.9 per cent.^[1] Unfortunately these top universities are often the only ones considered by the biggest companies when looking for new employees. Tuition fees are of course by no means the only reason for this decline in social mobility but it is a factor; make the poorest able to afford top universities again and they may well actually go to those universities.

1. ^ Jeff Randall, How the class war backfired and put social mobility into retreat, The Telegraph, 30/7/09, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/jeffrandall/5941721/How-the-class-war-backfired-and-put-social-mobility-into-retreat.html

A graduate tax would be a good way to potentially give universities more than they get from the current fees while getting rid of tuition fees. The contribution would depend directly on a person’s salary rather than just being a flat rate fare for services rendered over a short time. This would help to make the cost fairer as it would depend on what you got out of their degree. For example a person earning £40,000 would pay £125 per month. Over 20 years that could amount to £30,000.^[1]. Although that sum is high even over the course of 20 years but show the possibilities of the tax and how it could bring in more money instead of universities rising their fares. The graduate tax would change as a person’s salary rises or falls over a twenty year so if a graduate finds him or herself out of work or in a low paid job they would not need to pay.

1. ^ Shepard Jessica "Student leaders call for graduate tax to replace tuition fees: Graduates would contribute to a national tax out of their monthly salary over a twenty year period" Guardian Unlimited http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/jun/10/nus-tuition-fees-graduate-tax Accessed 10.06.09

The current system is surrounded by misunderstanding. This is because the debt as we know it isn't "a massive cheque" but rather a repayment of a debt as part of a persons salary over time. In effect this is something vary similar to a graduate tax.^[1]

1. ^ Nicholas Barr on why loans are better than a graduate tax.http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/mar/24/nicholas-barr-graduate-tax

The argument that tuition fees are good because they improve the level of education received completely neglects those people who are unable to attend university at all because they cannot afford it. The selection process must be merit-based in order to keep standards up. It is simply wrong to allow students whose parents have money to spare on a college education to continue to receive have such an advantage. The problem should be solved by the government making higher education a bigger priority when deciding what to spend the budget on, not by expecting poor students to pay.

Universities are facing testing times at the moment. The recession has left public finances in a mess and universities are facing cuts in their funding from the government. Lecturers are losing their jobs, spending on research is being frozen, and with a record amounts of applications to universities, there are fears that many could miss out.^[1]. Tuition fees are needed by universities to pump money into their institutions to provide a consistently high level of education for their students. It is clear that public money cannot wholly sustain universities in the future.

1. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8491729.stm

The government would have to fund them more and they would have to because how many less trained workers can we have.

Universities will lose a substantial amount of their funding and will be forced to reduce staff and resources. As a result, they will not be able to support as many students each year which will make Universities elitist and competitive.