Don on our side
The government wants to know what we think of top up fees. We have until next week - the end of the consultation period on its White Paper on the future of higher education - to tell them. They will get a strikingly similar answer from almost - though not quite - everyone.
An opinion poll commissioned by the Association of University Teachers (AUT) found that top up fees are opposed by 78% of the public, with only 16% in favour, making them "about as popular as a poll tax" according to Sally Hunt, AUT's General Secretary. The analogy is not lost on of Labour backbenchers, a substantial number of whom have signed an anti-fees Early Day Motion.
It no secret that student unions don't like top-up fees either, fearing that poorer students will be put off higher education if they are introduced. Their fears appear well founded. A recent study from UCL found that the proportion of students from social group E has already dropped from 13% in 1991-2 (the era of grants and no fees) to 7% in 1999.
The government will argue that their proposed grants of £1000 for students with a family income less than £10,000 will reverse this trend, but these measures are far too meagre to counteract the increased fear of debt that top up fees will cause. The government says their proposals will leave new graduates clutching a £21,000 debt along with their degree certificates. Recent research commissioned by the NUS found that fully 85% of year 10 pupils who said they were 'very' or 'quite likely' to go to university would change their mind if they thought they would end up with a £20,000 debt - a figure that only dropped to 74% if the hypothetical debt was halved.
Most Oxford tutors care deeply about access; many help with the target schools campaign and all invest vast reserves of energy in attempting to select students solely on the basis of academic merit and potential. It's not just the students who will be put off by top up fees that we are worried about; it's also the ones who won't. Anyone who has ever been to a tutorial, seminar or lecture knows that they work best when students and teacher alike are inspired by the intrinsic interest of the subject, and not by a narrow consideration of what's in it for them.
We don't want to end up only teaching students who have calculated they can afford to come to university, or that the risk of paying top-rate top up fees is justified by the enhanced earning potential that an Oxford degree bestows. What we have to offer is, hopefully, more valuable than that. And, come the inevitable "what next?" conversation, I get far more job-satisfaction from the response "teacher" than "City" - and why should the two pay the same?
So who should pay? The fairest way to fund higher education and recognises the public benefit it brings, is to use income tax revenues. A 50% band for incomes over £100,000 would more than make up the difference. That way, there would at least be the satisfaction of knowing that any students who are seduced by the City are likely to pay more than those who are doing something more useful.
Sadly, this is not the message that will reach the government's ears from Oxford's Vice-Chancellor and his immediate colleagues. They argue it is "unrealistic" to expect a government to listen to the will of the people and fund universities properly from public money. It is "premature and probably reckless" to oppose the principle of top up fees now, in case the university is forced to introduce them later as the only option for increasing its dwindling income. They want to negotiate with the government over the White Paper, but the sort of negotiations where you start off saying widely different things is not what they have in mind.
Together with a group of colleagues, I convened a rare meeting of Congregation during the vacation to debate an anti-fees motion. Our motion was amended out of all recognition to reflect the VC's view. Whether that outcome reflected the general opinion of Oxford tutors or the party line of the 'payroll vote' will be tested by a postal ballot of all members of Congregation early in the term. Oxford University still has one last chance to join the overwhelming consensus that might yet force the government to think again.
Mike Woodin is a psychology tutor at Balliol and a Green Party City Councillor.
24th Apr 2003