I begin 2008 with a quote - a direct quote from the 2001 Labour Party election manifesto:
"We will not introduce 'top-up' fees and have legislated to prevent them."At first glance a statement like that appears pretty black and white, with no room for
ambiguity.
September 2006, under the auspices the very same Labour government, saw the tuition fees of undergraduates embarking on programmes of study leap by 240% from £1250 to £3000 per year. Despite their earlier manifesto promises to the contrary, there in black and white, the Labour government had introduced the very top-up fees they had supposedly legislated to prevent.
Students are able to obtain a loan to offset their tuition fee expenses, but whereas graduates under the old system might have to repay the Student Loans Company £14000 (the maintenance component of the loan) graduates under the new system will be faced with debts of up to £25000 when they graduate (representing both the maintenance and fees component of the loan). This will be a crippling expense for some and will undoubtedly deter some very able people, the very sort of people we need contributing to the British economy, from pursuing their desired career.
All this on the back of Labour promises to widen access to higher education and support lifelong learning.
The government is set to stick yet another boot into the higher education sector with the announcement that they are
redirecting funding, previously earmarked for part-time, second degree and short course students, towards the recruitment of more traditional course undergraduate students. Overall this will result in a financial loss to many institutions, who may be forced to drive up their fees to compensate for the shortfall.
The University and College Union (
UCU) estimate that some home students could end up paying as much as their overseas counterparts, despite the fact that they'll probably contribute much more to Britain in the longer term. Speaking for the
UCU Sally Hunt said that while the institutions broadly welcomed any measure to encourage learners into higher education they could not "support doors being slammed in the faces of others who wish to develop their skills."
She added that: "These cuts completely undermine the government's desire to provide the workforce with accessible part-time provision."
This is a subject particularly close to my heart because, as some of you will know, I hope to retrain as a medical doctor which would entail a second undergraduate degree. Having already completed one degree the government's lack of foresight could cost me dear in terms of tuition fees. I accept, and have made provision for the fact, that I will have to contribute a lot towards my tuition fees and I won't be eligible for most of the support available to new undergraduates. But this news could mean that the financial plans I have made barely scratch the surface of what is expected.
It's quite an unjust system for graduates wishing to retrain in medicine. It is quite widely accepted that graduates bring to medicine many beneficial skills and life experiences that school leavers simply do not possess. The
British Medical Association (
BMA) has acknowledged these attributes by saying:
"The BMA recognises the positive experiences and attributes that mature students, graduate students and students with families bring to medical school and the profession. It welcomes the development of graduate courses and the increasing number of such students on conventional courses."A quarter of all new medical students are graduates.
To this end the government introduced 4-year accelerated medical degree programmes for graduates, but the demand for places still far outweighs the number of high calibre applicants - applicants who would stand the test of time, show steadfast dedication to their studies and huge commitment to the practice of medicine on qualification. Students on these graduate entry courses have to pay their first year fees up front and are ineligible for fee support. Some consolation is the fact that the
NHS pay their fees from years 2 to 4 of the course.
Because of the sparse number of 4-year places many graduates apply to the standard 5-year medical degree courses which are primarily aimed at school leavers. Graduates on these courses are ineligible for fee support and have to pay their fees up front for years 1 to 4. This equates to around £12500 under the current system, but God knows how much if the universities increase their fees amid this reallocation of government funding. Only in year 5 do students (including graduates) get any
NHS support towards their studies.
Financial support available to graduate medical students. Note that the £3000 fees contribution increases
annually with inflation - it currently stands
at £3070 for the academic year 2007/08.The
BMA has prepared an
interesting report all about graduate medical student fees.
There is real concern in the profession that the introduction of top-up fees will make medicine as a second degree inaccessible to all but the wealthiest of graduate applicants. As a result the selection of a quarter of medical students, therefore future doctors, will be profoundly influenced by the financial status of the applicants rather than their aptitude for the course or job.
One thing that strikes me from the
BMA report is the disparity between medical students and those students studying nursing, midwifery, social work and other professional degrees allied to medicine. These students are entitled to non-repayable
NHS bursaries for the duration of their courses and do not pay tuition fees at all.
Anyway, I've typed enough for today. I'll just conclude by saying that the government can't have its cake and eat it. It can't encourage people from all walks of life to go to university and then, through sleight of hand and half truths, remove their financial means to do it.
Derek Conway, MP for Old Bexley and Sidcup.
