Adding up the hidden costs of university

The debate around affordable higher education usually revolves around tuition fees - but there are far greater costs to going to university.

The debate around the cost of university is extremely misleading. All the focus is on tuition fees, with little or no mention of accommodation costs and living costs. Moreover, there are hidden costs which are not factored into even these categories. All of this means that the real financial situation for aspiring students from disadvantaged backgrounds is far more problematic than any commentary currently acknowledges.

First, it is important to note the real total of an undergraduate degree. As already stated, the debate in the media centres around tuition fees as if this represents the full price of a degree. However, this is a mere fraction of the cost. Living costs and accommodation costs are both huge expenses that are very rarely mentioned. A conservative estimate of living costs is around £3,500 - around £1,150 per term. Most housing costs around £400 per month, which equates to £4,800 per year. The prediction that allowing an increase in the tuition fee cap would create a market has been proved woefully inaccurate. House of Commons Library statistics show that for the academic year 2012/13, the average tuition fee was £8,400. This is only reduced to £8,100 when factoring in fee waivers. So an estimate of the overall cost of one year of undergraduate education at an average university is £16,700.

Second, we must establish the standard support given by Student Finance for students from low-income families. Tuition fees are automatically given as a loan which students only start paying back once they start working. In determining the financial situation of university undergraduates we only need to look at the other two expenditures: living costs and accommodation costs. Going on the estimates made above, this works out at roughly £8,300 per year. However, even for the most supported students, with household incomes under £25,000, there is only one payment to cover these two costs. The maximum maintenance payment, which includes the maintenance loan and grant, is currently £7,177. This leaves an initial black hole of over £1,100.

In addition to this initial funding deficit, there are a number of practical barriers which increase the financial burden further. For example, the figure for accommodation costs does not include a deposit - for most properties this is one months rent plus 100 pounds. Nor, indeed, does this include a cost for an agency fee. This is unlikely to be necessary in the first year when most students live in university accommodation, but in subsequent years this is very common. The agency fee is at least £100, bringing the black hole to £1,700. What's more, the deposit is only returnable after an inspection upon vacating the rented premises. The result of this is the requirement for a further expense of £600, as the next year’s accommodation has to be secured well in advance of receiving the initial deposit back. While the deposits are returned, it still requires students from low socio-economic backgrounds to find the money before it is returned. This brings our black hole total to £2,300.

The fact that this deficit must be filled by the institution creates a complex variety of potential situations, making it incredibly difficult for students to calculate the exact funding gap they will experience. Very few universities can fully ameliorate the funding gap. The University of Manchester, a member of the Russell Group, provides a significant amount of support to eliminate the deficit. Over a third of their undergraduate intake, which is approximately 8,000 per year, receives the ‘Manchester Bursary’. Students with family household incomes below £25,000 are eligible for £1,000 cash grant, and £2,000 in an accommodation discount. This support is sustained throughout their degree. However, this is the exception as most institutions are not wealthy enough to afford this level of support.

The University of West England (UWE), a former polytechnic, has had to dramatically reduce the support it offers students from low socio-economic backgrounds. The money it receives from the Access to Learning Fund has decreased significantly in recent years. In 2006/07, UWE had a fund of £944,544 to distribute through bursaries. In 2012/13, the figure had dropped to £552,358. The consequence of this can be seen in the number of students receiving a bursary. In 2011/12, there were 2,500 students eligible. This figure has fallen to 1,000 in the academic year 2012/13. As a result, a large number of students who meet the criteria for a bursary will obtain no help in narrowing the hole in their finances. However, the UWE bursary is only £1,000, leaving even the lucky students who receive a bursary in a deficit of around £1,300.

For new universities, the situation is even worse. The University of Gloucester, which acquired university status in 2001, offers virtually no support to plug the gap in student finances. For the academic year 2013/14, the institution will offer 206 scholarships through the National Scholarship Programme (NSP). This scheme is worth £3,000 in the first year of study, and £1,500 for all subsequent years. However, this support takes the form of fee waivers. This means that it has no impact on the financial black hole. Students not eligible for the NSP receive a bursary of £500, but only in their first year of study. The consequence of this is that students from low-income families have virtually no support in meeting the immediate funding gap.

These figures will vary according to institution and geography, there is no doubt that most low-income students have a large funding gap of well over £1,000. The amount varies significantly depending on institution and geography (regional prices and diverse travel costs), reaching anything up to £2,500. And this does not even factor in the impact of inflation. According to the Bank of England, the Consumer Price Index has averaged 3.4 per cent over the last 6 years. The impact of this being that every student is taking a real terms funding cut, year after year. If we are serious about increasing diversity and participation, the financial funding deficit for students from low socio-economic backgrounds urgently needs to be addressed.

Students graduating from the University of Birmingham. Photograph: Getty Images.
Getty
Show Hide image

Is defeat in Stoke the beginning of the end for Paul Nuttall?

The Ukip leader was his party's unity candidate. But after his defeat in Stoke, the old divisions are beginning to show again

In a speech to Ukip’s spring conference in Bolton on February 17, the party’s once and probably future leader Nigel Farage laid down the gauntlet for his successor, Paul Nuttall. Stoke’s by-election was “fundamental” to the future of the party – and Nuttall had to win.
 
One week on, Nuttall has failed that test miserably and thrown the fundamental questions hanging over Ukip’s future into harsh relief. 

For all his bullish talk of supplanting Labour in its industrial heartlands, the Ukip leader only managed to increase the party’s vote share by 2.2 percentage points on 2015. This paltry increase came despite Stoke’s 70 per cent Brexit majority, and a media narrative that was, until the revelations around Nuttall and Hillsborough, talking the party’s chances up.
 
So what now for Nuttall? There is, for the time being, little chance of him resigning – and, in truth, few inside Ukip expected him to win. Nuttall was relying on two well-rehearsed lines as get-out-of-jail free cards very early on in the campaign. 

The first was that the seat was a lowly 72 on Ukip’s target list. The second was that he had been leader of party whose image had been tarnished by infighting both figurative and literal for all of 12 weeks – the real work of his project had yet to begin. 

The chances of that project ever succeeding were modest at the very best. After yesterday’s defeat, it looks even more unlikely. Nuttall had originally stated his intention to run in the likely by-election in Leigh, Greater Manchester, when Andy Burnham wins the Greater Manchester metro mayoralty as is expected in May (Wigan, the borough of which Leigh is part, voted 64 per cent for Brexit).

If he goes ahead and stands – which he may well do – he will have to overturn a Labour majority of over 14,000. That, even before the unedifying row over the veracity of his Hillsborough recollections, was always going to be a big challenge. If he goes for it and loses, his leadership – predicated as it is on his supposed ability to win votes in the north - will be dead in the water. 

Nuttall is not entirely to blame, but he is a big part of Ukip’s problem. I visited Stoke the day before The Guardian published its initial report on Nuttall’s Hillsborough claims, and even then Nuttall’s campaign manager admitted that he was unlikely to convince the “hard core” of Conservative voters to back him. 

There are manifold reasons for this, but chief among them is that Nuttall, despite his newfound love of tweed, is no Nigel Farage. Not only does he lack his name recognition and box office appeal, but the sad truth is that the Tory voters Ukip need to attract are much less likely to vote for a party led by a Scouser whose platform consists of reassuring working-class voters their NHS and benefits are safe.
 
It is Farage and his allies – most notably the party’s main donor Arron Banks – who hold the most power over Nuttall’s future. Banks, who Nuttall publicly disowned as a non-member after he said he was “sick to death” of people “milking” the Hillsborough disaster, said on the eve of the Stoke poll that Ukip had to “remain radical” if it wanted to keep receiving his money. Farage himself has said the party’s campaign ought to have been “clearer” on immigration. 

Senior party figures are already briefing against Nuttall and his team in the Telegraph, whose proprietors are chummy with the beer-swilling Farage-Banks axis. They deride him for his efforts to turn Ukip into “NiceKip” or “Nukip” in order to appeal to more women voters, and for the heavy-handedness of his pitch to Labour voters (“There were times when I wondered whether I’ve got a purple rosette or a red one on”, one told the paper). 

It is Nuttall’s policy advisers - the anti-Farage awkward squad of Suzanne Evans, MEP Patrick O’Flynn (who famously branded Farage "snarling, thin-skinned and aggressive") and former leadership candidate Lisa Duffy – come in for the harshest criticism. Herein lies the leader's almost impossible task. Despite having pitched to members as a unity candidate, the two sides’ visions for Ukip are irreconcilable – one urges him to emulate Trump (who Nuttall says he would not have voted for), and the other urges a more moderate tack. 

Endorsing his leader on Question Time last night, Ukip’s sole MP Douglas Carswell blamed the legacy of the party’s Tea Party-inspired 2015 general election campaign, which saw Farage complain about foreigners with HIV using the NHS in ITV’s leaders debate, for the party’s poor performance in Stoke. Others, such as MEP Bill Etheridge, say precisely the opposite – that Nuttall must be more like Farage. 

Neither side has yet called for Nuttall’s head. He insists he is “not going anywhere”. With his febrile party no stranger to abortive coup and counter-coup, he is unlikely to be the one who has the final say.