The BBC have generated quite a debate today around a set of proposals apparently under consideration by the government to introduce so-called ‘no fee degrees’, designed to benefit students who choose to study locally and live at home. Under the proposals, which Lord Mandelson’s new mega ministry is keen to stress remain purely ‘speculative’, the government would cover the cost of students’ tuition fees while the quid pro quo would mean that such students would not be eligible to apply for maintenance loans or grants.
 
The proposals should not be dismissed out of hand. Thanks to this government’s commitment to widening participation in higher education, there are many students now studying for higher level qualifications from backgrounds that were previously denied the opportunity. Some of this expansion has been achieved by offering students the opportunity to study in non-traditional settings; around 7% of all higher education provision is now delivered in further education colleges, for example. Some universities have, either individually or as part of collaborative ventures, opened up new centres of learning in regions with no existing local provision, like the Medway campus collaboration between the universities of Greenwich, Kent and Canterbury Christ Church. The government plans to take this further with its ‘New University Challenge’.
 
For those students who, for a range of factors, choose to study locally and live at home, the option of ‘no fees degrees’ could well be beneficial. If, as the BBC report, the government is seriously considering piloting this option, it demonstrates a degree of thinking within Whitehall about providing more flexible pathways to non-traditional learners and a willingness to consider innovative alternatives to the current funding system, both of which are to be encouraged.
 
However, it is unlikely that the idea would fly with the majority of students. While we are yet to determine whether or not higher fees have had a deterrent effect on the hardest to reach backgrounds, the biggest financial hurdle facing the buoyant numbers of students entering Britain’s universities – whether locally or further away from home – remains the cost of maintenance. Last week’s announcement by government that grants would be frozen in 2010 was greeted by dismay by a student population increasingly feeling the financial crunch: through rising living costs, a challenging employment market and the hardship facing the ‘bank of mum and dad’. Since top-up fees are no longer paid until after graduation, I find it unlikely that most students would opt to make longer-term savings at the expense of short-term hardship.
 
NUS also has some serious concerns that ‘no fee degrees’ could create a two tier system, whereby poorer students feel compelled by financial considerations to study closer to home, whether or not local provision matches their interests and aspirations. Choice and access to university based on an applicants’ ability – and not their ability to pay – has to be the central feature of any funding system. This policy idea, clearly intended to broaden horizons to non-traditional entrants, could unintentionally hinder choice and limit horizons amongst the very communities that the Labour government was elected to serve.

We will have to wait and see whether ‘no fee degrees’ make Lord Mandelson’s edit of the forthcoming framework for the future of higher education, due to be published just before or after summer. But whether or not NUS agrees with every aspect of the framework, if the government’s focus is on increasing flexibility, expanding opportunity and improving quality, the debate will be taking place on the right territory.