Complex bursaries and waivers leave students on ‘cliff edge’

The different means-tested bursary and fee-waiver schemes introduced by universities to mitigate the impact of higher tuition fees on poorer students will create “further complexity”, including “cliff edges” where support disappears at particular income levels.

May 5, 2012

That is the conclusion of a study published this week analysing means-tested support schemes at 52 UK universities. It was written by John Hills and Ben Richards of the Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion at the London School of Economics.

Professor Hills, professor of social policy and director of the centre, and Mr Richards, a PhD student, conclude that there are several key weaknesses.

The systems on offer “vary in many different ways” between universities, they argue, not just in their treatments of different levels of parental income, but also in aspects such as what type of school an applicant attended.

“This makes comparison more complex than just looking at single prices,” the authors write.

In addition, they argue: “Given the ‘cliff edges’ at particular income levels, precise levels of parental income – about which an applicant may only have very fuzzy knowledge – can make a difference worth thousands of pounds: Oxford may have a slightly better offer for some students with incomes up to £16,000 than Cambridge, but at £16,500, the Cambridge offer can be £4,000 more valuable, for instance.”

The study notes criticism from the Browne review that the system of means-tested support was already complex.

“Yet the survey reported here implies not just further complexity, but also much higher stakes as both fees and means-tested support have increased,” Professor Hills and Mr Richards write.

They add: “A typical scheme from one of the more prestigious universities involves total support of around £6,000 for students from families with incomes up to £25,000, withdrawn if family income is above £43,000.

“Just by itself this implies an average withdrawal rate of 33 per cent of additional income but, given the cliff edges involved in most of the schemes we have examined, there are income ranges where the marginal rates are far higher.”

john.morgan@tsleducation.com

You've reached your article limit.

Register to continue

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments
Register

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Most Commented

James Fryer illustration (27 July 2017)

It is not Luddism to be cautious about destroying an academic publishing industry that has served us well, says Marilyn Deegan

Jeffrey Beall, associate professor and librarian at the University of Colorado Denver

Creator of controversial predatory journals blacklist says some peers are failing to warn of dangers of disreputable publishers

Hand squeezing stress ball
Working 55 hours per week, the loss of research periods, slashed pensions, increased bureaucracy, tiny budgets and declining standards have finally forced Michael Edwards out
Kayaker and jet skiiers

Nazima Kadir’s social circle reveals a range of alternative careers for would-be scholars, and often with better rewards than academia

hole in ground

‘Drastic action’ required to fix multibillion-pound shortfall in Universities Superannuation Scheme, expert warns