by Theodore Brown
illustrated by Yvonne Haberlach
You could be forgiven for expecting that the government might intervene on behalf of students, given the present cost of living crisis. Or, at the very least, for assuming that maintenance support would increase to keep pace with inflation. After all, the government has professed its commitment to educational opportunity, and it is a matter of policy that ‘students do not suffer a real reduction in their income’. Yet you would be mistaken, as financial support for students in 2022/23 is set to fall to its lowest level in seven years.
So far, nothing has been done to counterbalance this loss of financial support. A £75 million scholarship scheme designed to help disadvantaged students (which is, in principle, a great idea) was being considered in February. Unfortunately the scheme still – at the time of writing – exists only on the lips of cabinet ministers. Aside from this proposal, the government has intervened to cap the interest rate on student loans at 6.3%. Yet this does nothing to help current students and, since the majority of graduates do not begin to pay off the interest on their student loans, this will benefit only the minority of higher-earning graduates set to repay their student loans in full.
Alongside this, the decrease in the level of financial support available to students has illustrated that there is something very wrong with how maintenance entitlements are determined. These are calculated based on inflation estimates which are, in theory, supposed to ensure that the real value of maintenance loans does not fall. However, the estimates used in calculations for 2022/23 were based on forecasts made in November 2020 (and were therefore woefully out of date). As a result, the calculated value of maintenance loans will fail to reflect the actual level of inflation: they will increase by just 2.3% next year, against an expected inflation of 8%.
The fact that the value of maintenance loans has been slashed in this way is a real cause for concern. It reads as an underhanded attempt by the government to avoid scrutiny and responsibility for their actions: by employing faulty data (as opposed to a transparent cut), it is possible to pretend that they have kept their word, while in reality breaching commitments made to students. And, as there is no mechanism currently in place to compensate for errors in the calculation of maintenance entitlements, these errors will carry forward into the following year in the absence of intervention.More than this, the government is failing to uphold its commitment to improving educational opportunity. It’s important to remember that a fall in the real value of financial support will affect those from lower-income backgrounds most of all. While for some, the decrease in income will be offset by extra support from their families, for others this recourse is simply unavailable; or, if it is to become available, hefty sacrifices must be made. The academic success of an individual should depend on their merits, and not on the financial circumstances in which they find themselves. If we are to take this idea seriously, much more importance needs to be placed upon encouraging students from lower-income backgrounds to go to university and supporting them for the duration of their studies. Seeing as we have frankly terrible rates of social mobility compared to other developed nations already, it is a great shame that the current government does not appear to share this view.
Dealing with the rising cost of living in the new academic year will be particularly difficult for Londoners. Rent is becoming increasingly unaffordable in the city, with more and more tenants being required by agents and private landlords to bid for properties. More generally, inflation has been 1.5% higher in London than elsewhere in the country over the past six months, according to analysis by City Hall.
In my experience, it was not rare to meet a London student holding down multiple part-time jobs along-side their full-time studies, even before the cost of living crisis hit. What worries me is how many of these people take these jobs out of necessity; without the extra income, studying here in London would simply not be viable for them– but do London universities take this seriously enough? After all, individuals who have no option but to earn alongside their studies are at an unfair disadvantage to their peers who can dedicate a greater proportion of their time and energy into their academic work. Oxford and Cambridge colleges, for example, forbid their students from working a job during term-time, instead tending to provide grants to students in need of financial support.
The rise in the cost of living is a problem for the London universities, too, not just for their students. For one, it will become increasingly difficult for school-leavers from less privileged families to justify studying in London as the cost of living continues to rise. Quite aside from feeding the reputations of certain universities (and particularly the LSE) as exclusive and elitist institutions, it is not unlikely this will translate into a loss of talent as increasing numbers of people decide that studying in the overpriced capital is simply not worth it.
However, if it can be said that the universities have some stake in and responsibility for the wellbeing of students, the case for universities supporting students in times such as these should hardly need to be made. Unfortunately though, there has been radio silence from the LSE with regard to the cost of living crisis. Putting aside concerns as to whether the school’s provisions in place to support students financially are in fact fit for purpose, the school should at least communicate its position to current and prospective students, making assurances where possible and directing those in need to the support that is available. For a university that is often criticized for lacking a sense of community, expressing some level of care and concern for those who are struggling is certainly a step in the right direction.
