The recent court case initiated against an Oxford University college has raised awareness of the issue of postgraduate funding. The requirement by St Hugh’s that all prospective students demonstrate that they have resources to cover tuition fees and living costs has attracted much criticism. Rachel Brooks explains how this is policy is problematic in a number of overlapping ways, pointing to the broader issues which differentiate postgraduate from undergraduate funding.
As has been widely reported in the press, St Hugh’s – one of the constituent colleges of Oxford University – is currently being sued by a student who claims he was prevented from taking up the place he had been offered to study for a master’s degree in economic history by the University’s policy of ‘selecting by wealth’. By this, he is referring to the requirement made of all prospective students to demonstrate that they have sufficient funds to cover the tuition fees for their proposed course plus at least £12,900 a year in living costs. According to the University’s rules, projected earnings from paid work cannot be taken into consideration when assessing the funds available. This case is troubling for a number of (inter-related) reasons, four of which are outlined below.
Firstly, and most importantly, such action can be seen to exacerbate the social inequalities that have long been evident within higher education, generally, and postgraduate studies, specifically. At undergraduate level, numerous reports have demonstrated that, despite over a decade of initiatives to ‘widen participation’ under the previous Labour administration, students from lower socio-economic groups continue to be under-represented. At postgraduate level, the picture is rather more complex. Nevertheless, differentials by social background remain. Analysis of students moving immediately from a first degree to a postgraduate qualification has revealed differences by socio-economic status, with those from lower socio-economic groups under-represented. However, these differences become much more marked amongst those who take up postgraduate studies at a later point in time, after some years away from education. Wakeling has suggested that this increased level of social inequality amongst later entrants may reflect the use of postgraduate education by higher socio-economic groups as a ‘second chance’ of securing graduate employment – a choice that is less likely to be made by those with lower levels of familial resource. The Oxford policy of requiring prospective students to demonstrate that they have at least £12,000 available to support their studies can only serve to increase such social inequalities.
Secondly, as well as exacerbating social inequalities in access to postgraduate education per se, Oxford’s current policy is likely to further the social stratification of the sector. Postgraduate education has become increasingly popular over recent years, with enrolments increasing 400 per cent between 1990 and 2006, as students aim to gain more specialist knowledge, develop more work-related skills and/or distinguish themselves from other graduates of mass higher education in possession of ‘only’ a first degree. Within this expanded sector, differences between institutions have become increasingly significant, and institutional hierarchies have been shown to have an important bearing on progression to postgraduate study. Students from more privileged backgrounds are typically over-represented in high status universities, while their peers from less advantaged backgrounds are more commonly found in less prestigious institutions. As first-degree institution is significant in determining access to postgraduate education, inequalities by social class are perpetuated. Moreover, research has shown that prospective postgraduates make their own hierarchical judgements about possible institutions, and decide what is or is not (socially) appropriate for ‘a person like me’.
Thirdly, Oxford’s policy appears politically naïve when there is, for the first time, a national focus on widening participation to postgraduate education. Alan Milburn, the Coalition government’s ‘social mobility tsar’ has argued that postgraduate education is ‘a real time-bomb in terms of social mobility’. Similar claims were made in the report, published last year, by the independent Higher Education Commission. This argued, firstly, that the UK needs a greater proportion of its population to undertake postgraduate education and, secondly, that such education represents ‘the new frontier of widening participation’. Indeed, the Commission recommended that postgraduate education is included in all institutions’ widening participation strategies. While it seems likely that the Commission’s call for a sustainable system of postgraduate funding (through government loans) may well be implemented in the future, Oxford’s current position in relation to the financing of a degree shows scant regard for any notion of widening access and is likely to lead to an even more privileged student body across the University as a whole.
Oxford’s funding policy perhaps also demonstrates politi naivety in relation to changes within the wider market within which it is operating. Clearly the university occupies a very privileged position within the global higher education market and, to date, has not come under any political pressure to ‘widen participation’ on its postgraduate courses. Nevertheless, over the past year elite US institutions have been pursuing UK students with renewed vigour, and well-regarded universities in mainland Europe have strengthened their attempts to capture a share of the UK market – offering courses in English, and emphasising clearly the advantageous fee differentials. Such universities do not ask for evidence of the same financial resources as Oxford does and, in the case of many North American institutions, are able to offer significant financial support packages to those from low income backgrounds. Evidence to date suggests that, although British students are relatively unlikely to move overseas for an undergraduate degree, there is more mobility at postgraduate level – and, here, financial considerations often come into play.
Finally, the Oxford policy appears to ignore the realities of many young people’s lives, as a result of not taking into consideration the income that is likely to be derived from part-time work. For many years now, a considerable proportion of students at both undergraduate and postgraduate level have combined part-time paid employment with a full-time degree course. Although research has pointed to the negative impact this can sometimes have on academic performance, part-time work has been actively encouraged by the current UK government and, indeed, is often seen as beneficial by students themselves. Moreover, with the current increase in undergraduate fees and, as of yet, no recourse to government funded loans at postgraduate level, it is likely that paid employment will continue to be an important means of support for many of those wishing to pursue higher education beyond a first degree.
It may well be that, in the not-so-distant future, students applying to Oxford will be able to support themselves by taking out a government-supported loan. In the meantime, however, in the interests of social justice, ensuring that postgraduate courses recruit the best students (rather than the richest), and retaining a competitive place within a global market, Oxford should withdraw its current policy on postgraduate funding immediately – and not wait until the results of the legal action are known.
Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of the British Politics and Policy blog, nor of the London School of Economics. Please read our comments policy before posting.
Rachel Brooks is Professor of Sociology and Head of Department in the Department of Sociology at the University of Surrey.
The problem with this blog, and especially with the “demand” that Oxford remove their requirement that prospective students demonstrate that they can afford their course, is that it doesn’t address the very reason why that requirement is there in the first place. The requirement is there to avoid students dropping out due to not being able to afford it. This helps prevent limited places being wasted on students who cannot afford them.
I know that at least some Faculties at Oxford actively discourage or even prohibit part-time work because postgraduate education at Oxford requires students’ full and undivided attention. If you want to have time to work, then go to a less demanding university.
As for students from less affluent back-grounds being under-represented, as Peter Saunders demonstrates in his book, “Social Mobility Myths”, there is no reason to believe that such underrepresentation implies that admission at Oxford is not meritocratic. Rather, generally speaking, upper-class candidates are more intelligent than their lower-class counter-parts. This may not be music to the ears of people like Ms Brooks, but Saunders argues persuasively that it’s a fact. Further, if Saunders is right then a more “equal” distribution of Oxford places would imply that Oxford artificially offers places to lower-class applicants for the sake of avoiding criticism from people like Brooks – or, in other words, to get a “politically correct” stamp of approval, rather than because the students offered a place are actually the best.
Sadly, the amount of £ 12900 for living expenses is not an unrealistic number in Oxford. Ironically, I am not sure if academic excellence is demonstrated by drawing up a case that basically says ‘hey, I’ll sue Ferrari because I can’t afford one of their cars’. Things in this world come at a cost and if one cannot afford them, you cannot have them. Oxford is not a piece of cake – people work here much harder than anyone else and even then it’s often not ‘good enough’. With a DPhil you might get away with some part time work (as I did) but I doubt you will be a good Master’s student.
No college requires or requests you to dine in hall but it is part of the Oxford experience and Oxford education. If you want to get anywhere in life, you have to learn to be a team player, you have to be able to start conversations with people you have not met before, you need certain table manners. It will probably not come as a surprise to you that big city firms often invite candidates for drinks or food. Why do you think this is? Exactly, because you need to demonstrate the above things. However, you are not the first person to misunderstand the ‘truly ludicrous formal hall once per week’.
However, I do not understand your argument that you say you could not have saved enough money by working at your current job. I’m sure living in Manchester is a great deal cheaper than living here (in fact, I know someone who studied there). So how come you cannot save the same amount or more money with a full time job there but you are convinced you would manage that with a part time job here? This doesn’t make sense to me.
I wish you all the best of luck for your future. I’m also not from a wealthy background but I was lucky to get a studentship. And this is, what this case should be and really is about. Better funding opportunities or at least some kind of mature candidates’ student loan.
Yet more rubbish. Why is £12,900 not an unrealistic figure? On what empirical basis do you make this claim? In law the figure must have objective and reasonable justification. Simply saying you believe it to be justified is completely irrelevant.
Your car analogy is totally defunct. Ferrari do not refuse to sell cars to people who cannot afford to purchase a specified amount of fuel per year. The item Ferrari sell has an advertised cost. In contract law this is an ‘invitation to treat’. The vendor agrees with the purchaser a cost for the item, and the purchaser may on payment of this money take possession of the item. What the purchaser then does (or does not) do with the car is of absolutely no concern to the vendor – the contract is fulfilled when payment and receipt of goods has been completed.
I was perfectly able to pay tuition fees – indeed, the College were guaranteed to receive their fees. I was purchasing a right of access to education. Yet the College still refused me permission to access the education they had agreed I was suitable for, and able to pay for, because they believed I did not sufficient moneys to service private living costs.
Again, on what empirical basis do you claim that people work harder at Oxford than anywhere else? This is just baseless assertion.
Your little “table manners” and “team player” rant are simply ludicrous. It is absolutely no concern of a College of learning how I conduct myself at the dinner table, or which dinner table I choose to dine at. It is absolutely no concern of theirs whether I am a “team player”. It has nothing to do with the education the College exists to confer. There is not a single clause in the College’s founding Royal Charter which claims it exists to train people in how to mix at high dining events. That is not the purpose for which it exists. It is not the purpose for which it levies fees.
I am not the least bit interested in working for a “big city firm”. I do not care if they invite people to dinner and assess their table manners.
As to the working-whilst-studying nonsense. I had sufficient moneys to meet my actual living costs at Oxford. That is, rent at £370/month as opposed to the enforced figure of £604/month, and food costs well below £56/week. If I wanted to spend more than this, I could have worked for one day per week to pay for it. This would still have been below the £12,900 minimum enforced figure, but it would have been more than enough for me.
My pleadings to the court on the matter of working-whilst-studying are ancillary. The primary basis of my claim is that the policy is unnecessary and disproportionate. I have invited the court to consider the ancillary issue of working whilst studying.
I do not think government loans would solve Oxford’s problem. Do you really think the government are going to lend people £12,900 per annum for personal living costs? It simply will not happen. Across four years, that is £51,600, not even incorporating the cost of fees or inflation. Throw in fees and undergraduate debt and you are looking at people emerging from PhDs with £120,000 of debt. There is no way the state will undertake that volume of lending to individuals. They will never get it back.
Well, but don’t you think it’s better of the vendor to tell you, you might not be able to drive the car as you cannot pay for its insurance and maintenance rather than just ripping you off for the car price? Do you really want to be ripped off? Do you want to have a car that you cannot drive? Do you want to pay for a degree that you might not be able to finish or if, then perhaps with rather not so good marks? The vendor doesn’t care, Oxford does. It’s better to give you the chance to save money and come back when the time is right.
I have lived and studied in Oxford and am in a better position to judge on living expenses than you are. Yes, when I first came here, I was shocked and overwhelmed by the prices. There is huge pressure on the housing market and there are no regulations that limit the rent cost per square meter in given local area.
I can also draw comparison to other universities as I did my undergraduate degree abroad, thus I know a varied mix of students from different universities. I don’t blame you, you don’t have the experience yet and this is why you feel so misunderstood and attacked.
I think, it is unreasonable to ask anyone to rely on projected earnings. On what basis do you think you can guarantee a job with a guaranteed income?
As a former person said, £ 370 incl bills is not the standard. Yes, there is one room (!) on the webpage that you posted above for £ 325 but it just shows how little you know about living here. Yes, there is University accommodation but what you probably don’t know is that you often have to wait at least a year on a waiting list to get a room. Who says you’d be the one to get this particular room after a year?
Don’t take any of this as offence. I don’t care, I’ve got my degree. Instead, you could use all comments and posts as ideas what could come up in your court hearing and think about better answers, much better answers. That’s the sort of training you’d get here. Every year, PhD students have to show they are ‘worthy’ a PhD by undergoing an annual exam. If you pass, you stay PhD student, if you fail, you’re offered to study for a Master’s. And at the end of all this, there is usually no question that will surprise you when you get to your final viva. Nevermind.
I would be perfectly happy for a vendor to tell me that they didn’t think I could afford to insure and service their car. However, I would not be happy if they made being able to afford these things a condition of purchase, because ultimately it has nothing to do with them what I choose to do with it after I have purchased it. There are further problems with the analogy. The vendor has finite knowledge of the insurance market. He has no knowledge of my driving habits and ergo cannot comment on how much petrol I need to purchase in a given week. Thus any advice he offered would, at best, be a guess, based on imperfect knowledge.
This is equally true of the College. They have imperfect knowledge of the housing market. The figures they have set for rent bear no correlation to the actual rents a student is likely to encounter. They have no knowledge of personal habits. Their figures are, at best, an informed guess. If any figure is a legitimate condition of entry, it should be based on core costs (housing, subsistence, any necessary extra expenses). Socialising, and dining in College, are not core, but optional. There is no legitimate reason to incorporate these into the condition of entry, unless you wish to prescribe the sort of lifestyle a student ought be living whilst studying. Like the car vendor, that is no concern of the College.
Your having lived and studied in Oxford – again, it is legally irrelevant what you BELIEVE to be true, just as it is legally irrelevant what the College believes to be true. Justification for interference with a convention right must be ‘objective and reasonable’ – the mindset of the decision maker is irrelevant. What matters is the practical effect of the interference. Does it serve a legitimate aim? Is it proportionate? Does it go no further than necessary?
I don’t feel “misunderstood and attacked”. Far from it. I am of the opinion that my Convention rights, which are guaranteed by law in the form of the Human Rights Act 1998, have been interfered with, and that this interference is not justified by the reasons that have been advanced in support of it.
I actually agree with you – it would be unreasonable to ASK anybody to rely on projected income. It does not follow from that, that it is reasonable to PREVENT anybody from relying on it either. That is what the policy in dispute is designed to achieve. I can only repeat what I said above – I would not have had to ‘rely’ on earned income, as I had sufficient financial resource to meet my actual living costs, rather than the College’s projected costs. However, if I had chosen to consume more than my resources permitted, it would have been open to me to seek employment in order to pay for this. I do not need to be guaranteed the job in order to complete my study. However a job is a reasonable option open to me if I decide to engage in discretionary expenditure.
£370 is not the standard. The policy of the College is that you need £604/month including utilities. This is said to be based on the costs of renting a reasonable sized room in shared accommodation in the private sector. However, all empirical evidence suggests that no student is likely to encounter a rent even approaching this. The mean average (based on a sample of circa. 1,000 rents) is £400/month, with a standard deviation of £67. Again, your personal state of knowledge is totally irrelevant. What matters is whether the policy has ‘objective and reasonable’ justification. When tested against empirical data, it does not. The average University rent is £450/month. The maximum for a single room in shared accommodation owned by the University is £520, including all utilities. The maximum for College-owned accommodation is £546. Whether one lives in the private, University-owned or College-owned accommodation, one is statistically highly unlikely ever to encounter a figure of £604/month.
You misunderstand the “waiting list” for accommodation too. I was offered this accommodation, but turned it down, having negotiated an altogether better alternative in the private market. I did not need to wait a year. I applied for it in March and received offers throughout the Summer.
My answers are perfectly sufficient, since unlike you, I have actually taken the time to conduct research, understand the law, and base my assertions on both. I do not care, and the Courts are even less interested in, your subjective impressions.
You have totally missed the point. First, much of the £12,900 is unnecessary. I do not need to be able to afford to socialise and dine in College in order to succeed in study, however Oxford will not admit me if I cannot afford these things. Why do I need £604/month for rent and utilities, if my tenancy contract is for £370/month? Why do I need money for rent in the long vacation, when I would not be (and am not required to be) resident in Oxford and would have no rental liability? The policy enforces the financial requirement regardless of the needs and resources of the applicant. If I do decide I wish to engage in socialising activities and College dinners, why is it unrealistic to conduct a small amount of part time work to pay for them? If I want to socialise, buy beer, and dress up in a tuxedo and gown to dine in the truly ludicrous formal hall once per week, what is wrong with my working one day per week to pay for it? How will that affect my study? Why can a student member of the Boating Club train for 37.5 hours per week with impunity, but I can’t work a single (optional) 8 hour shift to fund optional spending?
Second, working to save up the money is not a solution for many. There is absolutely no way I could have earned enough money to save (as surplus income) £21,000. There is no way I could do it now and I am in a quite well paid graduate job. I cannot suspend my career and academic development in order to accumulate funds in the hope that I might get an offer of study (the offer may never materialise).
Even if ethically you had a point (if some can work and save up why not all?), this is NOT a legal defence. Interference with Convention rights must be justified at the time and in the circumstances that the interference occurs. They cannot be justified by reference to some theoretical and illusory point in the future, when a student may be (but may not be) substantially wealthier.
Just to clarify – the previous lengthy response is directed at “Simon”!
The problem is not with Oxford. I am fairly sure that you need to demonstrate you have the finances in place to take up a master’s at any university in the country. Clearly, you are going to need to show far larger sums to somewhere like the LSE who charge a ludicrous amount.
The problem is that there is no (or very, very little) gvmnt funding to support postgraduate study. And your silly remarks about ‘dressing up in gowns’ etc. for formal hall just reek of bitterness. Firstly, meals in hall are subsidised. At my college it is actually cheaper to eat there than to eat out. The colleges are not trying to make sure you are ‘wealthy’ and can indulge in some kinds of extravagant lifestyle. They just need to make sure you have the resources to finish your degree.
Although, you do make a good point that the amount they ask for is high, however, that said, I have found that not many people can survive in Oxford (which is an expensive place) on much less.
Name one University that has the same policy, and provide evidence. I have not found one. The College have not presented one before the courts. Provide links to your College’s pricing – all of the evidence I have seen, and have presented to the Court, suggests that it is more expensive (and that the University knows it is more expensive) to dine in College than to self-cater. The meals are subsidised – subsidy from what? Not, heaven forbid, the College fees that are levied? That would suggest students are subsidising themselves. Either way, £56/week just on food is a huge sum. I do not spend that now and I am earning a quite healthy sum of money!
Also, have no idea where you found a room in Oxford for £370 p/m including bills… that is clearly a vast anomaly!
And as far as I am aware there are no rules against working part-time whilst taking a master’s. I know people who do.
Again, more rubbish, for which I presume you haven’t done a single bit of research.
You can rent accommodation (including bills) from the UNIVERSITY for less than £370: http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/accommodation/graduate/rents12-13/
The average rent for University-owned accommodation (including bills) is £450. For St Hugh’s, the average rent for College-owned accommodation (including bills) is roughly £490. You can rent accommodation at other Colleges for as little as £325/month including all bills. In the private sector, I compiled a database of almost 1,000 private sector student rents (single room in shared accommodation), and submitted this to the courts. The average rent is £400/month. Many of these rents included all Bills, some for as little as £300/month.
So, none of this is anywhere near the minimum enforced figure of £604/month. Again, provide evidence for your assertions.
I’m afraid I can’t comment on the specific course (I’ve read somewhere that you had been applying for Economic History, but wasn’t sure if that was the MSc, the MPhil, or the DPhil), but I would argue that it is entirely reasonable that the college should expect you to be able to pay for rent throughout the year. My experience is that the vast majority of postgraduate students remain in residence all year round. You may not have classes during the vacation, but any course at Oxford, particularly a postgraduate one, is very intense, and there just isn’t time within an eight-week term to do all of the work you need to do. Yes, you can study outside of Oxford, but you are cutting yourself off from the resources of the libraries, your peer-group (a surprisingly important academic resource!), and your supervisor (I meet with my postgraduate supervisor every other week, including during the vacs). The college is trying to ensure you have enough funds to do the best you can academically — that is, after all, the point of going.
I do agree that the amount they predict for rent per month is a little high – I would say that £500 per month would be a good average for rent plus bills. As you’ve shown, there are cheaper options, but the financial guarantee has to be based on some sort of average – and, on average, Oxford living is almost as bad as London living, unless you’re very lucky.
My worry with this case is that I feel that St Hugh’s is, in a way, the wrong target. This is a university-wide policy, and is one upheld by universities other than Oxford, and is a symptom not of elitism on their part but of the immense pressures on postgraduate funding as a whole in this country.
Also, I’m curious – do you think the financial guarantee should be done away with entirely, or do you think there should just be a different system in place (e.g., asking students to lay out their own budget and prove that they can afford the sum *they* personally require to live on)?
I am replying on my phone so I apologise in advance if something goes wrong in this reply!
Your point about needing to be able to pay rent all year around. I do not agree with you, but for some very specific reasons. First, before I negotiated a ‘term-time only’ tenancy contract, I wrote to the Course Director asking questions about the very points you raise. For instance, do I need to be resident outside of term time? Can I return to Manchester during the holidays? Etc etc. He said there was no requirement to be resident during vacation periods. I did not ask my supervisor for his opinion – I did not get the opportunity – but this was not an uninformed decision. I had purchased private membership of the University of Manchester’s library to service my research whilst at home. As an Open University alumn, I had free access to their superb online library facilities. So, whilst you raise valid points, I do not think these generalisations should form the basis of any kind of policy. The effect is to require funds people do not need, and to refuse access to people for not having funds they do not need. Obviously, that is not desirable for a number of reasons.
I agree with you that if there is a need for a financial guarantee for rent, it should be based on some sort of average. The problem is, it appears not to be. The only explanation provided by the College for how the figure was arrived at was by the Domestic Bursars Committee conducting a survey of itself. No research appears to have been undertaken to gauge actual rental figures in Oxford. The enormous amounts of research I did yielded a figure of £400/month as the average rent in the private sector. Given the local housing allowance is £347, these seem more realistic figures.
I agree with you that the College is something of an unfortunate victim in the case, but for legal reasons, they are the Public Authority against whom I must bring the claim. However, I do not agree with you that the policy has nothing to do with elitism. Why include the costs of dining in College, and a huge sum for socialising? That is about Oxford trying to use a financial selection policy in order to preserve its traditions.
Finally, I do not think there should be any form of financial guarantee for living costs, but would fully support one for fees. My reasons for this are various. First, I have not found a single other University operating an equivalent policy, and they are coping just fine without it (I appreciate many think that Oxford is “special” and is harder work, but there is no empirical basis for this claim and, even if true, it does not serve to justify the policy). Second, there has to be a degree of caveat emptor about this, ‘let the buyer beware’. Oxford can make any recommendation they wish, but ultimately they are seeking to sell education to willing buyers who meet the University’s academic criteria, and a policy which seeks to extend into their private lives and finances, and even the private lives and finances of their sponsors (who must submit private and, otherwise, legally protected data about their financial standing) is a disproportionate infringement. In legal terms, it is a restriction not justified by the aim sought. Finally, there is always going to be somebody who can live on less than any figure that is set. Those with family in Oxford may well be able to live on nothing and require no liquid capital up front at all. Put another way, I do not think the policy can ever be made proportionate to the aim sought, and for that reason the aim sought cannot be considered legitimate.
Durham (another Collegiate University) have a financial guarantee in which the individual sets out their own projected costs, and then describes how they intend to pay for them. The only requirement is that both assessments are “realistic”. Evidence is not sought to support the contents. Paid employment can contribute. That is an altogether better system. If the College or University are worried about not receiving their money, they can demand the payment of all fees upfront, or a deposit, as at Cambridge.
Excellent blog. I fear your recommendation will fall on deaf ears. I will be in court arguing the case on Friday so we may get some movement next week.
The policy is not socially divisive. A student’s insistence on working alongside study is the stopper. The policy only asks that the money is available BEFORE a course is started. A socially disadvantaged, or indeed any, person could work and save the money before they start their postgraduate studies rather than working alongside the tuition. As the article suggests this may even be beneficial to the student.
This seems a bit rich posted as an LSE blog… my fees at Oxford are around £5500, the equivalent course at LSE charges over £11,000 in fees alone. When you factor in costs of living in London, and account for the fact that most colleges at Oxford provide a lot of services free or subsidized for their students (such as graduate dinners etc.) it is far more expensive to take a masters at the LSE.
One wonders if the degree is much worth it if the reader fails to find the point here. Yes, fees are high and the author believes they should be more competitive, but the real point is that Oxford colleges require all prospective students to show fees plus £12,900 per year up front. For many this kind of money is simply not something they have to show as a prospective student.