Since the introduction of tuition grants in 1962, the cost of university has massively increased.

Originally, a university education was paid for out of pocket by only those whose families could afford to send them. However, following WWII, greater value was placed on a well-educated population and the government aimed to make universities more accessible.

The only way to get a university education without being saddled with debt for most of your life is to pay your fees upfront

Since 1962, a university education has changed from being beneficial for all society, to becoming a luxury for the student to pay for. Governments have tried to justify this with inflation and other universal issues, but these near constant increases have disproportionately affected those from lower income backgrounds. In short, those who have been disadvantaged are the very groups who the implementation of tuition fees and grants was designed to help.

Now, with the tuition fees raised to £9,790 for the 2026/7 academic year, The Guardian has estimated that on average students leave university with £53,000 in student debt. (Adams, 2025; Gov.uk, 2026) However, for those who qualify for a maximum maintenance loan, the number is closer to £62,000 (Gov.uk, 2026)

With further increases over the next 2 years, students starting in 2027/28 will have £30,150 in debt solely from their tuition fees, not even taking into account the maintenance loans that the vast majority will need to take out in order to afford the living expenses. At this stage, the only way to get a university education without being saddled with debt for most of your life is to pay your fees upfront, an option that is only remotely available to the most privileged few.

The rises in tuition fees are a direct result of cuts in government spending. The HS treasury seems to be washing its hands of university grants, with 33.9% of income for our university coming from grants in 2004, that number has now decreased to just over 10% in 2025 (UoB Accounts, 2008; UoB Accounts, 2025). Conversely, tuition fees now make up 50.5% of UoB income, compared to a mere 14.4% in 2004.

By 1977, tuition fees of all students were paid by the government

It is unbelievable, that in just 20 years government spending on higher education is now a third of what it was, all the while tuition fees are carrying the universities almost solely on their shoulders. The constant inflation may be passed off as a sign of the times but there is no doubt that it is opposing the original purposes of tuition fees.

The introduction of non-repayable, means-tested grants in 1962 made university far more accessible for people from lower-income backgrounds by reducing the personal costs (UK Parliament, 2026). Tuition and maintenance grants were now offered to all students, with higher grants offered to those from low-income backgrounds. The system wasn’t perfect, or nearly as effective as it could have been, but given that secondary schools were only made free less than 20 years prior, it was a huge step in the right direction.

By 1977, tuition fees of all students were paid by the government, with means-tested maintenance grants still available. The tax-paying public were generally supportive of state funded university as it was theoretically based solely on merit (Anderson, 2016). This was of course ignoring the blatant fact that those from lower-income households did not have anything like the social freedoms offered to the traditionally university educated families for whom getting a job was not an immediate priority. However, these grants allowed working-class students the possibility of university and eventually social mobility. With this, Britain loudly proclaimed itself a meritocracy.

The 1980s policy of marketisation under a Thatcherite government meant that universities were put under increased pressure to fund themselves in the manner of a business. Though tuition fees were not yet a matter for students themselves to deal with, the seeds were planted during this era of tax cuts and market policy. The general educational policy of Thatcherite Britain led to a systematic lack of funding for schools in lower-income communities (Greany and Higham, 2018). The knock-on effect of this was the disinclination of these students to go on to university, the feeling that the government had left them and their education behind.

The general [neoliberal] consensus was that if you did not go to university, it was due to your own lack of intelligence. Not lack of opportunity or financial means

Margaret Thatcher’s politics of welfare cuts are now widely known to show her clear prioritisation of the interests of the middle classes, but at the time they were seen primarily as tax reductions. A rising sentiment amongst the public was that the students themselves, as the beneficiaries of the education, should be expected to fund it (Bitesize, 2026).

This breakdown of the communal, ‘for the betterment of society’ mindset that had allowed the public funding of universities for years was a direct result of the neoliberal nature of the Thatcherite government. Neoliberal ideology places the focus of individual success on the individual. This widespread belief that if a person was not succeeding in a ‘meritocratic’ society it was down to their own failings was a huge contributing factor in class divides and welfare cuts in Britain and especially in universities. With tuition fees and maintenance grants still – surprisingly – funded by the government, the general consensus was that if you did not go to university, it was due to your own lack of intelligence. Not lack of opportunity or financial means.

This carried on into 1990s policies, where maintenance grants were incrementally made into repayable loans (Anderson, 2016). By 1998, Tony Blair announced tuition fees were no longer government funded but instead were a payment of £1000 up front. This was still means-tested but was still disproportionately supporting those from higher income families. While the introduction of tuition fees doesn’t seem to have created a noticeable drop in attendance, it did lead to disproportionately high dropout rates amongst students from lower income backgrounds as found in the 2005 Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) report (HEFCE, 2006).

As a result of seemingly endless cuts, universities are forced to lay off their professors….UoB [offered] voluntary leaver schemes with nearly 250 staff members leaving, with £12 million between them, in the last year

Since then, tuition fees have risen to unprecedented levels. First in 2004 to £3000 as an ‘income-dependant loan’, and then in 2010 to £9000 a year (Anderson, 2016). This allegedly final change was the government washing its hands of funding, the students and their loans now held the majority of the responsibility for funding higher education. It is this radical shift by the Conservative-headed Coalition government that has landed us in our dire situation. With the first increase in fees since 2017 (when it was raised from £9000 to £9250) the 2025/26 year paid £9535 (UK Parliament, 2026). Fees will be raised to £10,050 by the 2027/28 year, and with an increase a year for three consecutive years, who knows where it will stop?

Surely with this massive financial loss the university would…invest any money they may have saved into research? Right? Or, they could raise Vice Chancellor Adam Tickell’s pay to £360,275

On the other side, as a result of seemingly endless cuts, universities are forced to lay off their professors. In the case of UoB, this involves them offering voluntary leaver schemes with nearly 250 staff members leaving, with £12 million between them, in the last year (UoB Accounts, 2025). Surely with this massive financial loss the university would be sympathetic to its students and invest any money they may have saved into research? Right?

Or, they could raise Vice Chancellor Adam Tickell’s pay to £360,275 and a bonus of up to 10% of his base salary (UoB Accounts, 2025). Yes, the very same Adam Tickell who has just announced that his solution to underfunded universities is to stop giving student loans to those without A-levels (Adams, 2026). This bonus is almost the same as our entire three years of tuition fees. While the cost of tuition deters students from attending, losing even more money for the university and forcing staff redundancies left right and centre, the higher-ups are still getting huge bonuses.

Yet, staff costs are still less than they were in 2004, taking up 52.4% of expenditure in 2025 as opposed to 57.7%. While this is not as dramatic a change as the sources of income, it is still a notable difference to the headlines justifying mass staff layoffs. The problem is once again inflation, the 2004 average salary for a senior lecturer at the University of Birmingham was £37,989, compared to the 2025 figure being between £50-60,000 (UoB Accounts, 2004; UoB Accounts, 2025). Staff salaries are going up, quite rightly, but I vehemently believe that the Vice Chancellor’s salary of £360,275 is completely disgraceful while students struggle to cover the costs of rising tuition (UoB Accounts, 2025).

With less students choosing to saddle themselves with on average £53,000 of debt, universities have been forced to prioritise finances. This leads to an emphasis on taking international students, and a cutting of courses viewed as less financially valuable

The Government is not unaware of the problems caused by raising tuition fees. A 2025 HEFCE report showed that ‘the gap in university entrance rates between disadvantaged pupils and their better off peers had grown to its widest since records began in 2005’ (HEFCE, 2025). This issue is significantly affecting those who need the loans, or grants as they originally were, the most. Coupled with the fact that alongside increasing yearly fees, the government has also increased the repayment timeframe from 30 years to 40 years (Gov.uk, 2026).

Those of us on repayment plan 5, who started their undergraduate or postgraduate degree after 1 August 2023, will be expected to pay 9% of our income for 40 years after we finish. These are not issues the generation that encouraged us to go to university had to deal with and we should not have to bear this financial burden in order to get a degree that has increasingly been the only way to get a high- paying job.

New research has shown that ‘By age 31, graduates typically earn 37% more’ than non-graduates, and that ‘those who were previously on Free School Meals average graduate earnings growth is 75% compared to 26% for non graduates’ (Universities UK, 2026) With such a well documented and clear link between university education and earnings for students from disadvantaged backgrounds, it is outrageous that our Government is making the informed decision to cut grants and raise fees.

We need to refocus on the original aims of tuition fees in order to reap their benefits and avoid losing the educational opportunities that every student is entitled to

The main argument for tuition fees is that the burden of education should be placed on the person it affects, the student (Anderson, 2016). However, I stand firm in my belief that the constant increase of tuition fees is not only greatly disadvantageous to those from low-income backgrounds but is also losing sight of the reason they were implemented in the first place. With less students choosing to saddle themselves with on average £53,000 of debt, universities have been forced to prioritise finances. This leads to an emphasis on taking international students, and a cutting of courses viewed as less financially valuable as seen with Nottingham University this year.

Marketisation has made education into a business, and Universities are not exempt. Far from it, they are the section of education hardest hit by the policies. We need to refocus on the original aims of tuition fees in order to reap their benefits and avoid losing the educational opportunities that every student is entitled to.

 

A University of Birmingham spokesperson said:

“As the 2024-25 Annual Report and Accounts make clear, Birmingham has had a year of strong performances in domestic and international league tables, improvements in overall student satisfaction measured through the National Student Survey, as well as record performances in terms of research income and overall turnover, becoming the first university in the West Midlands to achieve a turnover of a billion pounds.

“Senior pay at the University is determined by the Remuneration Committee of the University Council.  The Committee is chaired by a senior independent Council member and comprises five independent members appointed by Council. The Vice-Chancellor is not a member of the Committee and only attends meetings for items discussing the remuneration of senior staff not including his own. The Committee reviews the University’s performance and that of its senior staff against strategic objectives including student satisfaction, research performance, and financial health.”

“As a leading global university, we offer competitive pay that reflects the attractive opportunities at the University of Birmingham to lead and support world-changing research and education. Pay for senior staff is further benchmarked against universities in the Russell Group and other large research-intensive institutions.”

“The Vice-Chancellor’s pay including pension, as a percentage of university turnover is below the higher education sector average, at 0.04 per cent for 2024/25, compared with 0.13 per cent for the sector according to data published by HESA for 2023/24.  The Vice-Chancellor’s base pay rose in line with the national pay award.”

“In common with other universities, we introduced a Voluntary Leaver Scheme (VLS) for UK-based staff last year to help protect the University from future volatility and help ensure that we can continue to invest in our long-term strategic ambitions. This scheme is now closed.”