The 'Major Review' - What (If Anything) Will it Mean for Postgraduate Study?

It's taken five months, four ministers, a bit of bluster in the Sunday papers and a slightly bemusing trip to a library in Derby, but the terms of Theresa May's 'major review' of university fees and funding have finally been unveiled. And so has the title.

We now know that the Government will be conducting a 'Review of Post-18 Education and Funding.'

The review itself has already been expertly reviewed, with much excellent analysis in the usual places. But relatively little attention has been paid to what this latest intervention in higher education policy means for level 7 courses (and students). This is for the simple (and sensible) reason that post-18 does not mean post-graduate; 'choice' and 'access' at levels 6 and 7 are clearly different beasts.

And yet. . .

As someone with a professional interest in the quite striking changes recent Governments have made to postgraduate funding (and their equally striking effects) I don't think we should overlook the potential longer term impacts of this review - or what it says about a future direction of travel for student fees and funding at level 7.

There are five fairly simple reasons why this is so.

The latest HESA data shows that, after a period of steady decline, the number of students on postgraduate taught courses in 2016-17 was at its highest level in a decade.

This is easily attributable to the impact of postgraduate student loans in England for that cohort and it's going to be very interesting to see if the trend is sustained for 2017-18 (as students take advantage of similar postgraduate finance changes in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland).

Postgraduate education is unlikely to ever become as politically sensitive as undergraduate study, but rising enrolment will make a growing number of students (and their parents) aware of issues at this level.

Prior to 2016-17 there was little-to-no ongoing subsidy for postgraduate taught education as a whole (setting aside exceptions in certain professional subject areas, the PSS pilots or the veritable hens teeth that are Masters-level bursaries from the Research Councils).

This is no longer the case. The Government (and, therefore, the taxpayer) now invests in a student finance option that, subject to a few conditions, is universally available to English-resident UK nationals (and EU students, for the present), studying a Masters degree at a UK university.

On a very basic level this means that some of the issues prompting May's review - in particular questions of fairness to students and taxpayers - are going to be increasing relevant at post-post-18.

And let us not forget that doctoral student loans are also on the way.

I spend a lot of time speaking to prospective postgraduate students about fees and funding. It's a part of my role I've come to find very satisfying. But it also makes me aware of the issues and concerns those students have as they transition from undergraduate to postgraduate finance.

In particular, the lack of any clear correlation between the postgraduate loan and the costs it's meant to cover is baffling and, if I'm honest, quite hard to justify.

At undergraduate level a student is guaranteed a loan that covers their fees, whatever those fees may be. Subject to circumstances they may also be entitled to a second maintenance loan to cover their living costs.

At postgraduate (taught) level that same student is able to borrow up to £10,609 (in 2018-19) as a 'contribution to costs' that can be used for fees and / or maintenance, but may not actually cover either (let alone both).

This is partly because differential fees, varying by subject area and institution, already exist at level 7. It would presumably be difficult for the Government to guarantee a loan that covers whatever fees a university charges for a specific Masters course, and to introduce caps at PGT level would be very problematic.

But if the review does end up introducing a differential undergraduate fee with a loan set accordingly, the situation at postgraduate level could end up looking even more like a lottery, with the actual 'value' and utility of a loan meaning very different things to different students.

Setting aside those major differences, there are a few things that undergraduate and postgraduate finance have in common. Included amongst them are several of the issues the new review is intended to consider.

High interest rates are even more of a factor for postgraduates, where the current 6.1% rate accrues as soon as payments are made (with no threshold change linked to salary).

The situation is similar for repayments: unlike undergraduates, postgraduates won't (currently) see their threshold rise to £25,000 in April. Instead the level is remaining at £21,000 - a decision that, as I've already argued, effectively penalises those students who take on additional qualifications.

Any changes to interest and repayment that the review recommends should apply to postgraduate finance too. But there's another issue to be addressed.

The lack of a defined maintenance component in the postgraduate loan involves the real risk that this finance is of limited use to those who most need it.

We don't (yet) have the figures to know for sure, but it seems reasonable to assume that a limited loan of £10,000 or so may help a student with some existing resources get 'over the line', but does it do the same for a student for whom a Masters is less affordable in the first place? Particularly if the latter student is already more likely to carry additional undergraduate loan debt.

The terms of the review include a commitment to look at maintenance support; this isn't just an undergraduate issue.

It's one thing to consider why the review might (and perhaps should) look at postgraduate issues, but it's also worth acknowledging some of the reasons why it could.

New datasets like the Longitudinal Education Outcomes (LEO) statistics are highly likely to inform any link between fees and earnings. A postgraduate version of this data is pending and there's still the (somewhat foggy) possibility of a PGT-TEF at some point.

These metrics will join existing measurements such as the HEA's (excellent) Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey (PTES). If, at some point in the future, perhaps prompted by the results of the present review, the Government chooses to look more closely at PGT education. . . it may have a surprising number of tools to do so. How subtle these tools have the potential to be - and how adeptly they might be deployed - could be something for the sector to keep a weather eye on.