'How much a dunce that has been sent to roam Excels a dunce that has been kept at home.' William Cowper

- By Alex Webb -

In some five weeks, thousands of youngsters across the country will tentatively open their A-level results envelopes, hopeful yet apprehensive of what their contents might have in store for them. A handful of the letters printed inside will determine where and indeed whether they are able to pursue their studies – if they have got their first choice university, their second choice, or if they are to enter the lottery of clearing. The process of choosing where to continue one's education after school is already a tricky one, and last week ministers mooted the introduction of another factor for consideration. It was announced that ministers were contemplating 'no-fee degrees', exempting certain participants from paying fees. Under the plans, students waiving their rights to a student loan and grant would not be asked to pay fees, a scheme which seems mutually suitable to a government seeking to limit expenditure and to students hoping to ease and indeed preclude the burgeoning burden of debt. However, questions were immediately raised about the extent of the proposal's potential consequences.

One major upshot would clearly be that students would of course be more likely to attend universities closer to home, lessening their expenditure on living costs, but inevitably hindering their ability to choose universities on the basis of merit and suitability. In Britain we are fortunate to be home to some of the best educational institutions in the world, yet not only does each have its own peculiar strengths and foibles, but the geographical distribution of such establishments is by no means constant across the regions, with some areas better served than others.
'The process of choosing a university should always depend on more than just its ranking in the league tables'

Whilst casting aspersions on the comparable strengths of various universities is not always preferable, we live in a society which does so habitually, where league tables can either make or condemn both the reputation and future of an institution. Of course, the process of choosing a university should always depend on more than just its ranking in the league tables – an intelligent youngster might prosper just as well, or indeed better, at a UCL, Durham or St Andrews as at Oxbridge, even if the courses don't rate as highly. By the same token, however, choice of university ought to rely on more than simply geographical proximity, and there is a great fear among groups such as the University and Colleges Union that those without the necessary financial means might be driven to limiting their own opportunities by choosing universities closer to home over those better suited to their course requirements.

Our European counterparts often have different criteria for their choice of university than we do here in Britain. On the continent universities are, theoretically at least, of a comparable standard no matter where you are within a nation, and, as a consequence, a far greater proportion of students live at home than in the UK. In 2006, a Universities UK study suggested that 20% of students in Britain lived at home, up from 12% a decade previously, before the introduction of tuition fees. Around the same time, in 2005, a French study indicated that 42% of French students still lived with their parents, and that as many as 68% of Italian students did so, the highest figure in the EU. Whilst, however, the standard of universities might be similar nationwide in European countries, the best universities in the UK do rank a lot higher than their European counterparts. The UK boasted seventeen in the top one hundred of the QS World University Rankings 2008, while the rest of Europe mustered just fifteen entries between, with Germany coming out next best with a meagre three universities. This is, to a great extent, a consequence of better funding, itself partly a consequence of the considerably higher fees paid here in the UK – German students typically pay less than €1000 annually in fees, whilst those in France need only stump up around €400 once insurance is taken into account.
'Their debt is less, but their opportunities are also curtailed, and the danger of elitism rears its ugly head again'

As I have previously intimated, the question of ranking can often be a misleading one. The great advantage of choosing universities within the British system, however, does not simply relate to how a university rates in a table, but should also depend upon the interest of the individual student, both curricular and extra-curricular. Cambridge might rank highly in the teaching of Theology, but someone interested in the plethora of eastern religions might be better served by a course at SOAS. Whilst Southampton doesn't rate as highly in Engineering as Imperial, budding acoustic engineers would probably prefer to head to the south coast for their studies.

Ultimately, it is a question of breadth of choice, and there is a rational fear that, by encouraging students less willing to fund their studies by accumulating debt to remain at home, not only might they choose universities for the wrong reasons, but the aspirationalism championed by figures such as David Cameron might also be hindered. Their debt is less, but their opportunities are also diminished, and the danger of elitism rears its ugly head again, as the student able to fund his living expenses without a loan nonetheless pays no fees.

'There is more to university than simply what is learned in the lecture theatre'
Aside from the relatively straightforward issue of limiting one's choice of university, there is also the more intangible question of what the effect of extended occupancy of your parents' home – or 'prolonged adolescence', as some have branded it – might be. Of course, there is a long list of advantages, from the financial to the pastoral, but there is more to university than simply what is learned in the lecture theatre. When Thomas Hughes wrote in Tom Brown's Schooldays that 'Life isn't all beer and skittles; but beer and skittles or something better of the same sort, must form a good part of every Englishman's education.', this was partly the point he was trying to make – education necessitates more than that which is simply discovered in the classroom.
The process of leaving home and asserting one's own independence can be an important one, and doing so at a time when one is also seeking to assert one's own intellectual independence seems to be logical. Some academics on the continent have lamented what they call the 'infantilisation' of postgraduate study, where postgraduates are treated increasingly like their undergraduate counterparts, with more hoops created for them to jump through to, as initiative amongst them seems to decrease. They have associated this trend with people living at home for the duration of their studies.

'No-fee degrees' do, superficially, seem to prove advantageous for those on both sides of the parapet, but the fall-out such a move might have on the future of undergraduate education is broader than might be first imagined. The crucial questions of aspirationalism, elitism, and social fluidity are all likely to be affected, and the benefits must be carefully weighed before any policy is enacted. It would be foolish to dismiss it out of hand, but what seems like a simple formula which affects merely the financial in fact has broader consequences for a generation increasingly fearful of what the economy has in store for them. Such a move could have far reaching effects on the nature of university education in the UK, and it remains to be seen whether they would be for the better or not.