Skip to main content

Mind the Gap: University students under increasing financial pressure.

Two stories this week served to highlight the financial plight of many of our students. They also illustrate the extent to which a ‘two tier’ education system is now operating. There is a growing gap between those that have financial support and the rest that must struggle one way or another; with more now turning to the sex industry for funds. This is further exacerbated by a failure of the institutions to recognise there is a problem and a government that increasingly fails to take any responsibility. This leaves the ‘fourth estate’ of the media to warn us of the gap.

More students turning to sex work. 


This is not really a new story and prostitution is surely as old as the hills. But its increased prevalence amongst students is causing some institutional blushes. The availability of various apps and so called ‘sugar daddy’ web sites makes it more accessible whilst still within the bounds of the current law. It is worth noting that paying for sex is not in itself a criminal offence in most of the UK (Northern Ireland made paying for sex an offence in 2015). However, soliciting, kerb crawling and ‘pimping’ are offences. When I was a student back in the early 1970s I was aware of some such activity. One fellow student was working as a ‘pimp’ at weekends in central London. Another student was a ‘page three’ girl on several occasions. She told me that the pay was “too good to turn down”. I was also under great financial stress but indicated that I had no such dilemma as I was not in a position to choose. Nevertheless, the moral dilemma that she faced was something I would never wish to judge. Those who do seek to judge should first look at the circumstances.

The main thesis of the Independent’s report was that universities are ‘turning a blind eye’ to the perceived ‘problem’ of students as sex workers. Certainly it seems that most institutions would like the ‘problem’ to go away. They are much less likely to understand the problems if most of their students are from comfortably well off families and most staff are likewise. 

The report leans heavily on an earlier article from July 2018 ‘More than 10% of students 'use their bodies' to pay for university fees when facing emergency costs, study claims’ and a survey of 3,167 students in the UK by ‘Save the Student: Student Money Survey 2018 – Results’. This revealed that 78% are struggling to get by. As many as 76% have are in part-time employment with 4% turning to sex work. One is quoted as defending web cam sex work with "I have very few uni contact hours, so it's easy to fit around my studies”. This is one embarrassing aspect of the situation that most institutions would prefer was not aired in the media. In fact, they simply try to turn a blind eye to all extracurricular employment or other money spinning activities of their students as a way to duck the issue of a decreasing academic workload for their students. 

Commuter students missing out.

The plight of students who have to commute to their university to study was well laid out in a report from the Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI) earlier in December. They have followed this up, last week and then this week, with a series of fascinating case studies that fill in more detail. The gap between those with family resources and those without is stark.

‘Homeward Bound: Defining, understanding and aiding ‘commuter students’ by David Maguire and David Morris. HEPI Report 114’ [1] identifies arrange of obstacles that commuting puts in the way of students and is a valuable overview of the situation. However, it is yet another case of a ‘compartmentalised’ study in that it looks largely in isolation at one main factor. The reality for many students is that they commute and have part-time employment and/or caring responsibilities on top of that. Nevertheless, there is some concession to this compounding effect with; 

“Evidence suggests that commuter students are more likely to: work part-time; have family or carer responsibilities; be the first generation in their family to attend higher education; be from a lower socio-economic group”

Yet the conclusion is also somewhat defeatist.

“Unfortunately, it is not always possible to untangle the impact of each of these characteristics from the significance of a commute.”


Of course it is possible to disaggregate the various compounding pressures on students if there is actually a will to seek the information. TEFS has argued for some time that determining the amount of time students have to devote to their studies should be determined in every case. This should not be hidden and left to a few individual tutors or hard pressed student support staff trying to help distressed students in their offices. It requires more radical and comprehensive actions. 

The later statement, “The mixed evidence from the HEPI / Advance HE Survey and National Student Survey suggests that more work needs to be done to disentangle the various factors that might impact” is glaringly obvious and this has been that case for far too many years [2]. 

Will universities take up this challenge with a comprehensive survey of all students? Or will it take political will and action by the Office for Students? 
One thing is certain. If the inherent unfairness of a widening gap in a two tier higher education system is not addressed, then more embarrassing stories will emerge in 2019. 

[1] TEFS notes that the HEPI report was sponsored by University Partnerships Programme (UPP) that is a leading private provider of on campus student accommodation. It is well worth looking at what they provide https://www.upp-ltd.com/. The motivation behind the report would be a commercial one in extolling the virtues of staying on campus and not commuting. However, with HEPI quite rightly retaining editorial control, it seems this aim might have somewhat backfired.

[2] TEFS notes that the OECD states that anything up top 30 hours per week is classed as part-time working. Some students exceed this and many more have to add travel time that detracts from studying. In 2017, the part-time employment rate in the UK was 23.5% of employment.



Mike Larkin, retired from Queen's University Belfast after 37 years teaching Microbiology, Biochemistry and Genetics.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ofqual holding back information

Ofqual has responded to an FOI request from TEFS this week. They held a staggering twenty-nine board meetings since March. Despite promising the Parliamentary Education Committee over a month ago they would publish the minutes “shortly” after their meeting on 16th September, they are still not able to do so. They cite “exemption for information that is intended to be published in the future” for minutes that are in the “process of being approved for publication” . More concerning is they are also citing exemption under the “Public Interest Test”. This means they might not be published, and Ofqual will open themselves up to legal challenges. If both the Department for Education and Ofqual are prevented from being more open, then public interest will lie shattered on the floor and lessons will not be learned.  Ofqual finally responded to the TEFS Freedom of Information (FOI) request to publish the minutes of its board meetings on Tuesday. It should have been replied to by 17th Septembe

COVID-19, SAGE and the universities ‘document dump’

The recent release of several documents by SAGE all at once was described by one observer as a “dump of docs”. They relate to returning to education this autumn and are somewhat confusing as they illustrate the complexities of the challenges still to be tackled. But there is much not fully addressed. Outbreaks of COVID-19 at universities spilling into local communities might also trigger city-wide lock-downs and a bad reaction from the locals. The mass migration of students to their hometowns will spread the chaos wider afield as there seems to be little evidence of planning for this inevitability. Less advantaged students in poor accommodation or crowded homes will be at greater risk along with their vulnerable peers coping with health conditions. While students may be asked to ‘segment’ or form ‘bubbles’ staff might not have the same protection. Asking vulnerable lecturers and other staff with ongoing health conditions to move from classroom to classroom, contacting differen

Funding lifeline for disadvantaged students in schools under the spotlight

The image depicts the cover of a recent report by the Northern Ireland Audit Office that looks critically at the impact of ongoing additional school funding for disadvantaged students. Its hard-hitting conclusions must not be ignored. They show 15 years of failure and little impact despite nearly a billion spent across schools from 2005 to 2020. Similar schemes operate across the rest of the UK and the report raises serious questions about where the money is going. There is no doubt that disadvantages at home impact upon how students get on at school. But the danger is that some opponents will seize upon the findings to argue that the money should be withdrawn since it appears to do no good. Wiser heads will ask about where the money is going before reaching such a perverse conclusion. This is a time of considerable danger for those with few advantages. A wider social intervention will be needed to address the problems, and it is unreasonable to expect schools to impact things beyond