There were significant differences in the extent to which HE costs affected prospective students’ choices and decisions. Similarly, there were considerable variations in the actual strategies diverse respondent groups anticipated using because of costs of going to university. These were related to respondents’:
• religion; • age; • family type; • social class; and
Variations in how the costs of HE affected different groups’ decisions and behaviour may have been shaped by other external factors, apart from financial ones. For instance, Muslim respondents going to university were the most likely of all groups to consider:
• living at home with their parents (44 per cent); and
• applying to universities in areas where the cost of living is lower (31 per cent).
It is not clear the extent to which these Muslim respondents’ choices were influenced by financial considerations alone, reflected certain cultural norms, or a combination of both. Certainly, existing research shows that one of HE students’ main strategies for reducing both the costs of HE and reliance on student loans is by living at home (Callender and Kemp, 2000, 2002; Unite/Mori, 2002). HE students can save as much as £2,500 a year by living with their parents. This is because many parents subsidise them in kind by not charging for their accommodation and by providing them with food. In addition, Muslim respondents held strong anti-debt attitudes (chapter two, section 2.3) and were disinclined to take out student loans (see below), so their desire to live at home may be have been associated with these factors.
The external and financial constraints affecting other student groups’ choices were very different. However, whether or not the costs of HE influenced entrants’ decisions presupposes that they had a real choice. It is questionable whether some groups actually did have such choices open to them. Respondents aged 25 and over, who were most likely to have dependent children, could rarely leave their hometown to go to university because of their family commitments and, therefore, they had limited choices about which university they could choose to go to. It is no surprise that lone parents were the group most likely to apply to a university near their home (74 per cent). Lone parents were also the least likely of all respondent groups to apply to universities in areas where they were good employment opportunities (9 per cent) or where the costs of living were lower (6 per cent). This was because they were not mobile and could not easily relocate. It could be argued, however, that if lone parents’ financial situations were better, then moving to go to university might have been a viable option. Yet, lone parents were one of the most financially insecure and vulnerable groups (chapter two, sections 2.5 and 2.6). In order, to understand lone parents’ behaviour, it is important to acknowledge the constraints of both their family obligations and their finances.
It was obvious that other students’ HE choices and behaviour were affected by their family
background and finances in other ways. For instance, those attending independent schools were the group least likely:
• to apply to a university near their home (21 per cent); or • to live at home while at university (4 per cent).
Respondents from some of the wealthiest families had no need to save money in these ways while at university. These financial issues or considerations did not limit their university choices.
The full extent of the class differences in respondents’ HE choices are set out in Table 7.1. Those from the lowest social class, where the head of the household was unemployed or had never worked, were the most likely of all groups to be thinking about undertaking:
• a subject with better employment prospects (48 per cent); • a course with a paid work placement (31 per cent); and • a shorter course (23 per cent).
In addition, they were far more likely than those in the highest social classes to consider:
• applying to universities nearer their home (63 per cent compared with 39 per cent); • getting advice on how to budget (37 per cent compared with 26 per cent); and • applying for sponsorship or a bursary (34 per cent compared with 16 per cent).
Living at home and working are the most readily available options for those wanting to reduce the costs of going to university, to save money and to minimise debt. In addition, as other studies show, low-income HE students are the most reliant on term-time employment to supplement their income while at university (Van Dyke, Little and Callender 2003; Callender and Kemp, 2000). Indeed, the majority of entrants from the lowest social classes in this study also anticipated depending on term- time employment to help fund their time at university (section 7.5.2).
Clearly the costs of HE influenced entrants’ HE choices and decisions about HE. Those most affected and limited by their financial circumstances came from low-income families. Unlike those from
wealthier backgrounds, their choices were constrained by their income. However, both social class and religion appeared to be major determinants of which strategies were adopted to deal with the costs of HE. They had the greatest impact on respondents’ choice of:
• which university they attended; • where they lived while at university; • the subject they studied;
• the courses they took;
This suggests possible social class and religious differences in prospective HE students’ future experience of HE. It adds weight to the idea of a polarisation in the experience of HE along class and religious lines.