4.3.1 Variations in overall attitudes to HE students’ financial support
There were considerable variations in the extent to which different respondent groups agreed with each statement on HE students’ financial support. Table 4.3 highlights which respondent group was most and least likely to agree with each statement and the proportions involved. From this, we can see that different attitudes to HE student funding were most often associated with respondents’:
• decision to enter HE; • social class;
• family type; and
• the type of educational institution attended.
For instance, those going to university were much more likely than those deciding against HE (Table 4.4) to believe that:
• The abolition of student loans and their replacement with grants would lead to greater participation (81 per cent compared with 60 per cent).
• Borrowing to pay for university education was a worthwhile investment (50 per cent compared with 32 per cent) – indeed non-entrants were the least likely of all respondent groups to agree with this statement (Table 4.3).
• Students worry about the debts they build up while at university (86 per cent compared with 75 per cent) – indeed, somewhat counter-intuitively, those not going to university were the group least likely to agree with this statement.
However, those going to university were less likely than those not going to believe:
• It is not worthwhile getting into debt to pay for HE (14 per cent compared with 38 per cent). • University students should live at home with their parents to save money (22 per cent compared
with 15 per cent).
Overall, entrants were more likely than non-entrants to perceive student funding as a mechanism for investing in their future. Respondents’ social class was another important factor in explaining
differences in attitudes to HE student funding. For instance, those in the lowest social class, where the main income earner was unemployed or had never worked, were far less likely than those in the highest social class to agree that:
• Borrowing money to pay for a university education is a good investment (39 per cent compared with 52 per cent).
By contrast, those from the lowest social class were more likely than those from the highest social class to think that:
• University students have to go into debt (55 per cent compared with 42 per cent) – indeed respondents from the lowest class were the most likely of all groups to agree with this statement. • Students worry about the debts they build up at university (91 per cent compared with 85 per cent). • If student loans were abolished and replaced by grants, more people would go to university (88 per
cent compared with 76 per cent).
These findings suggest that those from lower social classes were far more likely than those from wealthier backgrounds to see HE and the mechanisms for paying for their education as a more risky investment. To participate in HE, they would have to go into debt which they would worry about.
Table 4.3 Variations in attitudes to HE students’ financial support
Statement Most likely to agree Least likely to agree Students worry about the debts 91% - lowest social class 75% - non-HE entrant they build up while at university
If student loans were abolished 93% - lone parents 60% - non-HE entrant and replaced by grants,
more people would go to university
Doing a degree costs too 73% - lone parents 38% - at independent school much money
Borrowing money to pay for a 61% - at independent school 32% - non-HE entrant university education is a
good investment
University students have to go 55% - lowest social class 33% - at independent school into debt
Student loans are a good thing 49% - at independent school 20% - lone parents because they allow students
to enjoy university life
University students should live 26% - non-white 7% - at independent school at home with their parents
to save money
It is not worth getting in debt 9% - at independent school 38% - non-HE entrant just so you can get a degree
Students do not worry about their 16% - lowest social class 3% - lone parents debts while at university because
they will get well-paid jobs when they graduate
Base: All respondents N= 1,953
Table 4.4 Attitudes to HE students’ financial support by decision to enter HE
Percentages
Proportion strongly agree/agree Statement Applied/ Undecided Decided All
intend to not to go apply
Students worry about the debts they 86 80 75 84
build up while at university
If student loans were abolished and 81 63 60 75
replaced by grants, more people would go to university
Doing a degree costs too much money 57 56 49 56
Borrowing money to pay for a university 50 33 32 45
education is a good investment
University students have to go into debt 43 34 41 43
Student loans are a good thing because 39 52 37 40
they allow students to enjoy university life
University students should live at home 15 13 22 16
with their parents to save money
It is not worth getting in debt just so you 14 14 38 17
can get a degree
Students do not worry about their debts 9 11 5 9
while at university because they will get well-paid jobs when they graduate
All (N) 1,393 236 284 1,913
Base: All respondents N= 1,913
4.3.2 Variations in types of attitudes to HE students’ financial support
As discussed above (section 4.2.2), respondents’ opinions on HE students’ financial support could be typified as seeing these arrangements either as a type of long-term investment (factor one) or as a potential deterrent to HE entry (factor two). An examination of the mean scores20for these two contrasting stances revealed that there were significant differences associated with respondents’ characteristics, especially in relation to the view that student funding was an investment (Table 4.5).
The higher the score for factor one in Table 4.5, the more likely the respondent was to believe that accruing debt as a HE student was an investment. By contrast the higher the score on factor two in Table 4.5, the more likely the respondent was to see student debt as a deterrent to HE entry. In Table 4.5, asterisks have indicated statistically significant differences (at the 5 per cent level) between groups.
Thus, Table 4.5 shows that significant differences in the mean scores on respondents’ belief that student financial support was a form of investment (factor one) were associated with their:
• Gender – men were more likely than women to see HE student support arrangements as an investment.
• Religion – non-Muslims and those with no religion were more inclined to believe in the advantageous aspects of student funding than Muslims.
• Age – those under 21 were more likely than older respondents to see HE student funding as an investment.
• Family type – single childless respondents had more positive beliefs about HE student support than those with children and/or a partner.
• Social class – those in the highest social classes were more inclined than those in lower classes to embrace the investment aspects of student financial support.
• Type of educational institution attended – those at independent schools were more likely to view student funding as an investment than those in the state sector but those at state schools were more enthusiastic than those in FE.
• Decision to enter HE – those who had decided to go to university were much more likely to see the long-term positive aspects of student support arrangements than those who had decided not to go or who were still undecided.
The largest differences were associated with the type of educational institution respondents attended. Those at independent schools were far more likely to view HE student funding as an investment in their future than those in the FE sector (60.6 compared with 51.1). However, this was closely followed by social class. Inevitably, the type of educational institution respondents attended reflected their social class. Thus social class was fundamental in understanding respondents’ attitudes to student funding. Factor two contained the statements related to the deterrent effects of HE student financial arrangements.
An examination of the mean scores for factor two in Table 4.5 shows that there were significant differences between respondent groups which were associated with their:
• Gender – women were more inclined than men to view HE student financial support as a deterrent to HE entry.
• Type of educational institution attended – those in the FE sector were more likely than those at school, be they in independent or state schools, to see student funding as a deterrent to HE entry. • Decision to enter HE – those who had decided to go to university were more likely to see student
support arrangements as a deterrent than those who were still undecided, but not more likely than those who had decided not to go.21