Expressions of student debt aversion and tolerance among academically able young people in low‐participation English schools

Abstract

The 2012 rise in student fees, from £3375 to £9000 per year, made England one of the costliest places to attend university in the world. Drawing on evidence from higher attaining young people attending low-participation schools, this paper renews established types of student debt aversion and tolerance, with sensitivity towards whether they reflect the (financial) 'price' of participation or the (cultural, social) 'cost' of participation. Findings point to a complex web of inter-related factors informing a decision-making process that is rational, but often lacking detailed knowledge of key variables, such as the range of bursaries and grants available and the terms of the loan repayment. The Ellsburg Paradox is invoked to explain the tendency of some young people to self-exclude, contrary to rational choice theory. For those without family support or precedent, participation is not greatly incentivised by assumed lifestyle and identity gains, and generous repayment concessions for low-earning graduates do not necessarily ease anxiety about debt. Data point to a heightened awareness of labour market alternatives and of continued disquiet, both academic and non-academic, about 'fitting in' at university. Naturally, higher fees demand a recalculation of return-on-investment estimates for all young people. However, the participation 'bet' of those from low-participation schools is framed in ways unacknowledged by (and sometimes discordant with) dominant public discourses.

Is undergraduate debt an impediment to postgraduate enrolment in England?

“…Personality emerges as more salient than socio-economic background in considering debt aversion (Harrison & Chudry, 2011;Harrison et al, 2015b). Jones (2016) argues that debt aversion in the narratives of high-ability, socio-Undergraduate debt and postgraduate enrolment 1151 economically disadvantaged young people relates to the social and cultural, rather than financial, costs of higher education participation.…”

Student budgets and widening participation: Comparative experiences of finance in low and higher income undergraduates at a northern red brick university

“…Given the size of the debt, and the speed at which policy changed direction, there has been much concern about the impact that the tuition fee and corresponding increased borrowing would have on inequality and social mobility (Sutton Trust, ). The participation gap between students from more and less advantaged backgrounds is consistently wide, and much academic interest has sought to explore how the changes in tuition fees might impact on both entry rates and outcomes (Dearden, Fitzsimons, & Wyness, ; Jones, ; Wilkins, Shams, & Huisman, ). This work was a continuation of a body of literature that, in the face of previous changes in the system of funding HE, had already attempted to identify likely impacts on low income groups (Boliver, ; Callender & Jackson, , ; Mangan, Hughes, & Slack, ).…”

“…Whilst it is not possible to determine how many lower income students were put off by the post‐2012 changes, the relationship between debt aversion and university entry may have been overstated, and graduate numbers have not demonstrated a decline (c.f., Antonucci, ; Callender & Mason, ; Harrison, Chudry, Waller, & Hatt, ; Hordósy & Clark, in press; Jones, ; Usher, ). However, the debt associated with the cost of tuition is compounded by the cost of living whilst at university—and there is a growing evidence base, both in the UK and elsewhere, to suggest that these costs can have a detrimental impact on performance and retention (Dougherty & Callender, ; Goldrick‐Rab, ; Richardson, Elliott, Roberts, & Jansen, ).…”

“…1 Given the size of the debt, and the speed at which policy changed direction, there has been much concern about the impact that the tuition fee and corresponding increased borrowing would have on inequality and social mobility (Sutton Trust, 2012). The participation gap between students from more and less advantaged backgrounds is consistently wide, and much academic interest has sought to explore how the changes in tuition fees might impact on both entry rates and outcomes (Dearden, Fitzsimons, & Wyness, 2011;Jones, 2016;Wilkins, Shams, & Huisman, 2013).…”

Deterred by debt? Young people, schools and the escalating cost of UK higher education

“…The complexity which characterises young people's views and responses to the prospect of debt cannot, however, be overlooked. Jones's (2016) important study revealed the highly complex and sometimes contradictory nature of young people's views on the costs and price of university participation. These views invariably included indifference, denial, aversion and tolerance, combined with limited understanding of the financial costs involved and support available for university students.…”