Access to higher and further education including the consequences of the recent introduction of top-up fees were central issues in a discussion led by Minister for Further and Higher Education, Bill Rammell MP with Malcolm McVicar of UCLAN, Claire Phipps of the Education Guardian and Gemma Tumelty, NUS.

Our policy roundtables take place under the Chatham House rule, and so the report outlines some of the main themes and issues but without attributing comments to speakers or participants.

All agreed that an aim of Government policy must be to extend access to higher education further. Graduates enjoy a better quality of life in many ways, for example they have monetary and health benefits and greater civic participation. Access is still far too unequal, with the top 20% five times more likely to go to university than the bottom 20%. The participants pointed to crucial barriers to access based on a variety of factors, primarily financial but age, geography, aspiration and further education qualifications were all also important.

There was debate over the impact of the recent introduction of top-up fees on access to higher education of those from lower socio-economic groups. One participant argued that there were 30,000 less students entering universities in this first academic year of top-up fees. It was pointed out that we have actually seen only a very small downturn in applications since the introduction of top-up fees, over a big increase the previous year. Yet that increase can be put down to the number of applicants ensuring their entry to university in the year before top-up fees came into force.

It is certainly too early to fully assess the impact top up fees and their increasing variability will have on access to education, but one participant cautioned that it would be naïve to assume the expense of the best universities won't affect people's choices according to social background and this is something to be very concerned about. There are also particular implications for mature students. One participant claimed that while students would get social cache from attending a more expensive university, it is not clear that they would get 3 or 4 times better education. There already exists a highly fragmented university system, if there is a move towards higher fees this will increase divisions further.

Finance was seen by most participants as a crucial factor in access to universities, with one participant claiming that only those who have support tend to go to university. In the devolved countries where good grants are available, there is not such a problem with access - 60 % of students stay on in Wales, 90% of students do so in Scotland. One participant claimed that outreach programmes are having an effect, but they are too slow, while another argued that new student finance initiatives benefit the poorest children the most.

There was concern that the implications of greater costs for students had not fully been thought through. Students are working more than ever before to pay their way through university. Some patterns are emerging: graduates are on average owning property later in life, contributing much less much later to pensions and are marrying later. Moreover the debt of students is a major factor not given enough attention.

The newer universities were seen as better at widening access to those from lower socio-economic groups, but they then tend to have higher drop-out rates, 20% in some areas. These universities suffer unfairly in the marketplace because league tables are used by 'better' universities to bash those in the bottom half. One participant suggested that admissions policies should look more at potential rather than marks.

The discussion also addressed the two-tier nature of further education, and considered what impact this had on access to higher education. Many saw the Government's failure to accept Tomlinson's recommendations in full as a key to the divide in status between traditional and vocational qualifications. Although it was pointed out that 90% of Tomlinson's recommendations were taken up, the case was made that the crucial 10%, accepted by almost all in the education world, has ensured that A-Level students still remain much more likely to go on to university. The pitfalls of the current vocational qualifications and any attempts to re-brand them will remain that other qualifications apart from A-Levels are for 'other people's children'.

Upskilling the current workforce was also seen as a crucial issue to address, since 70% of the workforce of 2020 are currently already at work. The work-based learning route was mentioned as beneficial in light of this, as it allows upskilling to take place within the workplace. It was noted that we need a broader measure for work-based learning and this is a question of fundamental economic necessity, not just social altruism.

Concerns were voiced that there is not enough support for part time undergraduates, who are balancing a job with higher education. Yet it was argued that for part-time undergraduates there has been a 27% increase in the student grant and 41% of part timers have their fees paid by employers.

However, one participant suggested that the more everyone has a degree, the more other factors may separate people in the workplace.