'Culture and education … are hugely important in the affirmation of differences between groups …and in the reproduction of those differences' – Pierre Bourdieu

Dirk Van Damme, the OECD's resident higher education expert, recently stated that the 'financial support mechanisms that compensate students from less well-off families in higher education have done little to widen access to higher education'. Van Damme points out that, while universities have been transformed from elite to mass educational institutions, system expansion has not resulted in more equal education opportunities. Those at the bottom of the social ladder remain deprived of access to higher education despite attempts by governments to provide them more financial support. But does it follow that national policies on fees and support make little difference to disadvantaged students?

What students pay to study, and the support they receive, has been highlighted by Eurydice as a key aspect of the social dimension of higher education. Whatever the economic and political reality in a country, issues about fees are often highly charged, and recent student protests over proposed fees in South Africa are one recent case to illustrate this point. Altering the balance of fees and support is one of the key levers that governments are able to pull in an age when higher education institutions enjoy substantial autonomy. But in which direction should the levers be pulled to help the disadvantaged? 

Every year since 2011, the Eurydice network publishes an annual report showing the state of higher education fees and financial support in each European country. The most striking feature is just how different national approaches to fees and support actually are. 

Combining the two dimensions of fees and support gives four main types of system. Firstly, there are countries that charge relatively high fees to the majority of students, while a small number of students, determined by criteria such as financial need or academic performance, receive support in the form of grants. These countries, including Italy, Spain, Latvia, Lithuania and Switzerland, can be considered as offering 'targeted support'.

A second type of system is where fees are high, but financial support is also widespread. This is the case in the United Kingdom (England, Wales and Northern Ireland). Here, although fees around EUR 12 000 per year are charged to all students, they are not actually paid until after graduation – and even then, graduates pay only a percentage of earnings above a given salary threshold. Close to 60 % of first cycle students also receive grants, and all students are able to take out loans. Hence, although students may emerge from higher education with high levels of debt, they can at least enjoy their years in higher education with money in their pocket. So this model could be summarised as 'study now, pay later'.

In opposition to these first two models is a third model where fees are low or non-existent, and student support is widespread. This is the model of Nordic systems and is also applicable to Cyprus, Malta and Scotland. These systems, aiming to support all students equally, may be described as 'support for all'.

The last system type combines low levels of fees with low levels of support. This approach could be thought of as a 'zero funding' model, and is to be found in some the countries of the Western Balkans.  Which of these models is most advantageous for disadvantaged students? Many would intuitively think that the 'support for all' model should favour widened participation. Yet statistics show that countries with this approach still face problems attracting disadvantaged students. For example, if participation rates of disadvantaged students are compared in Scotland (support for all) and England (study now, pay later), there are no significant differences, and neither system can claim any great success. 

Perhaps the main point to retain from this, however, is that, whatever the fee and support model, few of our higher education systems have managed to open up significantly to disadvantaged groups. While we may hold different opinions on fees and support, policy change in this area alone can have only a marginal impact on improving educational inequity. If we want to make real change, we need to tackle the roots of inequity and disadvantage in our education systems much earlier and much more profoundly, starting at the level of early childhood education. Pierre Bourdieu highlighted the role of education systems in reproducing social difference more than thirty years ago. Surely it is high time to consider seriously how to implement policies that do better in providing all children with equal educational opportunities.

Authors: David Crosier and Elisa Simeoni