Studies in Higher Education

Vol. 33, No. 4, August 2008, 405429

Does the fear of debt constrain choice of university and subject of study?
Claire Callendera* and Jonathan Jacksonb
a

Birkbeck, University of London, UK; bLondon School of Economics, UK

Studies
10.1080/03075070802211802
CSHE_A_321347.sgm
0307-5079
Original
Taylor
402008
33
Prof.
c.callender@bbk.ac.uk
000002008
ClaireCallender
and
&
inArticle
Francis
Higher
(print)/1470-174X
FrancisEducation (online)

The new student funding regime introduced by the 2004 Higher Education Act in
England is predicated on the accumulation of student debt. Variable tuition fees, repaid
by student loans, will increase average student loan debt on graduation. This article
examines how fear of debt and financial constraints affect prospective students choices
of where and what to study. Using data derived from a survey of about 2000 prospective
students, it shows that financial issues constrain lower social class students choice of
university far more than those from other social classes. It demonstrates that fear of debt
is related to two key financially-driven decisions applying to a university with low
living costs, and applying to one with good term-time employment opportunities but
only for students from low-income families. However, concerns about debt do not
influence their choice of qualification and subject. The article concludes that low-income
students are more likely than their wealthier peers to perceive the costs of higher
education as a debt rather than an investment.

Introduction
The 2004 Higher Education Act heralds a radical shift in Englands higher education funding, and particularly in student finances. The Act, which came into force in 2006/2007, has
deregulated undergraduate tuition fees and introduced a quasi-market in higher education.
Universities in 2006/2007 can charge up to a maximum of 3000 for any undergraduate
course. However, all students, irrespective of their familys income, now pay tuition fees.
So, the means-tested flat rate tuition fees paid up front introduced in 1998 have been replaced
with deferred fees repaid after graduation via an optional student loan. Consequently,
students now can take out a loan for both their living costs and their tuition fees. And it is
anticipated that the take up of loans for tuition will be the same as the take up of loans for
maintenance, around 80%. Thus, the new student funding system is increasingly predicated
on the accumulation of debt.
Concerns about the effect of the proposed changes on widening participation, social
mobility and social class differentials prompted various schemes specifically aimed at
supporting students from low-income backgrounds. First, a means-tested grant of up to 2700
was re-introduced. Full grants are paid to students from households with incomes of 17,500
or less, which represents about 85% of Britains median household income, and from 2008/
2009 this income threshold will rise to 25,000. Second, student debt is to be written off
after 25 years, which is an important safety net for low earning graduates, and especially
for women with interrupted patterns of labour market participation due to childbearing and
rearing. Finally, universities charging the maximum tuition fees must give low-income
*Corresponding author. Email: c.callender@bbk.ac.uk
ISSN 0307-5079 print/ISSN 1470-174X online
2008 Society for Research into Higher Education
DOI: 10.1080/03075070802211802
http://www.informaworld.com

406

C. Callender and J. Jackson

students non-repayable bursaries of 300 a year to supplement their state-funded grants and
maintenance loans. On top of this mandatory minimum, the government has also encouraged
universities to provide additional discretionary financial support to promote widening participation.
It is far too early to assess the impact of the 2004 Higher Education Act on the higher
education sector, or on students, as it only came into force in 2006/2007. Despite the new
grants and mandatory bursaries for low-income students, however, there is little doubt that
the introduction of variable tuition fees, paid for via an additional student loan, will increase
average debt on graduation (and the length of time it takes students to pay off these debts).
Estimates of this rise vary substantially. For instance, the government suggests that debt will
increase to 15,000 for the first cohort of fee payers (Department for Education and Skills
2003c), while Blanden and Fitzsimons (2007) believe it will be higher, in the region of
20,000. This will be double the average level of debt on graduation previously for the richest students and one and a half times higher for the poorest students. To put this sum in
perspective, it means that around a half of students will be borrowing more money than their
families annual income. Rising debt is also likely to change the relationship between the
costs and benefits of higher education, although the buoyancy of the graduate labour market
will mediate this.
The coming years, therefore, will see much interest in the intended and unintended
consequences of these reforms. Of particular interest will be their impact on existing
social class inequalities in patterns of participation, including choice of university and
course. This is the focus of this article. It aims to examine the potential impact of the
reforms on students. Specifically, it concentrates on attitudes to debt and the costs of
higher education. Our contention is that if concerns about debt and the costs of higher
education proved to be an issue for potential students, at a time when both debt and
costs were relatively low (the time of our survey), then, all things being equal, they are
likely to be even more of an issue once both rise as a result of the 2004 Higher Education Act.
This article is based on data derived from a national survey of just under 2000 final year
students in further education colleges and school sixth forms. The study investigated
prospective higher education students attitudes to debt, higher education and student
support, and their impact on participation and choices (Callender 2003). We have already
reported that debt aversion deterred people from the lower social classes from applying to
university, but not middle-class or upper-class students (Callender and Jackson 2005). A
deterrent effect held even after controlling for students educational ability, their attitudes
towards the benefits of going to university, their cultural beliefs, and a range of socioeconomic factors. There is, therefore, clear evidence that students from lower-income
families are more sensitive to the costs of higher education than students from wealthier
backgrounds. They are thus more likely to see university in terms of unacceptable debt
accrual rather than a beneficial investment.
Yet to understand the full impact of debt on prospective students and their participation,
we need to go beyond the question of whether or not they decide to enter higher education.
Such a focus masks other more subtle and hidden disadvantages encountered by prospective
students from low-income backgrounds. This is because such students exhibit a very
complex web of attitudes towards money and debt, and employ a range of strategies for debt
avoidance and to reduce the costs of higher education (Forsyth and Furlong 2000, 2003).
Such strategies include choosing to stay in the family home whilst at university, applying to
a university in an area with cheap living costs or where there are good term-time employment opportunities, or picking a shorter course or particular subject at a less prestigious

Studies in Higher Education

407

institution. All these financial coping mechanisms in turn affect which university a student
chooses.
This article investigates whether choice of university and degree is constrained by
concerns about the cost of higher education, and whether this constraint is greater among
students from lower social class families compared to those from the middle and upper
classes. It also considers what attitudes drive these financially-constrained decisions, distinguishing between those that reflect different valuations of the returns of higher education
and those based on differences in attitudes towards debt. If an unwillingness to enter into a
large amount of debt drives these decisions and following Callender and Jackson (2005),
if this is particularly so for students from low-income families then the new variable fees
may exacerbate class differentials in higher education. Finally, the article assesses whether
fear of debt deters people from choosing certain types of qualification and pursuing certain
subject areas, particularly for students from low-income families.
By way of introduction, the article examines current government rhetoric on student
choice and some of the assumptions underpinning their thinking. It then explores existing
research on student choice, especially the role of material constraints, students methods for
dealing with limited resources and concerns about accumulating debt. Following this, the
article reports on the main findings from the survey, and demonstrates how financial issues
and fear of debt constrain the choice of university for would-be students from low social
classes, but not for those from other classes (choice of qualification does not show this
dynamic, however). Finally, the article considers some implications of the findings for
student funding policies.
Government rhetoric on student choice
The White Paper, The future of higher education (Department for Education and Skills,
2003a) framed the issue of student choice in very narrow terms, reflecting the notion of
higher education as a market and students as consumers. Here choice is about competition
within higher education, legitimising an expanding higher education quasi-market.
The Government believes that student choice will be an increasingly important driver of
teaching quality, as students choose the good-quality courses that will give them the
higher-level skills that they will need during their working life. But student choice can only
drive quality up successfully if it is underpinned by robust information. (Department for
Education and Skills, 2003a, para. 4.1, 47)

Access to such information, however, raises broader issues about both the dissemination
of knowledge and flows of information and, in turn, about respondents cultural capital and
social networks. The above quote assumes that having information and the correct sort of
information is central to decision making. Yet, this assumption ignores the whole context
within which decisions and choices are made. As Hutchings (2003, 98) observed in relation
to initial entry decisions:
the relationship between information and decision-making appears much less straightforward than is assumed People having access to identical information about higher education
may construct it to come to entirely different decisions about whether or not to apply to university. These reflect their perceptions of the providers of the information, as well as a whole range
of contextual and identity factors.

In addition, this assumption fails to recognise that some sources of information are
considered more trustworthy than others. In our study, students from lower social classes

408

C. Callender and J. Jackson

relied more heavily on unofficial and informal sources of information such as their
friends and family, the grapevine, word of mouth and informal networks (Callender
2003). Unlike their wealthier peers, they were less likely to supplement this with knowledge derived from official and formal information sources such as the government or
higher education institutions. Consequently, the governments strategy of filling the
information gap primarily through formal sources of knowledge may not have the
desired effects.
The White Papers accompanying document, Widening Participation in Higher
Education (Department for Education and Skills 2003b), similarly emphasises the need for
students to make well-informed choices and for better information, advice and guidance,
as does the governments most recent review of widening participation policy (Department
for Education and Skills 2006). It discusses the social class inequalities in patterns of higher
education applications, and the under-representation of students from low-income backgrounds applying to the most prestigious universities. The problem, it concludes, is one of
aspiration: with a significant number choosing not to apply to those universities for which
there is strong competition for places, but which may provide a good match to their talents
(Department for Education and Skills 2003b, 11). The rhetoric again calls on the language
of markets but places the mismatch, or market failure, in a lack of aspiration. The solution,
therefore, lies in finding better ways to reach out to potential students from a wider
range of backgrounds and encourage them to apply (Department for Education and Skills
2003b, 12).
Underpinning the first quote from Widening Participation is the assumption that, if
students behaved appropriately, the number and quality of applicants will match the
number and quality of places available: an unrealistic proposition. Not all students can
apply to, or will be accepted to, the elite institutions. Being realistic and choosing a
local institution, or one other than the most selective, may be a better choice for some,
and make more sense. This assumption also characterises students as making irrational
choices. This type of discourse locates their lack of aspiration, and the concomitant lack
of self-esteem, as individual problems, ignoring the structural and cultural factors and
inequalities which influence their aspirations. It espouses a very narrow notion of student
choice and a very superficial understanding of how and why students limit their
choices.
Both these two government documents link student choice to financial issues hence
the reform of student support. The government acknowledges that with the introduction of
variable fees, students from low-income backgrounds, and their families, will be concerned
about the affordability of studying for a degree (Department for Education and Skills
2003b, 18). Despite the new funding system of grants and deferred fees repaid by lowinterest student loans there is a risk that potential students may be concerned about
the level of debt they may incur and perceive that higher education is not affordable
(Department for Education and Skills 2003b, 18). It justifies its new policies by calling upon
arguments about the financial returns of higher education. Yet, it ignores how opportunities
and constraints affect investment decisions and the accrual of benefits. Moreover, the policy
rhetoric focuses exclusively on higher education as a private investment for private returns,
rather than as a public investment for public returns.
In short, concerns about affordability and debt are portrayed in these government
documents both as financial barriers to participation and as misplaced perceptions. Once
these are removed, via new student funding provision and better information, equal
access and widening participation will follow. As we will show, this is not necessarily
the case.

Studies in Higher Education

409

The research evidence

Choices are bounded by the framework of opportunities and constraints the person finds herself
in, her external circumstances. However, she is also circumscribed by an internalized framework which makes some possibilities inconceivable, others improbable and a limited range
acceptable. (Reay, David, and Ball 2005, 27)

There is a growing body of research examining the complex social, economic and cultural
factors and inequalities underpinning working class educational choices, including their
choice of higher education institution, subject and qualification. Existing studies suggest
that financial concerns play a major role in the decision-making process of where and what
to study (Connor et al. 1999, 2001; Forsyth and Furlong, 2000, 2003; Archer, Hutchings,
and Ross 2003; Reay, David, and Ball 2005). Similarly, there is a consensus in this literature
that prospective students from lower socio-economic backgrounds are more likely than
those from better-off families to report that their choices are constrained by the costs of
higher education. In addition, several of these studies cite fear of debt and the prospects of
building up large debts, particularly student loan debt, as a factor impacting on their choices,
especially for those from low socio-economic groups.
For example, Forsyth and Furlongs longitudinal (2000, 2003) study of Scottish disadvantaged young people found that those who decide to enter higher education, limit their
options of where and what to study because of the extra financial, geographical and social
barriers they face. They are more likely than their more advantaged peers to enrol in less
advanced and prestigious courses at lower status institutions. In particular, because of a lack
of funds and debt aversion, they opt for shorter courses, nearer their home and in subjects
that guaranteed a job at the end of their course. Knowles (2000) and Connor et al. (1999)
found similar behaviour among low-income university applicants in response to the costs of
higher education.
A common strategy used by students concerned about the costs of higher education and
debt is to live near or at the parental home while studying. This strategy restricts students
choices, particularly those of low-income students, from minority ethnic groups and in
London (Callender and Wilkinson 2003). Reay, David, and Ball (2005) point to working
class localism. Material circumstances meant that most working class higher education
applicants in their study operated within a narrow circumscribed space of choice, where the
location of the institution was crucial because of the costs of accommodation and commuting. Geography determines choice for a majority of working class students (Reay, David,
and Ball 2005, 86), but not for their middle class peers.
Over the last decade, the proportion of students living at home rose from 12 to 20%,
while the proportion living in university accommodation fell by the same proportion from
35 to 27% (Ramsden 2006). The average distance between a students home and their higher
education institution is correlated with their social class. Students from professional families
travel the longest distances and those from unskilled the shortest (Higher Education Funding
Council for England 2001) and this pattern is becoming more entrenched (Farr 2001).
Living at or near home particularly restricts the options of students from low-income
families living in regions with limited higher education provision (Forsyth and Furlong
2003). In the UK, there is no one body with the power or responsibility to oversee comprehensive provision or to ensure a full range of courses are offered in all regions. A student
who has to attend their local university will have more limited choices, and may not be able
to take the subject or course they want.
Living at home has other consequences for students once at university, and once they
graduate. For example, new research on students friendships (Callender and Day Slater,

410

C. Callender and J. Jackson

forthcoming) show that students living at home found it more difficult to make friends, had
less enjoyable and diverse social lives, and were less involved in university-based activities
than those living away from home. Most frequently, they relied on their pre-university
friends, rather than branching out and making new university-based friendships and
networks. So studying became an extension of their existing lives rather than a break from
it. Consequently, many of these students missed out on certain social aspects of university
life, and on learning through informal interaction and socialising with their fellow students.
In addition, Furlong and Cartmel (2005) reveal that students who remained in their locality
while at university were discouraged from operating in a national graduate labour market,
and ended up with lower paying local jobs. Thus, we see how social mobility, a key role of
higher education, in part, is predicated on geographical mobility.
A further means of dealing with the costs of higher education and reducing borrowing
is to get a part-time job while studying. In the UK, well over a half of all students have paid
work during term-time, and a disproportionate number come from the most disadvantaged
backgrounds. As a recent study showed, they worked because they needed the money for
basic essentials; could not manage on their student loans; and could not rely on their
families for support, unlike their more affluent peers. And a large minority worked to avoid
building up debt (Van Dyke, Little, and Callender 2005).
The decision to work is not an alternative to living at home, but is positively associated
with it: those living at home have the highest term-time employment rates (Finch et al.
2006; Callender and Wilkinson 2003). Some students decide to go to their local university
partly because they want to continue in the jobs they had before entering university.
Term-time working, like living at home, is similarly restrictive. Most serious is its detrimental effects on students academic attainment. The more hours students work, the greater
the detrimental effect on their course marks and final degree results, even after controlling
for their academic ability and other factors that might affect their results. Consequently,
students working the average number of hours a week (15 hours) are a third less like to get
a first or upper second class degree result than an identical non-working student (Callender
2008). Purcell et al.s (2005) research on graduates confirms the impact of term-time work
on academic attainment. They also show that students poorer degree results, arising from
term-time employment, led to lower paid jobs on graduation which harmed their careers,
especially students from the lowest social classes.
These studies provide invaluable insights into the relationship between student choice
and financial constraints. However, none of them single out and quantify the links between
students attitudes towards debt and how these, and their debt avoidance strategies, impact
on the choices of students from different social classes. Nor do they incorporate prospective
students wide- ranging attitudes to debt. There are no comprehensive studies in the Britain
that do this in a methodologically robust way, controlling for demographics, orientation
towards the benefits of going to university, encouragement received from family and
friends, and other factors. Ideally, such a study would be longitudinal, tracking individuals
from the whole of the UK and of all social classes over time.
The absence of suitable data sets to conduct such studies means that it is not possible to
reach any firm conclusions about the impact of debt on prospective students actual behaviour, choices and decision-making. However, it is possible to explore potential students
attitudes toward debt from cross-sectional studies. Yet, it is acknowledged that the relationship between attitudes and actual behaviour is not clear, given both cognitive dissonance
theory (Festinger 1962) and self-perception theory (Bem 1972).
The gaps in the existing research prompted this study. It is not the ideal, longitudinal
study. However, unlike other research, it focuses on prospective students, and specifically

Studies in Higher Education

411

explores the relationship between their attitudes to debt and how their decisions about
university are constrained by financial issues indeed it is the first study to do so. This is
particularly important, given the new student funding systems increasing reliance on
student loans, and the likely increase in student debt with the introduction of variable
fees.
The study
The survey
In 2002, questionnaires were administered to final-year students from a stratified random
sample of British further education colleges and sixth forms, all of whom were studying for
qualifications that permit entry to university. All schools (41) and (60) colleges at the 101
sampling points agreed to take part; 81% of the schools and colleges returned a batch of
completed questionnaires. Teachers distributed an in-class questionnaire; there was a 55%
response rate among the pupils (n = 1954). Final data were weighted to the national profile
of educational establishment and qualification type. More details including the sampling
strategy may be found in Callender (2003).
The sample
Table 1 provides a summary of the sample characteristics of those students who had decided
to apply to university. The majority of the sample fell into the following categories: aged 21
or under (90%); white (77%); and single and childless (93%). Women outnumbered men
(60% compared to 40%). Over half the sample (59%) came from families where the main
breadwinner was either managerial and professional, intermediate or small employer;
just over a quarter (26%) were from the other three social classes; data on class were not
available for 15% of the sample.
Two-thirds of the respondents were studying in the further education sector, either attending a further education or sixth form college slightly above the UK average (Table 1). Just
over a quarter of the sample attended state secondary schools, leaving less than one in ten
in an independent school. More than half of all respondents were taking A- or A/S-levels or
Scottish Highers the most common academic Level 3 qualifications with most of the rest
studying for some type of Level 3 vocational qualification. Just under one-quarter of those
studying A-levels were predicted to achieve relatively high grades (BBC+).
Table 1 also shows the data broken down by low, medium and high social class (using
the National Statistics Socio-economic Classification). Around one-third (33%) of those
from the managerial and professional class were expecting BBC+ grades or higher in A/ASlevels/Scottish Highers, compared with around one-in-seven (15%) of those from lowincome families where the main earner in the household was in a semi-routine or routine
profession, or had never worked, or was in long-term unemployment. Equally, around onein-seven (15%) of those in the higher social class attended an independent school, compared
to one-in-fifty (2%) of those from low-income families.
Measuring key variables
Choice of university
Respondents were asked the following: To what extent has the cost of going to university
affected any of your decisions or ideas about the following? Because of the cost I am going

412

C. Callender and J. Jackson

Table 1.

Sample characteristics of students who had decided to go to university.

Social class1
Characteristic

Low SES (%) Middle SES (%) High SES (%) Total (%)

Gender
Male
Female

33
67

36
64

45
55

40
60

Age
Under 21
Over 21

16
84

9
91

6
94

90
10

Ethnic origin
White
Non-white

68
32

77
23

88
12

77
23

100

39
6
14
8
13
5
15

Social class
Managerial and professional
Intermediate
Small employee
Lower supervisory and technical
Semi-routine and routine
Never worked/long-term unemployed
Missing

100
100
100
100
100

Marital status
Single
Married/co-habiting
Widowed/separated/divorced
Not stated

91
6
3
0

92
5
1
1

95
4
1
0

93
5
1
1

Family type
Single, childless
Couple, childless
Single, living with children
Couple, living with children

87
6
1
6

94
1
1
4

95
1
1
3

93
2
1
3

Type of educational institution

State secondary high school
Independent high school
Sixth form colleges
Further Education college2

26
2
10
63

27
8
8
57

33
15
12
40

29
9
10
52

Qualification aim
A/AS-levels/Scottish Highers3
NVQ/GNVQ/SVQ Level 3/AVCEs4
Access course
Other FE qualification

38
52
6
4

56
35
4
4

67
27
3
3

56
37
4
3

Expected A-Level/Highers Grade5

=>280 (BBC+)
1279 (<BBC)

14
14

21
21

33
21

23
19

Studies in Higher Education

Table 1.

413

(Continued.)
Social class1
Characteristic

Not stated
Not doing A-Level/Highers
N (weighted)

Low SES (%) Middle SES (%) High SES (%) Total (%)
8
64

11
46

11
36

11
47

231

379

529

1348

Notes: The total includes all respondents who answered these questions; the class breakdown omits those for
whom no data on social class were available.
1
The measure of social class measure was derived from a variant of the UKs Office of National Statistics Social
Economic Class schema. The lower-income group was from a family where the main earner in the household
was in a semi-routine or routine profession, or had never worked, or was in long-term unemployment. The
medium class group was comprised of those where the chief earner was in an intermediate or lower-supervisory/
technical occupation or was a small employer or own account worker. The upper class group contained those
where the main earner was in managerial or professional employment. However, one should not treat these
categories as strictly hierarchically ordered, nor reflecting mutual exclusivity in terms of bands of income or other
criteria; there may be significant overlap on many of the criteria that determine social class between individuals
in each of the groups
2
Further Education Colleges (FEC) are major providers of post-compulsory academic and vocational education
serving their local community.
3
A-Levels are a national General Certificate of Education academic qualification usually taken in the optional
final two years of high schooling and are traditionally, a prerequisite for university entry. Scottish Highers are the
equivalent in Scotland.
4
National Vocational Qualifications are vocational awards in England and Wales that are achieved through
assessment and training. In Scotland they are known as Scottish Vocational Qualification (SVQ).
5
The scores are based on the grades achieved in A-Levels or equivalent qualifications

to or I am thinking about: Respondents could tick any of the following statements that
applied to them:

Applying to universities nearer my home.

Taking a subject with better employment prospects.
Living at home with my parents while at university.
Applying to universities in areas where there are good opportunities for term-time
employment.
Applying to universities in areas where the cost of living is lower.
Taking a shorter course.
Doing a vocational job-related course rather than an academic course.
Applying to a new university rather than an old university.
Doing a part-time course.

Choice of qualification and subject

Respondents who had decided to apply to university were first asked what type of qualification they hoped to pursue (first degree, foundation degree, HND/HNC, Dip HE, other)
and what subject they hoped to take (a wide range of options were given).
Measuring perceived benefits of going to university
Student attitudes towards the social, lifestyle and experiential benefits of going to university
were measured using three Likert statements [strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor
disagree, disagree, strongly disagree]:

414

C. Callender and J. Jackson

Going to university is a worthwhile experience.

One of the best aspects of going to university is developing yourself as a person.
Some of the best aspects of going to university are meeting new people and the social life.

Attitudes towards long-term career and financial benefits were measured using two
statements:

You need a university degree to get a decent job.

In the long term you benefit financially from going to university.

An index was created for each attitude by adding up respondents responses to each of
the relevant items, thus producing one indicator for attitudes towards social benefits and
another indicator for attitudes towards financial benefits.
Measuring debt attitudes
Existing studies adopt simplistic measures of debt, such as whether worries about debt
affected a particular decision. Such measures do not capture in any detail how students feel
about debt and what it means to them. In our measure of debt, we try to tap these beliefs
using validated indicators. Two aspects of debt are measured: general levels of fear of debt,
and a costbenefit balance judgement concerning university. General fear of debt was
measured using the following attitude statements:

Owing money is basically wrong.

There is no excuse for borrowing money.
You should always save up first before buying something.

Responses were combined into a single index using exploratory factor analysis, saving the
resulting factor scores into one variable (see Callender and Jackson 2005).
The same procedure generated a second variable that reflected a balance of the perceived
costs and perceived benefits of going to university. The attitude statements used were:

Borrowing money to pay for a university education is a good investment.

Student loans are a good thing because it allows students to enjoy university life.
Students do not worry about their debts while at university because they will get
well-paid jobs when they graduate.
It is not worth getting in debt just so you can get a degree (recoded).

Together these measures solicit some kind of balance of their perceptions of the debts they
might accrue against their attitudes towards the short-term and longer-term benefits of
higher education.
Results
Descriptive statistics
The influence of higher education costs on choice of university
Table 2 shows that respondents reported that financial issues influenced some decisions far
more than others. A half of all respondents were considering a university nearer their home

Studies in Higher Education

Table 2.

415

The cost of university and key higher education decisions, by social class.

To what extent has the cost of going to university affected any of your
decisions or ideas about the following?

Percentage who said cost had

made them consider each
decision

Because of the cost I am going to, or I am thinking about:

Low Middle High

SES
SES
SES Total

Applying to universities nearer my home**

Taking a subject with better employment prospects
Living at home with my parents while at university**
Applying to universities in areas where there are good opportunities
for term-time employment
Applying to universities in areas where the cost of living is lower
Taking a shorter course
Doing a vocational job-related course rather than an academic course
Applying to a new university rather than an old university
Doing a part-time course

66
43
43
35

56
41
35
30

39
37
24
31

50
37
32
29

28
8
5
3
3

23
6
7
7
2

27
4
8
8
1

26
6
7
7
2

Notes: Base n = 1348.

The total includes all respondents who answered these questions; the class breakdown omits those for whom no
data on social class were available
**Statistically significant at the 0.01 level according to the chi-square test of independence.

for this reason, but only 2% were thinking of doing a part-time course rather than a full time
one. Family was a source of financial support for a good proportion of respondents, with
another third considering living at home while at university. In addition, just under a third
of entrants had decided to apply or was thinking of applying to universities in areas where
there were good opportunities for term-time employment (29%). Finances also influenced
the subject they were intending to study: over a third were planning to take a subject with
good employment prospects (37%); while smaller proportions reported thinking about
taking a shorter course (6%) and doing a vocational job-related course rather than an
academic course (7%).
Class was an important factor in these decisions (Table 2). Two-in-three of those from
lower-income families reported that they were considering applying to a university nearer
their family home to save money; this compared with two-in-five of those from the higher
social class.
Choice of qualification by social class
Table 3 shows that most respondents who had decided to apply to university hoped to
pursue a first degree. This is particularly the case for students from the medium and higher
social classes. Issues about subject choice are discussed later in the article, in the concluding
section.
Modelling choice of university
So far we have seen that significant numbers of students intending to go to university stated
that cost had influenced their decisions about which university to apply to and what to study.
We have also seen that students from lower-income families were more likely to report a
financial constraint on university choice.

416
Table 3.

C. Callender and J. Jackson

Choice of qualification and subject by social class.

First degree (e.g. BA, BSc)**

Foundation degree
HND/HNC**
Dip HE
Other
Medicine pure
Science
Maths, engineering and technology
Business
Social sciences
Education
Law
Humanities**
Creative arts
Other
Medicine nursing**

Low SES (%)

Middle SES (%)

High SES (%)

Total (%)

64
6
24
5
2
7
3
16
19
13
15
3
3
6
8
7

81
3
11
5
1
7
5
14
18
13
9
5
9
6
8
7

85
1
8
3
3
9
6
11
17
16
9
4
11
5
10
4

79
2
12
4
2
8
5
13
18
14
10
4
9
6
9
5

Notes: Base n = 1348.

HND, Higher National Diploma; HNC, Higher National Certificate; DipHE, Diploma in Higher Education.
**Statistically significant at the 0.01 level according to the chi-square test of independence.

In the rest of this section we investigate the factors associated students choices. We
focus on social class, attitudes towards costs and benefits of higher education, and
general fear of debt. Do perceptions of the cost of higher education drive the desire to
reduce the amount of debt one accrues by adopting cost saving measures? Or is the issue
one of perceived benefit? And are perceptions of costs and benefits important in
constraining university choice in each of the social class groups? We examine whether
debt aversion plays a particularly strong role for the lowest social classes relative to the
other classes.
Social class and attitudes towards costs, benefits and debt
Before examining whether fear of debt and other factors were associated with decisions on
higher education, it was important to establish whether fear of debt, the perception of benefits and the balance of benefit against cost were each related to social class.
Table 4 shows that those from the lower-income group were slightly more fearful of debt
than those in the middle and upper classes. Equally, they were more likely to rate the costs
of going to university higher than the benefits. However, there were no statistically significant differences in attitudes towards either the social benefits of higher education or the
long-term financial benefits.
The strategy for analysis
We estimated logistic regression models to predict whether respondents had or had not
made each of a number of different decisions because of the cost of going to university.
We tested two models. The first specified main effects of: (a) general fear of debt, (b)

Studies in Higher Education

417

Table 4. Associations between social class and (a) general debt aversion, (b) cost and benefit
balance of university, (c) social benefits of university, and (d) long-term financial benefits of
university.
95% CI for
mean
Social
class

Mean

SD

SE

Lower Upper
bound bound Minimum Maximum

0.096 0.829 0.048 0.191 0.001

Low
Medium 0.094 0.767 0.033 0.029 0.160
0.143 0.782 0.031 0.081 0.205
High

2.192
2.192
2.192

1.817
1.817
1.817

0.132 0.860 0.050 0.034

Balance between the costs Low
and benefits of going to Medium 0.047 0.770 0.034 0.115
0.044 0.804 0.032 0.108
university [high scores High
= cost outweighs the
benefit] F = 5.738;
p = 0.003

0.231
0.020
0.019

2.126
1.955
2.126

2.278
2.125
2.278

General debt aversion

[high scores = relaxed
about debt] F = 9.478;
p = <0.0005

Attitudes towards the

social, lifestyle and
experiential benefits of
university [high scores
= low benefits]
F = 1.646; p = 0.193

Low
Medium
High

5.440 1.579 0.089

5.473 1.619 0.069
5.312 1.595 0.063

5.266
5.336
5.189

5.615
5.609
5.435

3
3
3

12
13
14

Attitudes towards the

long-term career and
financial benefits of
university [high scores
= low benefits]
F = 1.164; p = 0.313

Low
Medium
High

4.704 1.692 0.095

4.895 1.880 0.081
4.796 1.799 0.071

4.516
4.737
4.657

4.891
5.054
4.936

2
2
2

10
10
10

Notes: SD, standard deviation; SE, standard error; CI, confidence interval.

cost-benefit balance, (c) social benefits and (d) financial benefits. If perceived benefits
were statistically significant predictors of the decisions, then those who felt the social and
financial benefits to be relatively low tended to pick a university and/or course that
entailed entering into less debt. If the cost-benefit balance was important, then the issue
was more of balancing up the pros and cons. Finally, if general debt aversion was a statistically significant predictor then the issue was more one of sensitivity to the cost of higher
education.
The second model specified interaction effects between each of these four attitudes and
social class. It was hypothesised that the effects of: (a) general fear of debt, (b) cost-benefit
balance, (c) social benefits and (d) financial benefits might only obtain for those from
lower-income families. For example, because this group has fewer resources, they might be
sensitive to the cost of going to university.
We included the following explanatory variables into each logistic regression model:
social class, expecting financial support while at university from the family, educational
institution, gender, age, ethnicity, whether the mother had been to university, educational
achievement, degree of encouragement to go received from family and friends, and having
a good idea of what university is like.

418

C. Callender and J. Jackson

1. Applying to universities near the family home

Table 5 shows that, even after controlling for a range of factors, debt aversion ( =
0.252; p = 0.040), and attitudes towards both the social ( = 0.191; p = 0.006) and financial ( = 0.112; p = 0.044) benefits of higher education, were associated with a reported
decision to apply to a university nearer the family home (for financial reasons). Those
who were more debt averse were more likely to state this particular decision. And those
who were more negative towards the social, lifestyle and experiential benefits of going to
university were more likely to constrain their choice of institution for reasons of cost.
Those who were more positive about long-term financial benefits were more likely to
apply to a university near their family home (although one must bear in mind the range of
things being held constant). Other statistically significant covariates were: educational
attainment, pursuing qualifications other than A-levels/Scottish Highers/AS-levels and
going to an independent school. So, students who attended an independent school were
less likely to indicate a financially-motivated decision compared to students from the
further education sector. Similarly, students taking qualifications other than A-levels and
AS-levels were more likely to indicate financial motivations than those not taking these
qualifications.
Looking across the sample as a whole, the decision to apply to higher education institutions near the family home (because of the cost) was associated with a reluctance to incur
debt, with negative perceptions of the social benefits of university, and with positive
perceptions of the financial benefits of higher education. Students who made this decision
seemed to be instrumental about higher education, and concerned about the debt they were
likely to accrue.
What about interaction effects? The only statistically significant interaction effect
concerned cost-benefit balance. The cost-benefit balance had a strong effect for students from
lower-income families ( = 0.744: Table 5), a weak effect for students from the medium social
class ( = 0.196), and no effect for those from the upper social class ( = 0.085). This meant
that the costbenefit balance was a factor only for those from low-income families: for this
group, judging the costs to outweigh the benefits was a predictor of applying to a university
nearer the family home.

2. Taking a subject with better employment prospects

This was the second most frequently reported decision, and statistical modelling showed
that attitudes towards the financial and social benefits of university were important. If
students felt that the benefits of higher education were generally high, then they were less
likely to constrain their choice of subject purely because of the cost of university. There was
no effect for general fear of debt or the cost-benefit balance, nor were there significant interaction effects. For brevity, the parameter estimates are not presented here.

3. Living at home with parents while at university

Attitudes towards the benefits of university continued to be important in this decision, but
this time just the social benefits. The more students were positive about the experience of
going to university, the less likely they were to say they were going to live at home with
their parents. Looking across the sample as a whole, fear of debt was not a statistically
significant predictor of living in the family home while at university for financial reasons.
There were no significant interaction effects.

0.705

0.252
0.256
0.123
0.120
0.069
0.056

0.188
0.353
0.219
0.180
0.225
0.343

0.034
0.246
0.252*
0.133
0.191
0.112*

0.073
0.903
0.165
0.340
0.229
0.360

SE

0.146

0.010
0.451
0.059
0.308
0.295

0.697

0.892
0.336
0.040
0.265
0.006
0.044

0.836

Model I

0.406
0.848
1.405
1.258
0.698

0.930

1.035
0.782
0.777
1.143
1.210
0.894

1.157

Exp(B)

Logistic regression modelling: applying to a university near the family home (for financial reasons).

Constant
Social class
Low [referent]
Medium
High
Debt aversion [high = relaxed about debt]
Balance of costs and benefits [high = costs outweigh the benefits]
Perceptions of social benefits [high = low benefits]
Perceptions of financial benefits [high = low benefits]
Interaction effects: Medium social class with
Debt aversion
Cost/benefit balance of university
Social benefits
Financial benefits
Interaction effects: High social class with
Debt aversion
Cost/benefit balance of university
Social benefits
Financial benefits
Expecting to receive financial support from family [referent = no]
Type of institution attended [referent = further education sector]
Independent school
State school
Gender [referent = male]
Ethnicity [referent = non-white]
Age [referent = over 21]

Variables

Table 5.

0.354
0.375
0.197
0.184
0.192

0.126
0.829*
0.075
0.287
0.098

0.358
0.224
0.185
0.233
0.351

0.376
0.390
0.209
0.195

0.061
0.548
0.247
0.277

0.949
0.202
0.325
0.318
0.327

1.322
1.279
0.309
0.336
0.177
0.169

1.243

SE

0.045
1.245
0.291
0.744*
0.314
0.350*

0.658

0.008
0.368
0.080
0.173
0.352

0.722
0.027
0.703
0.118
0.609

0.871
0.160
0.237
0.154

0.973
0.331
0.346
0.027
0.076
0.038

0.596

Model II

0.387
0.817
1.383
1.374
0.721

1.134
0.436
0.928
1.333
0.906

0.941
0.578
0.781
1.320

1.046
0.288
0.748
2.104
1.369
0.704

1.931

Exp(B)

Studies in Higher Education

419

(Continued.)

0.104

0.119

0.384

0.064
0.021
0.569
1.110

0.450
0.501
1.026

Exp(B)

0.798 0.430
0.691* 0.299
0.026 0.045

p
0.643
0.840

SE

0.442* 0.223 0.047

0.174 0.035 <0.0005

Model I
B

SE

Model II

0.069

0.122

0.759 0.439
0.759* 0.307
0.022 0.046

0.574

0.084
0.013
0.622

0.435 0.225 0.054

0.168 0.036 <0.0005

Notes: *Statistically significant at the 0.05 level. Statistically significant at the 0.01 level. SE, standard error. N = 817; 531 missing.

Member of family been to university [referent = mother not been to university]

Predicted A-level grades [high = high grades; AS level or other students
coded as zero]
Studying for AS levels [referent = no]
Studying for other qualification [referent = no]
Degree of encouragement received from family and friends [high = received
much encouragement]
Having a good idea of what university is like [high = having a bad idea]

Variables

Table 5.

1.071

0.468
0.468
1.023

0.647
0.845

Exp(B)

420
C. Callender and J. Jackson

Studies in Higher Education

421

4. Applying to universities in areas with good opportunities for term-time employment

Again, perception of the social benefits of university was a factor ( = 0.275; p <
0.0005; Model I, Table 6). Those who were more negative about the experience of
university were more likely to look for a university in an area with relatively good opportunities for term-time employment. Perception of the financial benefits of higher education was not a statistically significant predictor. Neither was the balancing of costs and
benefits.
However, fear of debt was a factor, but only for those from lower-income families
(Model II). The more concerned this group was about debt, the more likely they were to
report this particular decision.
5. Applying to universities in areas where the cost of living is lower
The more positive people (from all classes) were about the social benefits of higher education,
the less likely they were to constrain their potential choice of institution (Table 7).
Again, fear of debt was a factor, but only for those from the lower social class. The more
debt averse they were, the more likely they were to make this decision.
The other decisions
The same models were estimated for the following:

Applying to a new university rather than an old university.

Doing a vocational job-related course rather than an academic course.
Taking a short course.

None of the key variables was associated with these decisions.

Modelling choice of qualification and subject
The second and final section of the study considered the choice of qualification whether
respondents were applying to take a first degree or some other qualification (e.g. foundation,
HND/HNC and Dip HE), and which subject they hoped to take (e.g. medicine, science,
maths/engineering/technology, business and law). We were particularly interested in the
impact of fear of debt, and whether debt aversion has a different impact depending on the
social class of the student.
The modelling strategy was as above. On the type of qualification, debt aversion was not
an important predictor for any of the social class groups. Equally, we also found that fear of
debt was not a factor in the choice of nearly all of the degree subjects the only exception
was maths/engineering/technology, where debt-averse students were more likely to make
this choice than other students, controlling for a range of other factors.
Discussion and conclusions
Many of the potential students in our study reported that their choice of university was
constrained by the cost of going to university. However, the constraint was more frequent
among students from lower class families than those from middle- and upper-class backgrounds. Looking across all social classes, constraint was often associated with student

SE
0.704

0.243
0.248
0.121
0.114
0.069
0.055

0.184
0.322
0.221
0.176
0.223

B
0.541

0.546*
0.449
0.094
0.210
0.275
0.019

0.086
0.351
0.226
0.166
0.289

0.275
0.308
0.347
0.195

0.641

0.025
0.070
0.437
0.066
<0.0005
0.722

0.442

Model I

0.704
0.798
0.847
1.335

0.918

0.580
0.638
0.910
1.234
0.760
1.020

0.582

Exp(B)

0.354
0.310
0.196
0.172
0.191

1.300
0.187
0.008
0.009
0.154

0.329
0.227
0.183
0.232

0.372
0.328
0.208
0.184

1.048
0.400
0.213
0.063

0.453
0.335
0.159
0.399

1.270
1.212
0.309
0.264
0.173
0.156

1.147

SE

1.934
0.488
1.060*
0.235
0.337
0.011

0.586

0.169
0.140
0.384
0.086

<0.0005
0.547
0.969
0.960
0.420

0.005
0.223
0.306
0.732

0.128
0.687
0.001
0.374
0.051
0.946

0.609

Model II

0.636
0.715
0.853
1.490

3.669
1.205
1.008
0.991
0.857

2.852
0.670
1.238
1.065

0.145
0.614
0.346
1.265
0.714
1.011

0.556

Exp(B)

Logistic regression modelling: applying to universities in areas where there are good opportunities for term-time employment (for financial

Constant
Social class
Low [referent]
Medium
High
Debt aversion [high = relaxed about debt]
Balance of costs and benefits [high = costs outweigh the benefits]
Perceptions of social benefits [high = low benefits]
Perceptions of financial benefits [high = low benefits]
Interaction effects: Medium social class with
Debt aversion
Cost/benefit balance of university
Social benefits
Financial benefits
Interaction effects: High social class with
Debt aversion
Cost/benefit balance of university
Social benefits
Financial benefits
Expecting to receive financial support from family [referent = no]
Type of institution attended [referent = further education sector]
Independent school
State school
Gender [referent = male]
Ethnicity [referent = non-white]

Variables

Table 6.
reasons.

422
C. Callender and J. Jackson

(Continued.)

0.343
0.215
0.035
0.421
0.310
0.045
0.117

0.012
0.899*
0.405
0.119
0.057

SE

0.752*
0.005

0.627

0.033
0.192
0.008

0.732

0.029
0.982

Model I

1.058

2.458
0.667
1.127

0.988

2.120
0.995

Exp(B)

0.079

1.072*
0.518
0.137

0.005

0.958
0.059

Notes: *Statistically significant at the 0.05 level. Statistically significant at the 0.01 level. SE, standard error. N = 817; 531 missing.

Age [referent = over 21]

Member of family been to university [referent = mother not been
to university]
Predicted A-level grades [high = high grades; AS level or other
students coded as zero]
Studying for AS levels [referent = no]
Studying for other qualification [referent = no]
Degree of encouragement received from family and friends [high
= received much encouragement]
Having a good idea of what university is like [high = having a bad
idea]

Variables

Table 6.

0.121

0.434
0.322
0.046

0.036

0.363
0.218

SE

0.511

0.014
0.108
0.003

0.880

0.008
0.786

Model II

1.082

2.921
0.596
1.146

0.995

2.606
0.942

Exp(B)

Studies in Higher Education

423

SE
0.760

0.259
0.265
0.130
0.122
0.073
0.060

0.195
0.327
0.235
0.188
0.230
0.446

B
0.297

0.398
0.259
0.230
0.148
0.200
0.117*

0.425*
0.327
0.485*
0.175
0.053
1.490

0.318
0.039
0.353
0.818
0.001

0.030

0.124
0.329
0.076
0.225
0.006
0.050

0.696

Model I

0.721
0.616
0.839
1.054
4.438

0.654

0.672
0.772
0.794
1.159
0.819
0.890

0.743

Exp(B)

Logistic regression modelling: applying to universities in areas where the cost of living is lower.

Constant
Social class
Low [referent]
Medium
High
Debt aversion [high = relaxed about debt]
Balance of costs and benefits [high = costs outweigh the benefits]
Perceptions of social benefits [high = low benefits]
Perceptions of financial benefits [high = low benefits]
Interaction effects: Medium social class with
Debt aversion
Cost/benefit balance of university
Social benefits
Financial benefits
Interaction effects: High social class with
Debt aversion
Cost/benefit balance of university
Social benefits
Financial benefits
Expecting to receive financial support from family [referent = no]
Type of institution attended [referent = further education sector]
Independent school
State school
Gender [referent = male]
Ethnicity [referent = non-white]
Age [referent = over 21]

Variables

Table 7.

0.432
0.330
0.213
0.191
0.204

2.020
0.023
0.087
0.371
0.520*

0.335
0.243
0.197
0.244
0.511

0.456
0.349
0.203
0.229

1.770
0.216
0.370
0.238

0.475
0.569*
0.231
0.168
1.830

1.429
1.359
0.391
0.283
0.191
0.173

1.375

SE

2.536
1.809
1.852
0.068
0.062
0.229

2.883*

0.156
0.019
0.241
0.491
<0.0005

<0.0005
0.944
0.681
0.052
0.011

<0.0005
0.535
0.068
0.299

0.076
0.183
<0.0005
0.809
0.744
0.186

0.036

Model II

0.622
0.566
0.794
1.183
6.231

7.542
0.977
0.916
0.690
0.595

5.873
1.241
0.690
0.789

12.626
6.105
0.157
1.071
0.940
1.258

0.056

Exp(B)

424
C. Callender and J. Jackson

(Continued.)

0.229
0.037
0.443
0.305
0.047
0.123

0.056
0.708
0.074
0.023
0.036

SE

0.080

0.771

0.110
0.807
0.627

0.131

0.727

Model I

1.036

2.030
1.077
0.978

1.058

1.083

Exp(B)

0.016

0.999*
0.017
0.028

0.076*

0.038

Notes: *Statistically significant at the 0.05 level. Statistically significant at the 0.01 level. SE, standard error. N = 817; 531 missing.

Member of family been to university [referent = mother not been

to university]
Predicted A-level grades [high = high grades; AS level or other
students coded as zero]
Studying for AS levels [referent = no]
Studying for other qualification [referent = no]
Degree of encouragement received from family and friends [high
= received much encouragement]
Having a good idea of what university is like [high = having a bad
idea]

Variables

Table 7.

0.128

0.462
0.325
0.048

0.038

0.233

SE

0.903

0.031
0.958
0.560

0.048

0.872

Model II

1.016

2.715
1.017
0.972

1.079

1.038

Exp(B)

Studies in Higher Education

425

426

C. Callender and J. Jackson

perceptions of the benefits of going to university: those individuals who saw relatively
few benefits of university opted for strategies to reduce their costs. This finding suggests
the importance of providing students with information on these benefits, as well as the
governments emphasis on information on the diversity of provision and student funding
arrangements.
For students from low-income families, however, fear of debt played an important role
in the financial constraint of decision-making. In two key decisions applying to universities
with a low cost of living, and applying to universities with good opportunities for term-time
employment fear of debt was a significant predictor only for low-income students. Poorer
students seemed, on average, to be more sensitive to the amount of debt they would accrue.
This sensitivity was seen in the impact on their choice of university of the wish to keep the
debt they accrue to a minimum. The costbenefit balance was a predictor of applying to
universities near the family home, but again only for students from low-income families.
And, as we have seen from the review of the existing literature, all such decisions potentially
limit students choices: choices which affect their experience of higher education and their
future careers.
Across the entire sample, perceptions of the benefits of higher education drove many of
the decisions judging benefits to be low meant students, on average, looked to lower their
costs. Fear of debt also meant students looked to reduce their costs by attending a university
nearer their parental home. However, for students with fewer financial resources, fear of
debt drove two key decisions, suggesting that this group had a greater sensitivity to the costs
of university than the middle- and upper-classes. Increasing the cost of higher education and
levels of debt, therefore, risks constraining university choice particularly among poorer
students, as these students were especially sensitive to the cost of going to university and
thus are more likely to view higher education as involving a debt rather than an investment.
To our surprise, however, debt aversion was not related to choice of qualification, challenging the findings of other research, probably reflecting a different methodological
approaches and analytical techniques. One might expect that increasing higher education
costs would steer students from low-income backgrounds away from less vocationally
oriented courses, towards courses which lead to more long-term financial security such as
law, business studies, computing, etc. So by shifting more of the financial responsibility of
higher education on to students and away from the state, the criteria by which students select
courses would be transformed away from intrinsic goods to extrinsic goods. However,
where issues of choice and perceptions of risk interact, courses which are longer (such as
medicine) and which require a greater expenditure on books and equipment needed for such
courses on the part of the students may be seen as unattractive. The rational (maximising
return) approach would be to opt for courses with minimum investment and maximum
return, namely the shortest and cheapest courses. But we found no evidence that students
from low-income families were opting for particular qualification-types because of fear of
debt. Once the changes in student funding arrangements are implemented, however, such
behaviour may well occur.
These findings show how potential students were much more willing to respond to fear
of debt by living near their family home and pursuing a course in the subject they wanted,
rather than to change the subject or the type of course they wanted to pursue. This
suggests something about relations within families, and students recognition that their
family can support them both in kind and in cash as their costs of study rise. Similarly,
low-income students do not appear to compromise their subject or course because of fear
of debt, but instead seek term-time work and look for universities where the costs of living
are low.

Studies in Higher Education

427

Some changes in the funding regime incorporated in the 2004 Higher Education Act are
particularly beneficial to students from low-income families. The new grants and smaller
loans for low-income student should help to reduce the current unequal distribution of
student loan debt, whereby the poorest students are 43% more in debt on graduation than
the richest students. However, to what extent might the new reforms address the strategies
highlighted in this article that prospective students report they will adopt to reduce their
costs and debt? In other words, are there any provisions that might actually encourage them
to apply to universities where the costs of living are higher, or where term-time employment
opportunities are not so good?
The student funding regime partially recognises regional differences in the costs of living.
Specifically, student loan rates are higher for students studying in London than those studying
elsewhere, but only if they live away from home. Under the new funding regime, the London
student loan rates have been increased well above inflation, in recognition of the particularly
high living costs. However, the new grant for low-income students, unlike the previous
student grant, makes no such allowances. The maximum grant is 2700 irrespective of where
in England a student studies or lives. These grants, therefore, do not compensate poorer
students for the extra costs of studying in London or in other areas in England where living
costs are high (however, they might act as an incentive to live at home because students living
at home receive the same amount of grant as those living away from home).
In turn, this has implications for higher education institutions located in such regions, especially London. It reflects existing concerns that students from low-income families who do not
already live in London, or within commuting distance, may be priced out of studying in the
capital. It is perhaps no surprise, therefore, that twice as many undergraduates in London as
those studying elsewhere live with their parents. It suggests the possibility of a London student
population increasingly polarised along class, income, and ethnic lines (Callender 2004).
It is hard to predict the impact of the funding changes on students future propensity for
undertaking paid term-time employment. The new grants may reduce very low-income
students need to work, or to work long hours. But there is little evidence for this from
research exploring the effects of grants on term-time working (Emmerson et al. 2005). It
seems likely, therefore, that term-time work will remain part of the higher education landscape. Consequently, it is likely that debt averse students from low-income families will
continue to opt for universities where term-time opportunities are good. In turn, their jobs
are likely to have detrimental affects on their academic attainment, and undermine their
longer-term career prospects.
In the run-up to the 2004 Higher Education Act, Goldthorpe (2003, 11) remarked: whatever scheme is eventually introduced, close monitoring of its effects, intended and unintended, should provide results of major theoretical interest. The choices students make
reflect their material constraints as well as their cultural and social capital, social perceptions and distinctions, and forms of self-exclusion all of which are class bound. Our findings show how, for low-income students, the costs of higher education were often seen as a
debt rather than an investment. They also illustrate how inequalities in patterns of participation are perpetuated through material constraints, especially fear of debt. This is particularly
significant because of the new student funding systems increasing reliance on student loan
debt, and the imminent rise in student debt arising from variable tuition fees.
References
Archer, L., M. Hutchings, and A. Ross, eds. 2003. Higher education and social class: Issues of
exclusion and inclusion. London: Routledge Falmer.

428

C. Callender and J. Jackson

Bem, D.J. 1972. Self perception theory. In Advances in experimental social psychology, volume 6,
ed. L. Berkowitz. New York: Academic Press.
Blanden J., and E. Fitzsimons. 2007. Expansion, efficiency and social inclusion: Are New Labours
aims compatible? In A different future: The new shape of university education in England, ed.
M. Gokulsing. Lampeter: Edwin Mellen Press.
Callender, C. 2003. Attitudes to debt: School leavers and further education students attitudes to
debt and their impact on participation in higher education. London: Universities UK.
Callender, C. 2004. The changing finances of students studying in London: Evidence from the 2002/
03 Student Income and Expenditure Survey. London: Greater London Authority.
Callender, C. 2008. The impact of term-time employment on high education students academic
attainment and achievement. Journal of Education Policy 23, no. 4: 35977.
Callender, C., and S. Day Slater. Forthcoming. With a little help from my friends? Social class and
social capital in non-traditional students experiences of higher education.
Callender, C., and J. Jackson. 2005. Does fear of debt deter students from higher education? Journal
of Social Policy 34, no. 4: 50940.
Callender, C., and D. Wilkinson. 2003. 2002/03 student income and expenditure survey: Students
income, expenditure and debt and changes since 1998. Research report no. 487. Nottingham:
Department for Education and Skills.
Connor, H., R. Burton, R. Pearson, E. Pollard, and J. Regan. 1999. Making the right choice: How
students choose universities and colleges. London: CVCP.
Connor, H., S. Dawson, C. Tyers, J. Eccles, J. Regan, and J. Aston. 2001. Social class and higher
education: Issues affecting decisions on participation by lower social class groups. Research
report RR 267. London: Department for Education and Employment.
Department for Education and Skills. 2003a. The future of higher education (White Paper). London:
HMSO (Cm 5735).
Department for Education and Skills. 2003b. Widening participation in higher education. London:
Department for Education and Skills.
Department for Education and Skills. 2003c. Student loans and the question of debt. London:
Department for Education and Skills. http://www.dfes.gov.uk/hegateway/hereform/index.cfm.
Department for Education and Skills. 2006. Widening participation in higher education. Nottingham:
Department for Education and Skills.
Emmerson, C., C. Frayne, S. McNally, and O. Silvax. 2005. Evaluation of Aimhigher: Excellence
challenge economic evaluation of opportunity bursaries. DfES Research Report RR647.
Nottingham: Department for Education and Skills.
Farr, M. 2001. Home or away? A study of distance travelled to higher education 19941999. Widening Participation and Lifelong Learning 3.1: 1725.
Festinger, L. 1962. A theory of cognitive dissonance. London: Tavistock.
Finch, S., A. Jones, J. Parfrement, A. Cebulla, H. Connor, J. Hillage, E. Pollard, C. Tyers, W. Hunt,
and G. Loukas. 2006. Student income and expenditure survey 2004/05. Research report RR725.
Nottingham: Department for Education and Skills.
Forsyth, A., and A. Furlong. 2000. Socio-economic disadvantage and access to higher education.
Bristol: Policy Press/Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Forsyth, A., and A. Furlong. 2003. Losing out? Socioeconomic disadvantage and experience in
further and higher education. Bristol: Policy Press/Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Furlong, A., and F. Cartmel. 2005. Graduates from disadvantaged families: Early labour market
experiences. Bristol: Policy Press/Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Goldthorpe, J. 2003. Sociology as social science and Cameral sociology: Some further thoughts.
Sociology Working Papers, 200307, University of Oxford.
Higher Education Funding Council for England. 2001. Supply and demand in higher education.
Bristol: Higher Education Funding Council for England.
Hutchings, M. 2003. Information, advice and cultural discourses of higher education. In Higher
education and social class: Issues of exclusion and inclusion, ed. L. Archer, M. Hutchings and
A. Ross, 97118. London: Routledge Falmer.
Knowles, J. 2000. Access for few? Student funding and its impact on aspirations to enter higher
education. Widening Participation and Lifelong Learning 2.1: 1423.
Purcell, K., P. Elias, R. Davies, and N. Wilton. 2005. The class of 99 A study of the early labour
market experiences of recent graduates. Research report no. RR 691. Nottingham: Department
for Education and Skills.

Studies in Higher Education

429

Reay, D., M. David, and S.J. Ball. 2005. Degrees of choice: Social class, race and gender in higher
education. Stoke on Trent: Trentham Books.
Ramsden, B. 2006. Patterns of higher education institutions in the UK Sixth report. London:
Universities UK.
Van Dyke, R., B. Little, and C. Callender. 2005. Survey of higher education students attitudes to
debt and termtime working and their impact on attainment. Bristol: Higher Education Funding
Council for England, 169 pp. http://www.hefce.ac.uk/Pubs/rdreports/2005/rd15_05/rd15_05.pdf.