UCU calls for national bursary system as cash not getting through to poorest students

Introduced in 2006, the bursary was devised to encourage students from poor backgrounds to apply to university in the face of increasing tuition fees. Any student receiving a maintenance grant is entitled to a bursary and although there is a statutory minimum amount, the bursary's level and criteria are currently set by individual institutions. Generally, the largest bursaries have been offered by the most highly selective universities.
 
In 'Have bursaries influenced choices between universities?' the university watchdog, OFFA, analysed the choices of millions of young people and concluded that since 2006, overall those from disadvantaged backgrounds are no more likely to enter selective universities than in the mid 1990s. In fact, since 2006, the participation rate of disadvantaged young people has increased most rapidly in the third of institutions that offer the lowest bursaries, but are credited with doing the most to attract students from poorer backgrounds.
 
UCU has repeatedly criticised the bursary system as too random. Those selective universities with fewer students from low-income backgrounds are likely to offer larger bursaries and to support students from wealthier backgrounds. A university that has a lot of students from low-income backgrounds is likely to only be able to provide those students with small bursaries because of pressure on its total pot of money.
 
UCU general secretary, Sally Hunt, said: 'The bursary system as it stands is confusing and unfair for students and some institutions.  We need a simplified national system so that the universities doing the most to attract students from low-income backgrounds can offer them strong financial support.
 
'It is no surprise that universities offering the lowest bursaries are also the institutions that have the highest drop-out rates - the cost of living has been cited as a major reason why students don't complete their courses.
 
'It is clearly over-simplistic to suggest that it is the size of bursaries alone that determine students' choices and we accept there are complex other social factors that come into play, but those universities currently not attracting low-income students must step up their efforts to increase awareness of what they offer. We agree with OFFA's call for them to invest in targeted outreach work in schools and colleges at a much earlier stage.'