Category: Postgraduate

  • Fixing the potholes in postgraduate funding

    Fixing the potholes in postgraduate funding

    A birds-eye view quickly reveals the inadequacy and complexity of UK postgraduate student finance, as four systems operate (and awkwardly overlap) in a world of high tuition fees and rising living costs.

    As practitioners, we have a much more ground level perspective: seeing how students struggle through these systems in practice and witnessing the winners and losers who result from a system that should, at least in principle, be equally useful to all.

    With the UK’s national funding agencies opening applications for 2025-26, now is the time to update our understanding of postgraduate loan options, and highlight anomalies. Doing so reminds us to spot the obstacles students may not see: the metaphorical potholes that can quite literally slow a student’s progress or stop them progressing at all.

    It also helps us ask whether some of these obstacles really need to be there.

    When moving to study reduces the amount you can borrow

    One major factor that prospective students often overlook is how changing their country of residence affects their eligibility for future funding – and how this can happen without them realising.

    Take this real-world example:

    • A student from England completed their bachelors and masters’ in Scotland
    • As many students do, they supplemented their Student Finance England (SFE) Masters loan with part-time work (at their university)
    • They chose to continue to a PhD, having found a supervisor and a place
    • However, their residency had been updated from England to Scotland… meaning they are no longer eligible for a SFE doctoral loan (despite having already received its UG and PGT support)
    • Because Student Awards Agency Scotland (SAAS) doesn’t offer doctoral loan, they were left in postgraduate funding limbo

    Whilst moving to study doesn’t affect residency status, moving to work does. This prevents people who have moved permanently to work from picking a preferred loan based on their address history. But it introduces perverse pitfalls that potentially incentivise against study mobility. And in some cases, like this one, it could hamper the chances of students from less affluent backgrounds – those who need to work while studying – from progressing to doctoral study.

    The easy solution here would be for each funding organisation to ensure that work during study doesn’t impact residency.

    When you better get it right first time

    Most of the PG loan systems restrict finance for candidates with equivalent or higher qualifications.

    Again, the design is fair in principle, but confusing in practice. Do students readily understand the difference between holding a postgraduate masters, an undergraduate integrated masters or a conferred “Oxbridge MA”?

    And is the principle actually practical? To take a slightly hypothetical example:

    Mark has an MA in Gothic Studies (yes, really). He paid for this himself almost 20 years ago (again – yes, really). He now wants to take an MSc in Data Analytics to support his work analysing prospective PG audience shifts at scale. A master’s loan would help him do so, but he can’t get one. Because he has a self-funded MA in Gothic Studies from 20 years ago.

    In an age of upskilling and reskilling, it’s worth asking if this is really what we want for the UK economy. And no, the LLE won’t help either.

    Should we allow access to the PG loan for courses in priority subjects, and/or where student finance hasn’t previously been awarded? It’s a conversation worth having, but there are no signs that the issue is top of anyone’s list of priorities.

    When the postgraduate student finance system penalises you for being… a postgraduate

    Postgraduate students are, by definition, older than undergraduates. As such, they’re also more likely to have children (or, indeed, other caring responsibilities).

    A childcare grant is offered in England to help support student-parents, but eligibility explicitly excludes anyone not receiving undergraduate student finance or receiving a postgraduate loan. This feels like a fairly difficult needle for a masters student to thread and a clear blocker to seeing more of the UK workforce taking advantage of postgraduate-level training (something Mark has drawn attention to before).

    Perhaps it is time to extend the existing Childcare Grant to postgraduates on similar age and earnings criteria.

    When you could borrow less but pay nothing back

    A more outlandish example, but one that also speaks to the unintended consequences of having multiple loan funding systems.

    Meet Ewan and Evan, two 59 year-olds, financially independent and planning to retire at 60. Both have enrolled on the same MSc History (Online, Part-time, 2 years) at The University of Edinburgh, starting September 2025 with a course fee of £17,100. Here’s where things differ:

    • Ewan is Scottish-resident and eligible for a SAAS loan of £7,000 which is paid directly to the university. He needs to find another £10,100 to cover the fees.
    • Evan, a Welsh-resident can access a SFW loan of up to £19,255, paid directly to him. After paying the course fees, he may have up to £2,155 remaining

    The likelihood is that neither will fully repay their loan given their age and the repayment thresholds. But whereas Ewan has had to find extra money, Evan has studied a masters “for free.

    While there’s no simple fix, it’s crucial that funding agencies continue to provide clarity on terms, conditions and eligibility criteria. Universities should also signpost where to find this definitive information and ideally clarify the difference in funding arrangements to help prospective students better understand their options.

    The importance of professional guidance

    Exploring the nuances of the loan system in this way may feel somewhat obscure, but it allows us to better understand the genuine confusion and frustration that prospective students often feel when navigating the complexities of postgraduate funding, particularly UK postgraduate loans.

    As professionals in the postgraduate space, our aim is not to encourage manipulation of the system, but we do need to understand how its unintended quirks can misdirect students and be ready to guide them when that occurs.

    We also need to stay updated on loan policies and repayment thresholds. That way, we can help students make informed decisions.

    The more we understand the nuances of postgraduate funding, the better equipped we all are to support students in their academic journeys.

    Source link

  • Why aren’t we addressing inequity of outcomes for postgraduates?

    Why aren’t we addressing inequity of outcomes for postgraduates?

    One of the major trends in UK higher education is the increasing number of postgraduate students.

    There are now as many postgraduate taught students graduating every year as there are undergraduates.

    However, the equity of postgraduate experience and outcomes is almost completely overlooked.

    Modern postgraduates

    The postgraduate population is large and increasingly diverse. Approximately 450,000 students complete a postgraduate qualification in UK higher education institutions every year. 11 per cent of those students have declared a disability. Some 28 per cent of postgraduate taught students with a permanent UK address identify as Global Majority, while 9 per cent identify as Black and 13 per cent as Asian and those proportions are increasing year-on-year. One in three postgraduate taught students pay international fees.

    Whereas 10 years ago most international students were from the EU or China, the diversity of nationalities in postgraduate cohorts is growing. Data on the socioeconomic demographics of postgraduates is not currently available, but it is likely that the increase in students from socioeconomically deprived areas undertaking undergraduate study population is mirrored at masters level. Half of postgraduate students study their programmes on a part-time basis. Excluding those on visas that prohibit working, we can assume that a significant proportion of postgraduates are combining study with paid employment. The diversity of the postgraduate population is therefore considerable.

    Given how widespread inequity of outcomes is at undergraduate level, it would be extraordinary if the outcome gaps we see on the basis of disability, ethnicity and socioeconomic status were not replicated at postgraduate level. They may even be more acute for postgraduates given the higher costs of tuition fees and the increased academic independence required for postgraduate study. Yet there is almost no awareness or activity around equity or outcomes for this huge cohort of students.

    Lack of activity

    At undergraduate level there has been significant progress made in terms of awareness of student outcomes and inequity. Institutional committees and working groups scrutinise split metric data to assess ‘gaps’ in outcomes between demographic groups. Action plans are in place to address inequity of access, continuation, degree completion, degree class awarded and progression. Senior leadership teams monitor progress against established equity key performance indicators. Providers are even bringing in consultancy companies whose sole business is to help institutions understand the language of Access and Participation Plans. Universities are at least talking the talk around improving equity of outcomes, even if progress lags significantly behind this.

    However, none of this activity is replicated for postgraduate students. There isn’t a data dashboard of split metrics for postgraduate student outcomes. We haven’t even established the equivalent of the undergraduate degree classification awarding gap. Why isn’t there an outcome gap focussed on demographic equity of distinctions awarded for postgraduate taught students? Why aren’t we looking at completion rates for postgraduate students through the lens of disability and socioeconomic status?

    Pragmatically, the answer to this question is that the Office for Students has thus far paid little attention to postgraduate student outcomes, let alone equity of outcomes. The Teaching Excellence Framework included undergraduate courses with a postgraduate component (e.g. an integrated masters), but excluded postgraduate taught and postgraduate research provision. Access and Participation Plans are linked to the ability to charge the higher rate of undergraduate tuition fee, so again exclude postgraduate students.

    League table providers also ignore postgraduates. HESA only publish data on postgraduate qualifications awarded, and the publically available data is not broken down by demographic factors other than gender. In the contemporary higher education landscape, what gets measured gets done. If universities are not prioritising postgraduate outcomes, it is because the regulatory landscape allows them not to.

    Entry and equity

    It is also important to note that many masters programmes will now accept students with a lower second class degree. Those same students who were disadvantaged by the awarding gap at undergraduate level are now likely to be the ones struggling with the increased academic requirements at masters level. If a student never got past the hidden curriculum in three years of undergraduate study, what are their chances of overcoming it in a one year masters course?

    Postgraduate programme leaders need to be aware of these issues, and adopt parallel approaches to those managing transition into undergraduate study. They need to design activities and assessments to address disparities in entry qualifications. They need to build the confidence of students who missed out on higher undergraduate grades.

    To really focus on equity at postgraduate level, we also need to address inequity for international students. The regulatory link between APP and the home undergraduate tuition fee means students with any other fee status are excluded. This has the inevitable result that the sector barely considers inequity for international students, but is more than happy to take their fees. This is deeply uncomfortable at undergraduate level, but even more concerning at postgraduate level, where one in three students is international.

    To make change, senior institutional leaders need to see postgraduate outcomes as a priority. In the current landscape, this strategic direction needs to come from the Office for Students. The equivalent data infrastructure developed for undergraduate outcomes needs to be built for postgraduates. Future iterations of the TEF need to go beyond undergraduates and include all students.

    We cannot justify ignoring postgraduates any more. The sector has an ethical responsibility to ensure equity of outcomes for all students, not just those paying the home undergraduate tuition fee.

    Source link