There is a certain incoherence in a public-funded system that makes it easier for talent to leave than for it to stay.
Launching this coming January, the Lifelong Learning Entitlement will undoubtedly unlock new possibilities for higher education participation, particularly for those who stand to benefit from the new residual entitlement.
If LLE achieves its ambitions, it should become more commonplace for graduates to top up their academic qualifications with professional qualifications, alleviating mid-career stagnation and increasing productivity.
As with previous UK government-backed student loans, LLE will be open to a broad swathe of resident adults of working-age, including citizens, nationals, refugees and others holding settled status. Where LLE departs, however, from the previous loan, is the removal of the same-level exemption; this now means migrants can overlay their foreign-earned qualifications with ones earned in the UK. This may act to level workplace competitiveness, which again, should contribute to productivity and agility.
I’ve paid for you with tears
LLE also carries over the practice of shutting out many newly-arrived migrants, despite their genuine intention to resettle. Under the current immigration system, a migrant normally must reside in the UK for five years before they can apply for settled status, a prerequisite for many loan applications. The migrant will then need to wait for approval as well as the next admissions cycle to secure a place on a course, meaning a wait of six years for Government-funded study.
Assuming that a migrant would be able to break and study full-time, they may still face a decade-long wait – nearly a quarter of a working-life – to obtain a funded Level 6 degree. Even for those already holding a Level 6 degree, they could, again, be shut out of Government-backed loans for professional upskilling or retraining until they are granted settled status. This has particular significance for those working in regulated professions prior to migrating, such as healthcare, engineering, and education, as they may need to upskill to meet regulatory requirements in the UK.
The first problem with this is obvious: if you delay or freeze career progression by years, you are likely to impair wage growth. The second one is as well: if the tail of an income-contingent loan plan sits in retirement (or after death), it is unlikely to be paid. Extending the period before settled status will only exacerbate these two problems; it may be that more is lost in unrealised repayments and tax gains than saved by deterring loan misuse.
You’re everywhere I go
The third and fourth problems, however, require slightly more attention.
According to the Migration Observatory, men outnumbered women on study and asylum routes – both known for transience – whereas women outnumbered men on work and partnership routes, routes that can lead to long-term settlement. This means that over a ten-year period, women are more likely to stay, and with this, become loan eligible.
Under the current arrangements, younger female migrants would likely be near or amidst childbearing age at the point of eligibility, which may delay participation or impair continuation. It may also delay professional development for the women who, again, are most likely to remain in the UK – women who migrate for work, and are thus already valuable for the economy, as well as women who marry loan-eligible citizens and yet remain shut out.
If I’m smart, then I’ll run away
Although the negative consequences for migrant gender equality warrant further discussion, I will move on to what is perhaps the most emotive problem in the current system – young adults who hold strong A-levels but cannot access loan funding or independently fund their study. This can include young adults awaiting the outcome of an asylum claim, but also children of migrant key workers such as nurses and teachers. There are a limited number of highly competitive scholarships and bursaries on offer for this group, but again, no loan-funded route to keep options maximally open.
What I am not proposing is an overall liberalisation in loan issuance, although it is worth stressing that loans remain repayable regardless of where someone might go on to reside after completion, and fraudulent access by migrants remains low. What I am instead suggesting is giving greater attention to the problems as outlined above.
But I’m not, so I guess I’ll stay
The first and second problems, again, are a delay in access to opportunities to upskill paired with diminished chances that a loan will be paid in full. Unlike academic courses, vocational and professional courses tend to charge an undifferentiated rate for all participants, so home fee eligibility does not apply. It is also less likely that a participant would be reliant on maintenance funding to succeed in their study. Therefore, permitting some migrants awaiting settled status, especially those entering on work visas, to access fee loans for priority modules would likely serve to improve domestic talent but also create an incentive for working migrants to stay.
Returning to the third problem, given that women are three times more likely than men to enter on a partner visa, and that women are likely to be entering into a partnership with a spouse that holds an entitlement to LLE, the risk of uneven outcomes for the migrant female partner should be evident. Consideration should be given to fast-tracking migrants in this situation.
To address the fourth and final problem, I wish to return to my opening statement. By cultivating talent, LLE could mean that more UK-residents move to countries that offer higher salaries and a better quality of life. For example, the average salary of a data analyst in the UK is £50,000, whereas those in Australia earn roughly 10 per cent more.
I’ll take my chance on a beautiful stranger
This loss can only be balanced by cultivating talent of equal measure, which may, again, be the young adults who have done exceptionally well on their pre-entry qualifications despite the deracination that accompanies migration. Permitting colleges to apply for an exception on behalf of a student under 19 (and without the means to afford study) would likely prove to be uncontroversial.
Given the new possibilities presented by LLE, perhaps it’s time to enter into a new relationship with those passing through the ever-narrowing routes of legal migration. It may be through partial or exceptional access, but total exclusion risks under-developing the talent that wants to remain.
What about overseas students? Would they become entitled to loans and home fees when they set foot on the magic soil of the UK? You do know that this would take away the last profitable major activity of UK universities right? It would also massively increase the total loan amounts, which presumably the UK government will not be able to afford. If not overseas students, why not? How would you distinguish between those entitled and those not? Drawing the line at those with permanent residency seems the most obvious (if not nationality).
Should the UK be extending loan eligibility to everyone in Africa and Asia? These are after all potential migrants and it would be much better to fund them early rather than wait for them to actually migrate to the UK right?
The article clearly calls for access to the LLE for people who have recently been granted leave to live and work in the UK – and who may need to take UK qualifications in order to practice professionally. It does not deal with “overseas students” (those who live abroad and pay international fees) or “everyone in Africa and Asia”
But overseas students have been granted leave to live and (within limits) work in the UK! They would also be eligible for the graduate route. Why not include them?
As you might know, a large percentage of people in Africa when polled express a desire to move to Europe and in particular the UK. So these are just migrants who haven’t migrated yet. Why not include them?
Overseas students have been granted visas in order to study in the UK. The question dealt with in the article is why refugees (people who have involuntarily had to move to another country because their life was in danger) and other visa holders (for example those on working visas who wish to upskill) should be excluded from LLE funding for such a long time.
But I thought those on working visas had fantastic skills which the UK desperately needs? And now you are saying that the UK taxpayer needs to pay to have them upskilled? What is the point then? Why not upskill unemployed or underemployed UK residents?
Actual refugees are not “moving”, they temporarily seek refuge in another country (typically a neighbouring one) and will go back to their own country as soon as possible.
I am going to continue to assume that you are commenting in good faith.
Migrants have a range of skills that they bring to the UK, but may need to undergo further training to be permitted to use these in the UK, or may – like all workers – be more effective at what they do with additional training.
I’m not sure why you wanted to draw a distinction around “actual refugees” – “refugee” is not a single category of person and refugees (beyond the broad definition as person who has been forced to to leave their home and community against their will) have a variety of backgrounds and needs. The article simply suggests that those who stay in the UK long enough to work and pay tax might legitimately have recourse to loans to support training and development so that they (and we as a nation) can benefit from those enhanced skills.
To clarify, the article mainly pertains to migrants who hold work and partnership visas, as well as the children of those holding these visas. These migrants are typically ineligible for student loans until they reach settled status; this timeframe has is now five years and may be extended further. What I am proposing is either introducing partial access to fee support to or permitting specific exceptions for these narrowly defined groups.
… and the next person will argue for the next “narrowly defined group” to be given access.
Internationally and historically giving people access to state benefits (which the student loan system basically is) after a handful of years of living in the country is already very generous.
If you migrate to another country for work, it is perfectly reasonable for the host country to expect that you can support yourself in every way and that if you can’t, you go back to where you came from.
For a spousal visa, it is perfectly reasonable to expect the spouse to be able to financially support their partner rather than expecting the taxpayer to do this.
I’d feel more confident about our exchange if I knew your full identity. Are you at liberty to disclose this? First, migrants are UK tax-liable, and as such, they hold an entitlement to certain government funded educational services, most notably the right to place their child in a state school. They can also use libraries, attend open ESOL classes and so forth. I should add here that there are already groups that do get exceptional access – and of course, permitting groups to ask for fair treatment is part of healthy democratic discourse.
Second, if a spouse was willing and able to pay for adult education, then presumably the other spouse would not need to seek out a loan.
What I wish to do, however, is put the political issue of migration to one side and challenge the notion of the loan as a form of generous state support, particularly at the point of issuance. The generosity falls at the end of the loan’s terms, at which point the migrant will likely be a UK citizen and thus entitled to state-supported generosity. I would also say that in cases of fee support, the primary beneficiary is the UK entity that educates the migrant and not the migrant themselves.
I anticipate that your counterargument will be that migrants should seek out private loans, but the volatility of the current job market and high rates of interest make them an unattractive choice. I also anticipate you asking about home fee eligibility, and I am not proposing changes to that; this involves a three year wait, and appropriately so given top-up funding for high-cost subjects.
I feel, however, that we would agree about limits to maintenance support, given that the loanable amount can exceed fees and is payable directly to the student. The exception I would propose here would be for ‘non-mature’ children on a full-time programme, but yes, if a person is here on the understanding that they (or their spouse) will support themselves, then curtailing maintenance would be, in my view, fair.
Treating legal migrants as an underclass undeserving of educational opportunity, however, is not.
Why would you want to know my full identity rather than just engage with my arguments? In academia anonymity is completely normal (blind peer review, anonymous marking of exams) to prevent bias.
Maybe I’m being paranoid, but do you want to know my full identity so that you can contact my university and try to get me fired for daring to disagree with you?