ON NOVEMBER 6th the British government proposed a series of reforms to higher education. Amid a long list of suggested changes, one measure stood out: those universities that passed muster on a new rating system would be allowed to raise tuition fees in line with inflation. In financial terms, this is cautious stuff (inflation is near zero). But the Conservative government recognises it is treading on volatile terrain. In 2010, when a Conservative-led coalition was preparing to raise the cap on tuition fees (from £3,290 to £9,000 a year), as many as 50,000 protesters hit London’s streets and critics lined up to pronounce the move a blow to social mobility. Five years on, it is clear the critics were wrong. In 2014, just under one-fifth of 18-year-olds from the poorest backgrounds went to university, more than ever before. Why did the increase in tuition fees not have the expected effect? Much is down to the provision of student loans. Without financial support for those from poor backgrounds, such a rise would almost certainly have led to fewer going to university. But tuition fees are rarely paid up front. Instead, the government offers loans to students heading off to university for the first time. Although these add up to a rather hefty sum by the end of a degree, they are provided on generous terms (with repayment delayed until graduates begin earning a reasonable amount)—which were made more generous still in 2012, when the new system came into force. The end result has been that the lowest earning one-third of graduates pay less under the new system and those who earn more, pay more.

This was clearly laid out before the introduction of the new fee regime, yet critics still believed that poorer students would be put off going to university by the idea of higher fees. Why weren’t they? One possible answer is that universities that charged more than £6,000 a year for tuition had to sign ‘access agreements’ in which they committed to increase the number of students from under-represented groups. However this is not an entirely convincing explanation: one study found that potential students showed no tendency to favour universities that offered more generous support. An alternative explanation is that English students were already accustomed to the fact that fees do not have to be paid immediately. This may be closer to the truth: another study found English schoolchildren tended to be more willing to accept the idea that going to university meant taking on debt than those north of the border, in Scotland, where tuition fees for home students were abolished 15 years ago.

The debate over tuition fees has renewed relevance since England’s universities are again complaining that their finances are under pressure. A recent report warned that some higher education institutions will struggle financially over the next few years. One solution would be to allow them to raise their fees above inflation, which some suspect may be the government’s plan once the new regime has bedded in. That would cause a stir. But it need not make university any less accessible to those from poor backgrounds.