This report is the follow up to the ‘Pound in Your Pocket’ campaign that Liverpool Guild of

Students (LGoS) ran between weeks five and ten of the first semester of the academic year 2012-

13.

The campaign aimed to find out:

1. How much students across our campus spend on hidden course costs.

2. In which departments and schools students spend a disproportionate amount on such costs.

Costs considered ‘hidden’ or 'extra' are defined as those which are necessary to ensure a

student's progression on their course, such as books and travel. This report first draws on national

analyses from a two year study conducted by NUS into the quality of financial support in higher

education and the effects of course costs on retention and student well-being. The LGoS

campaign methodology is then summarised. The key findings from the LGoS campaign are then

analysed with recommendations to be adopted by LGoS itself and the University.

The key findings from the campaign can be summarised as follows:

1. Students across campus are spending a significant proportion of their income for maintenance

(which stands at an average of £4335 per year) on printing, buses and books.

2. There is great disparity across campus between those who are forced to make significant

further investments on equipment, field trips and travel to placement as part of their course. The

Guild believes that this is unfair, and that it creates divisions within the student body.

3. It is evident that much of the dissatisfaction in relation to extra course costs is due to the fact

that students come to university unaware that they will have to spend so much money on these

items/services.

In 2010, the Higher Education White paper lifted the cap on tuition fees for home undergraduate

students from £3,000 to £9,000. For the first time, tuition fees now exceed the basic loan for

maintenance which home undergraduates are entitled to from the Student Loans Company. Given

that this basic maintenance loan currently stands at £3575, tuition fees exceed what many

students are given to live on for the year by 250% (Student Finance, 2012). The tripling of fees was

followed by a shift in the indicators used to measure the quality of higher education institutions to

focus more upon the quality of ‘the student experience’ and levels of student satisfaction than

ever before. This shift has also been accompanied by a rise in journalistic and institutional

references to students as ‘customers’ who can expect value for their money. Students are told

that they can expect an enriching and research-led learning experience which will enhance their

employability in a time of economic downturn. This has prompted a clear rise in expectations

among current and prospective students which is only set to increase as those paying £9,000 per

year in tuition fees come to make up the majority of the student body. This is supported by the

fact that student complaints to the Office for the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education

increased by 25% this year (Behrens, 2013).

Of course we welcome the evident imperative to improve teaching and learning which the

emphasis upon the importance of 'the student experience' has brought. Nevertheless to the

average student, the term ‘student experience’ lacks a cohesive definition. Given that many

students live off less than half of the amount they pay in tuition fees per year, there is an inherent

expectation that many of the changes that will be made to improve their ‘experience’ will be more

tangible.

In July 2011, the National Union of Students (NUS) invested in a two-year research and policy

programme that sought 'to establish and understand the range of students’ experiences of

financial support and the extent to which financial pressures affect student wellbeing' (NUS, 2013:

The online consultation received a total of 14,404 responses and highlighted how students are

spending significant sums of their income on items and services which are essential to their

progression at University, as is summarised below.

Course related costs are prevalent, expensive and often concealed. There is a clear association between high course costs and low wellbeing.

(NUS, 2013:3-4)

Course related costs were also found to have a negative impact upon students’ ability to

concentrate on their work. As is demonstrated in figure one, the more students were spending on

course costs, the more likely they were to indicate that they found it hard to focus on their studies

without worrying about financial pressures.

Financial instability was also the most common explanation given for why students had considered

leaving their course or why they chose not to complete a placement during their course. Moreover,

75% of students with a part-time job had sought employment as a result of being caught

unawares by the financial pressure at University (NUS, 2012: 23). This highlights how a significant

proportion of the student body find themselves in financially precarious circumstances and how

the effects that this has upon their ability to dedicate themselves to their studies largely goes

undetected by centralised support services.

In light of this and the fact that tuition fees are over twice as much as what most students receive

for maintenance per year, it is unsurprising that feelings of injustice and resentment around

institutional externalisation of course related costs have become evident among the student body.

NUS' research into financial support in higher education also emphasised how institutional

assumptions about parental support for maintenance are common but largely unsubstantiated

(NUS, 2013: 3).

It is imperative to emphasise that such assumptions can end up creating further boundaries to

students with markedly high course costs. Such students are often assumed to be in receipt of a

parental allowance and when this is not the case, are likely to have to search for part-time work to

continue their studies. This then limits the amount of time that they can dedicate to their studies,

often decreasing the quality of their work and increasing stress levels.

In view of the research conducted by NUS and the extent to which inequalities in the amount

students pay to stay on their course were shown to affect retention, access to placement

opportunities and students' ability to concentrate, we felt it imperative to look specifically at how

extra course costs were affecting the progress of students studying on our own campus. In

November 2012, we launched the LGoS Pound in your Pocket campaign. The campaign aimed to

find out:

1. What students across our campus spend their money on

2. In which departments and schools students spend a disproportionate amount on course costs.

To obtain this information, a questionnaire was put together which asked students to list the items

which they had spent money on, how much it had cost and whether they knew about the costs

before they came to Liverpool or not. Students were invited to list up to five items, with their

estimate for the annual cost of each item. The form also included the student’s details: their name,

their course, their student number, and their email address. The inclusion of this information

reduced the risk of duplicate forms and demonstrated that each form had been completed by a

genuine student at the University. Having the students’ ID numbers also allowed us to get each

individual’s department and major from CSD which in turn allowed us to see how students were

spending their money in different areas of the University.

To ensure responses were collected from a diverse sample, the data was collected using a range

of methods. We collected over 500 questionnaire responses online, through 100 hours of face to

face campaigning on campus, and through the collection of responses at Course Rep Training.

We also collected deliberative responses at the ‘Guild Life’ and ‘University Life’ forums on the 5th

and 6th November 2012.

1.

Once the data was collected and electronically stored, we categorised each item listed by

students into one of the following 12 categories:

- AU/Sports

- Books

- Bus Pass

- Calculator (University approved)

- Course Clothing

- Field Trips

- Halls/accommodation related costs

- LGoS related costs and societies

- Mandatory course equipment/essentials

- Miscellaneous

- Printing

- Stationary

- Travel (including placements, not bus)

Categorising the items in this way standardised the data, allowing us to identify and quantify how

much students on specific programmes were spending their money on.

ID Type Dept. Major Nationality Year Item 1 I knew

about

this

when I

applied

here

Cost

200799*** UG School of

Management

Economics BRIT 2 Books No £80

Costs considered ‘hidden’ or 'extra' were defined as those which are necessary to ensure a

student's progression on their course. This included books, calculators, specific clothing, other

specific course equipment (such as modelling materials or specialist stationary), printing and travel

to placements. We have also chosen to include bus travel to and from campus as a ‘course cost.'

This is in reflection of the number of students at the University who pay for an annual bus pass to

get to their lectures. We are keenly aware of the fact that the cost of this annual pass is a major

source of dissatisfaction and that there are numerous other universities where students can use

free buses or do not rely on a bus to get to lectures or the library.

Some responses to the survey included costs not relevant to our project aims. These include the

costs of AU/Sports club memberships and LGoS-related costs, including society membership.

These items are considered optional and not directly related to study enough to be considered

‘course costs.’ Some responses also included halls or accommodation-related costs. As the cost

of rent must be paid by everyone and not just students, this is not a student or course-specific

expense. There were also some responses to the survey that can be deemed ‘miscellaneous’ as

they are also costs which must be factored in by everyone, both students and non-students, such

as ‘food shopping.’

2.

We found students across campus spend significant sums of their income for maintenance on

printing, books and buses. In figure 3, books, printing and bus passes make up 26%, 20% and

16% of all items listed as expenses in the University respectively. What follows is a brief analysis of

the relative spends on each of these items for students at the University and an indication as to

what could be done at an institutional level to alleviate these costs.

Printing is an obligatory cost for all students at some point during their studies. University printing

costs 5p per sheet and is a source of significant discontent for students at Liverpool. It is

3%

26%

16%

4% 6% 0% 4% 1%

2%

6%

6%

20%

2% 4%

AU/Sports

Books

Bus Pass

Calculator

Course Clothing

Course fees

Field Trips

Halls/accommodation related costs

LGoS related costs and societies

Mandatory course equipment/essentials

Miscellaneous

Printing

Stationary

Travel (including placements not bus)

continuously raised as an issue at Staff-Student Liaison Committees and in the Guild’s face-to-

face consultations.

Many students have to print off hard copies of their assignments to hand in to their department.

Students might also have to print off hand-outs or other relevant reading material to take to

lectures or seminars.

From our campaign results, we identified just how much students have to spend on printing:

- The average cost of printing per year per student is £78.

- This average was fairly consistent across the University, however in the School of

Architecture students spend on average £280 per year on printing.

- It is common for students in their final year to spend over £5 per week on printing.

Students have to keep topping up their print balance, spending £5-10 each time. There is no one-

off payment and therefore the discontent with the expense is fairly constant.

It is sometimes assumed that eventually all students will be using Kindles/iPads and advanced

software to annotate electronic copies of documents, and that they will prefer digital options to

using paper. However, our qualitative consultations with students have found that many prefer to

annotate on paper and that the majority do not use electronic devices to read texts or hand-outs

as these devices also require significant investment. Also, even a student using an iPad for most of

the time would still have to pay for printing at some point, as many departments request hard

copies of assignments.

When students are required to print extensive documents for their course assignments, for their

classes, or simply to aid their learning, it is dissatisfying that the University charges them for every

sheet that they print, from the day they arrive on campus to the day they hand in their final piece of

work. Even a student consciously living on a very low budget would have to spend a significant

amount of money on printing at some point during their course.

The Guild is aware that within several Schools in the University there have already been

discussions about whether or not it would be possible to subsidise the cost of printing for their

students.

Many universities in the UK already give students an allowance of free print credits; for example,

Sterling University provide £6 worth of printing credit to every new student. Other universities

simply charge less; Liverpool John Moore’s University charge 3p for one sheet of single sided A4,

and the same charge applies to both staff and students.

We recommend that either a reduced price or an initial amount of ‘free pages’ per student is

provided to increase student satisfaction in this respect.

It is also important to note that students in the School of Architecture spend a disproportionally

high amount on printing each year. Therefore the provisions for these students with regards to

what they are required to print, and how this average cost can be reduced, should be taken into

account by the University.

Although the library does have copies of all key books and textbooks on University reading lists,

there are rarely enough copies for each individual student and therefore at some point during their

course students will buy books of their own. From our qualitative consultations we know that this

is a particular source of dissatisfaction among cohorts who require specific, up-to-date textbooks.

For example, students who study Law or study in the Management School often are required to

have the current year’s edition of a textbook. Because these courses are so large, the ratio of

students on the course to the copies of these books available in the library is high.

From our survey, we found that the average amount students spend on books per year is £186.

This average was fairly consistent across campus which shows that this is a significant cost for all

of our students.

There is a clear need for clarity regarding additional costs for books and whether students need to

buy all recommend texts. Before arriving at the University, students on a course can be unsure of

which of the items on their reading list they will need their own personal copy of.

Those students buying expensive core textbooks (e.g. in Law, Business Studies or Economics etc.)

feel dissatisfied that the University prescribes that they have to buy their own copy of the most

recent (and therefore the most expensive) edition.

There are some examples of good practice within the University of Liverpool. For example,

students in the Department of Physics get their textbooks for free in their first year.

At Coventry University students are guaranteed their ‘own personal copies of the most important

“core” textbooks each year, or the equivalent in materials for students taking Art and Design

courses’, as part of their tuition fees. Manchester University have also launched a ‘Textbook

Rescue’ scheme whereby students drop off textbooks they no longer need in the library for others

to make use of.

We recommend that core books/textbooks are provided for free in students’ first year of study. If

this cannot occur in every department, we recommend that it is made clear to students in lectures,

handbooks, prospectuses and webpages which texts it is necessary, and which texts it is not

necessary, to buy prior to starting the course.

The average annual cost for students travelling to and from campus by bus is £301 (the price of an

Arriva bus pass). Students without bikes in Carnatic and Greenbank halls have little option other

than to buy a bus pass.

The price of bus tickets raises welfare concerns. For example, students who do not have a pass

might often forego a library fine or miss a lecture to save money on a return bus ticket into town.

A single ticket on the bus to campus from halls or Smithdown Road is £1.70 and a 'day saver' is

£3.80.

Students might choose off-campus accommodation because it is cheaper (a self-catering room in

Carnatic or Greenbank is just £90.30 per week. In contrast, a single self-catered room in Vine

Court is £130.90 per week, and other rooms in Vine Court can cost as much as £183.05 per week).

However by choosing to live off-campus students can arrive at University unaware that they have

to pay an extra fee for their travel to and from their lectures.

The Guild and the University have been in discussions with Arriva over the past academic year

because the bus service to and from halls has also been unreliable (buses show up late, or full,

and this is particularly frustrating for students during the exam period). The dissatisfaction with the

expense of the bus passes also relates to the unreliable service delivered by Arriva, although we

hope this is being resolved.

The University of York, the University of Nottingham and the University of Manchester offer a free

‘shuttle-bus’ service that runs students from accommodation to campus, or from one campus to

another.

We recommend that the University enters into negotiations with Arriva with the aim to introduce

affordable (or even free) green shuttle buses between halls, Smithdown Road and central campus

for all students to use.

Although it is clear that students across campus are spending a significant proportion of their

annual income on printing, books and bus passes, when analysing the results from our research

on-campus, it became evident that students in specific schools or on specific programmes are

spending disproportionate amounts of money on items which are central to their progression. For

example, the average cost of field trips and travel (not including buses) is particularly notable at an

average of £490 for 50 respondents and £335 for 57 students respectively. This is shown in figure

4.

Figure 5 ranks all of the schools whose students participated in the research, according to average

spend per student. The next section of this report will investigate the rationale for such unequal

costs across campus and suggest ways in which targeted subsidies and school-level initiatives

could alleviate the unreasonable financial burden which students on certain programmes face.

Veterinary Science students have to travel to the Leahurst campus. This is an issue often raised at

the School of Veterinary Science SSLCs. From central Liverpool, a young person’s return on the

train to Hooton is £2.70. A taxi from Hooton to Leahurst is £8.00. Given that the average student

receives £4,335 per year for maintenance, the cost of travel to Leahurst is unaffordable. Most of

the students lift share to get to there but this is neither a sustainable nor an equitable option.

Veterinary Science students also have to undertake placements during the summer (‘Extra Mural

Studies’ or EMS). Students must complete a minimum of 38 weeks EMS during their course, which

should normally consist of 12 weeks pre-clinical and 26 weeks of clinical placements. Students

without significant parental support will clearly struggle as they cannot get a paid job during the

summer. If student travel costs were covered by the university this would significantly increase

student satisfaction.

During one of the qualitative consultations coordinated at the Guild during the campaign, a

Veterinary Science student had the following to say on the topic of travel to placements and the

cost of funding Extra Mural Studies

I have struggled significantly as a student. I study Veterinary which must be one of the most expensive courses to study. Not only do you require equipment, but the unfunded and unpaid placement requirements are crippling for someone who has no funds, and restricts the acquisition of funds as you have minimal time to find paid work during the holidays. You need a car just to attend most of them!... It's been very difficult and I have had to rely on friends' goodwill to help me through. It's frustrating.

(Anon, 2013)

If students on clinical programmes are not in receipt of a NHS travel bursary, they often spend

significant amounts on their travel.i The NUS report on the issue highlighted the fact that 85% of

NHS undergraduates paid their own travel costs in comparison to their non-NHS counterparts of

whom 58% spend money on travel. Nationally, 18% of students on clinical programmes pay over

£40 per week on travel to placement. This is a clearly unaffordable amount for students living on

the average maintenance loan of £4335 per year and would have to be subsidised by parents,

particularly as the timetables on clinical programmes are so full that the possibility of getting a

flexible part-time job is small.

As with other course costs, extensive travel costs can affect students’ ability to study. Students

paying over £10 per week on travel were far less likely to indicate that they felt able to concentrate

on their studies without worrying about their finances (NUS, 2013: 31).

Undergraduate Medicine students at the University are to receive a universal subsidy from the

School for travel expenses. We recommend that the same subsidy be available to all students

undertaking placements as part of their course.

Excessive expenditure on equipment, such as building materials and lab equipment, was found to

be particularly notable in the School of Architecture. Students studying Architecture must print

large plans of their work and the cost of building materials for plans and models is also

considerable. The sum of expenditure per student on course equipment is such that if the School

of Architecture was officially classified as a school rather than a department, it would top the chart

with an average spend per student of £1161 per year on extra course costs, some more than the

average spend in the School of Veterinary Science.

Nevertheless, expenditure on course equipment within the School of Veterinary Science was also

found to be substantial. On average, students within the School were found to spend an average

of £80 per year on clothing for their course and another £135 on other mandatory course

equipment.

Lab coats are also essential requirements in the School of Dentistry, Life Sciences, Medicine and

Health Sciences.

Students in the School of Environmental Sciences spend an average of £440 per year on field trips

and students in the School of Life Sciences of £600. There has also been dissatisfaction voiced

with the accuracy of information on the price of trips in SSLCs within the School of Environmental

Sciences.

For example, based on the cost of the School's field trip for the previous cohort, students in the

second year of the BSc in Geology had budgeted £197 for a field trip to Spain but were then told

with insufficient notice that the trip would cost £400.

When students are budgeting and receive an average of £4335 per year for maintenance,

fluctuations in the price of trips can affect their ability to get by significantly. When they receive

less than this sum and do not have a job or any parental financial support, such fluctuations can

be detrimental.

1. That the University provide extra funding to schools or departments (such as the School of

Architecture and the School of Veterinary Science) where students bear an unreasonable and

disproportionate financial burden. Universal subsidies would lessen inequalities between students

and allow those struggling financially to focus more on their work to the benefit of their student

experience.

2. That the University adopt a 'No Hidden Extras' Policy. Providing students with accurate

information on extra course costs allow them to budget for the cost of their course properly as is

demonstrated in the case study of the initiative adopted by Coventry University.

A Case Study of Good Practice at Institutional-level: Coventry University and the ‘No Hidden

Extras’ Initiative

At Coventry University, there is a ‘No Hidden Extras’ policy. This means that the course fee

displayed on the University's prospectus includes all of the essential items you will need for taking

the course.

'The course fee shown in the Course List and Prospectus includes:

- your own personal copies of the most important ‘core’ textbooks each year, or the

equivalent in materials for students taking Art and Design courses;

- any essential starter pack required for the course eg: lab coat, industrial boots, or

safety goggles;

- printing credits equivalent to 1,000 sides of A4 black and white laser prints each year;

- the cost of transport and accommodation for any mandatory UK field trips or day

visits on your course (but not including food or entertainment).'

(Coventry University, 2013)

These provisions are extensive and allow students to arrive at university confident that once their

course fees are paid, they will have all the basic provisions for studying their course. This is

currently not the case at the University of Liverpool, as we have seen, printing is always costly,

practical clothing for courses must be paid for by the students themselves, and core textbooks

might be in the library but students needing their own copy must pay for it. At Coventry University

it is also emphasised that there is ‘an absolute commitment to ensuring everything is clearly

communicated in advance’. This ensures that if there course equipment or resources are not

included in the course costs (for example extra materials, printing or optional field trips), students

will be made aware that they need to budget for this before they choose to study there and before

they arrive.

Below is an example taken from Coventry University for the webpage detailing the costs of the

Architecture BSc:

Tuition fee waiver for study abroad year;

Specified core textbooks;

Any mandatory UK residential field trips;

Any mandatory UK site visits and trips;

1,000 sides of black and white laser prints;

Initial set of safety boots and hard hat;

Drawing and model-making equipment

Any optional overseas field trips or visits: £400+ per trip;

Warm waterproof clothing for site visits: £150;

Contribution to living expenses of mandatory residential field trips: £150 per trip (usually 2

trips for this course); Drawing and model making material

(Coventry University, 2012)

The ‘No Hidden Extras’ initiative is not perfect; for example it currently only applies to

undergraduates and not postgraduates. However, the information on the Frequently Asked

Questions page is comprehensive and explains where ‘No Hidden Extras’ applies and where it

does not.

There are evidently gross inequalities in terms of the amount students have to pay to progress on

their course at the University. As the national campaign coordinated by NUS found, acute extra

costs at University have significant effects on retention rates and student well-being and ability to

concentrate on their studies. It is likely that course costs are having a significant impact upon

students' ability to excel in particular areas of campus.

Whilst we acknowledge the innovative work which the University of Liverpool is doing to widen

participation to higher education, it is paramount to point out the potential which disproportionate

course costs can have upon students from lower socio-economic backgrounds who are more

likely to work longer hours and struggle to excel on their course as a result (NUS, 2013: 35). This is

creating a path to study based purely on financial groundings instead of academic ability; a

principle in direct contradiction with the principles of the University of Liverpool.

The key recommendations from LGoS' campaign and research into extra course costs at the

University of Liverpool can be summarised as follows:

Printing:

1. The high cost price of printing especially within the department of Architecture is

incurring extremely large costs for students. Reducing the price of printing to cost

prices would have a significant reduction on this.

2. Removing the need for double submission of coursework will reduce cost prices for

printing.

3. Consider alternative methods for assessment that require less paper

Books:

1. Departments should provide all core books for free in students’ first year of study. If

this cannot occur in every department, we recommend that it is made clear to students

in lectures, handbooks, prospectuses and webpages which texts it is necessary, and

which texts it is not necessary, to buy prior to starting the course.

2. Departments should reduce the number of books needed by students and instead

increase the level of available online journals and eBooks resources for all courses.

3. The library should liaise with LGoS to install a recycle books scheme

Buses:

1. The University should review the contract made with Arriva to consider, in particular,

the aims and objectives and looking at instigating clauses to stop prices rises and fix

inflation rates for example.

School of Veterinary Science:

1. The School should offer a travel card or subsidy to students who travel to the Leahurst

Campus regularly

2. The School should also consider introducing a bus to transport students between

Hooton and Leahurst

3. Offering travel cards to subsidies to students on placements to cover some of the

travel costs to and from the placements.

4. The University provide extra funding to schools or departments (such as the School of

Architecture and the School of Veterinary Science) where students bear an

unreasonable and disproportionate financial burden. Universal subsidies would lessen

inequalities between students and allow those struggling financially to focus more on

their work to the benefit of their student experience

5. The Guild should look at putting together a start up pack for Vet students (and other

Health and Life Sciences students) to be sold at an affordable price

Field Trips:

3. The University should adopt a ‘No Hidden Extras’ Policy to ensure that students are

provided with accurate information on extra course costs to allow them to budget for

the cost of their course properly e.g. costs published on VITAL

4. Departments should consider introducing lectures at the end of each semester to

inform students of future course costs

5. The University should also review the system to include additional costs on new

programme forms as this is not completed consistently.

Anon (2013) email to Maria Tyldesley, 24 May, <m.tyldesley@liv.ac.uk>

Behrens, R. (2013) ‘Student complaints rise by 25%,’ The Guardian [online]. Available at:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/higher-education-network/blog/2013/jun/13/student-complaints-rise-

25-per-cent (Accessed 24/06/2013)

Coventry University (2012) Architecture BSc [online]. Available at:

http://www.coventry.ac.uk/course-structure/2014/faculty-of-engineering-and-

computing/undergraduate/architecture-bsc-hons/?theme=main (Accessed 01/05/2013)

Coventry University (2013) No Hidden Extras [online]. Available at:

http://www.coventry.ac.uk/study-at-coventry/student-support/finance/undergraduate-finance/no-

hidden-extras/ (Accessed 01/05/2013)

NUS (2012) ‘Success in the Student Market,’ NUS Connect [online]. Available at:

http://www.nusconnect.org.uk/resources/nus/Success-in-the-student-market/ (Accessed

20/06/2013)

NUS (2013) The Pound in Your Pocket: Summary Report, NUS, London.

Student Finance (2012) Guide to Student Finance [online]. Available at:

https://www.gov.uk/student-finance/loans-and-grants (Accessed 02/08/2013)