There is in fact little solidarity when it comes to higher education
There is in fact little solidarity when it comes to higher education
The incoming levy on international student fees in England has entered a new and more divisive phase. The question is no longer whether it will happen, but what form it will take and who will bear the cost.
The Times Higher Education article of 28 October 2025 sets out the contours of the debate: ministers appear determined to push ahead with the policy, while universities race to influence the details. Behind the scenes, the most powerful institutions are lobbying to ensure that the impact falls elsewhere.
Robin Mason, Pro Vice Chancellor (International) at the University of Birmingham, made the Russell Group’s position clear when he told Times Higher Education that a flat charge would be “far better than a percentage” because “a percentage penalises the universities who, as a result of being higher quality and ranked, are able to charge more. A flat charge per student does not have that effect.” It was a revealing statement. While a flat-fee model may protect high-fee institutions, it would impose far harsher effects on their less well-resourced colleagues, universities that charge lower fees, often operate on tighter margins and play a central role in regional and widening-participation agendas.
A flat-fee charge looks simple but behaves unfairly. If the government imposed, for example, a £1,200 levy per international student, that would represent about 4 per cent of a £30,000 postgraduate fee but 8 per cent of a £15,000 fee. In other words, it would bite twice as hard for the lower-fee institution. By contrast, a percentage levy, say 4 or 6 per cent, aligns the burden with an institution’s pricing power and capacity to absorb costs. Those who charge more would contribute proportionally more. It is not a perfect solution, but it is a fairer one.
The Russell Group’s preference for a flat fee is not about administrative neatness; it is about protecting margin. In its budget submission, the Group called for a “wider financial settlement for research-intensive universities” to offset the impact. Hollie Chandler, the Group’s policy director, warned that “a 6 per cent levy will exacerbate these financial pressures, taking at least £300 million a year out of English Russell Group universities”. Chief Executive Tim Bradshaw went further, describing the levy as “a terrible policy” that would remove up to £370 million annually from research-intensive institutions and damage their ability to invest in high-cost teaching, research and innovation. No one disputes that the pain is real, but by arguing for a flat-fee model, the Group is effectively proposing to shift a greater share of that pain onto other institutions. It is a zero-sum game dressed as pragmatism.
The potential losses are significant. HEPI has estimated that a 6 per cent levy would remove about £620 million annually from the English system. Universities UK has warned that it would “completely undermine” any benefit from indexing home fees to inflation. Vice Chancellors across the country have expressed alarm. At the London School of Economics, Larry Kramer said: “[International students are] already paying at the limits the markets will bear… If I thought there was a margin because we were undercharging, I would have raised the fees already.” He cautioned that arguing over whether the levy should be 6 per cent or 4 per cent “does not get to the fundamental problem”. Duncan Ivison, Vice Chancellor at the University of Manchester, estimated that the levy could remove between £30 million and £43 million a year from his university, “wiping out pretty much all the financial headroom we have for doing the things the government quite rightly wants us to do”. Anthony Finkelstein, President of City, University of London, was even blunter, saying that if £8 million were removed from his budget, he would have to cut courses and that the policy was “absolutely crazy”.
These statements show the scale of the financial strain across the system but also expose a lack of sectoral solidarity. Instead of pressing collectively for a fair and sustainable design, the Russell Group’s lobbying for a flat charge risks widening the divide between research-intensive and teaching-led universities.
For international students, who already pay roughly three times what domestic students do in tuition fees, the consequences could be severe. If universities seek to pass the cost on through higher fees, whether through a percentage or a flat charge, the value proposition of a UK degree will come under renewed scrutiny. Families in China, India, Malaysia and Nigeria have already calculated their investment carefully. A £100,000 outlay for a degree and living costs demands tangible returns. If fees rise further, students and parents will expect clear evidence of return on investment.
This is where the UK sector’s lack of robust international graduate outcomes data, since the Higher Education Statistics Agency ceased actively collecting Non-EU graduate outcomes data in 2019, it becomes an urgent liability. Students and families increasingly ask how many graduates secure professional employment within six months, how many return home to good jobs in their field, and how their salaries compare with local graduates. At Asia Careers Group we have tracked more than 120,000 international graduates from UK and Australian universities since 2015. The results show that employability outcomes vary widely by institution, discipline and destination country, but not by entry tariff. In other words, tariff is no proxy for outcome, and employability is no respecter of prestige.
If the government introduces a levy that prompts another round of fee inflation, universities will have no choice but to justify those costs with transparent outcome data. International students will not continue paying premium fees on faith alone. In fact, this may be one of the unintended consequences of the levy: it could finally compel the sector to invest seriously in longitudinal tracking of international graduate outcomes.
While few in the sector believe the levy can be completely abolished, there is room for better design. The most equitable approach would involve a percentage-based levy that scales with pricing, introduced in phases to give universities and students adequate time to adjust. Any funds raised should be transparently reinvested into higher education. Currently, the government claims the funds will help widen participation, but there’s little clarity on whether universities or further education colleges will be the primary beneficiaries. Universities are pushing for the funds to be ring-fenced for higher education, but it seems the government may be leaning in a different direction, especially with Keir Starmer's announcement at the Labour Party conference on September 30, 2025, that two-thirds of young people should either attend university or pursue a gold-standard apprenticeship.
In order to evidence quality, employability and global competitiveness, both the government/taxpayers, and international students paying a premium for their UK degree, are looking for universities to demonstrate the value of that investment by publishing domestic and international graduate employment and further study data. However, HESA is currently falling short on both fronts, with a graduate outcomes survey response rate of less than 40% overall, and under 10% for Non-EU students.
The levy debate reveals deeper fractures within the UK’s university system. While research-intensive institutions focus on protecting their margins, many medium and lower tariff universities face existential risk. Yet these same universities often deliver the strongest value added for students, particularly widening participation and offering affordable post-graduate taught courses to international students who prioritise employability over prestige. At a time when the UK competes with Australia, Canada, the US and other emerging study destinations for global talent, division within the sector is self-defeating.
The risk is clear. A flat-fee levy would entrench inequality, penalise accessibility and erode trust among overseas students. It would also make it harder for universities to defend the value of a UK degree in the eyes of students and their families/funders. The Russell Group’s push for a flat-fee model may make financial sense for its members, but it sends a damaging signal to the rest of the sector. By prioritising institutional self-protection over collective fairness, it risks throwing its colleagues, and ultimately the reputation of UK higher education “under the bus.”
If the government moves forward with the levy, which now seems almost inevitable, it must ensure that it does not become a blunt instrument that exacerbates inequality. And universities, in turn, must respond not only through lobbying but through evidence: robust international graduate outcomes data that prove the continuing value of a UK education. In an era of rising fees, policy turbulence and global competition, prestige alone will not suffice. With the implementation of the levy, what will matter most to students, families and employers alike is clear proof of return on investment.
