Your Ideas

Submission By Emma Harvey (Submitted by Democracy Team)

UAL’s policies on hardship and funding need to be changed. There are several issues with the programs and how they fail to support students from mixed / International backgrounds and financially disadvantaged situations.  

1: Financial Hardship: 

• Student Finance England: Student Finance England (SFE) seems to employ different systems for students whose parents are not both British, requiring additional steps to achieve the same results as their fully British peers. This disproportionately affects students from mixed backgrounds and adds unnecessary delays and stress to an already challenging process, especially since Brexit. Additionally, certain students coming from these mixed backgrounds aren’t eligible for SFE loans in the first place.  

• UAL’s reliance on SFE: Because UAL's funding team relies heavily on SFE documentation, they exclude or overlook students from mixed or international backgrounds who face unique challenges in proving their financial standing. Next to that, they also seem to be unwilling to take any other proof, even if it’s the same exact documents that SFE asks for. It appears that the focus is less on the actual financial background of a student and more on what SFE states or fails to state. UAL could easily reach the same conclusions by directly reviewing the same documentation and proof that SFE requires. Ultimately, it shouldn’t matter who reviews the documents, as the evidence provided should accurately reflect a student’s financial situation, regardless of whether it's assessed by UAL or SFE.  

• Inaccurate Reflection of Financial Need: on the same note, it is important to mention that even if a student has been means tested, SFE’s loan calculations often fail to provide a realistic view of a student's true financial circumstances. It fails to account for many significant factors that could make someone “poor”, even if SFE says they are “rich” and vice-versa. SFE does not account for unpaid debts/loans, living costs, part-time vs temporary job incomes, unforeseen medical expenses, personal or family emergencies such as a death, education-related supplies, support for siblings and family members other than the student, savings and assets, etc. This means students in severe financial need, are often deprioritized or excluded from accessing critical scholarships and funding opportunities because on paper they are “rich”, while others are categorized as  “poor”, when they are not, , exploitingthe system.  

• Ripple Effect of Exclusion: Students unable to access scholarships or hardship funds are further excluded from or are simply not prioritised to participate in programs like mentorships or development initiatives, as these also rely on the same flawed system. This creates a cycle of disadvantage for the students who need support the most. Furthermore, while there are many valuable opportunities and services available to all, it’s important to recognize that only those who are financially secure have the luxury of fully engaging with them. For students who are struggling financially, even free opportunities become out of reach, as their focus is consumed with the constant worry of basic survival—like ensuring they have enough money for food, let alone time to participate in additional activities. 

2: Academic Work 

• Disparity in Project Resources: Students facing financial hardship cannot afford to invest the same amount of money or time into their projects as their more financially secure peers. 

• Lack of Access to Equipment: Limited financial resources mean that struggling students cannot purchase the same equipment or materials as their classmates, which directly impacts the quality and the outcome of their work. 

• Cost of Living Crisis: Students facing severe financial struggles are often forced to choose between prioritizing their degrees or working to cover basic living costs. Many skip classes to save on public transport fares or wait hours to travel home at a cheaper rate. This financial strain not only impact their ability to attend university but also limits the time and resources they can dedicate to their academic work, further widening the gap between them and their more financially stable peers. Additionally, these students often are forced into industries that have nothing to do with their career, meaning that none of the work that they did is or will be considered “valuable” when it comes to the assessment of scholarships/funds or future job prospects. They also don’t have the option of taking (often unpaid) internships in their relevant fields. 

• The cost of living crisis also results in many of those students being unable to afford rent closer to University, resulting in them having to commute 2+ hours every day, which considering everything is not an ideal position to be in.  

• Impact on Portfolios and Future Prospects: The disparity in project quality results in weaker portfolios, leaving financially disadvantaged students at a significant disadvantage when applying for UAL scholarhips/funds as well as seeking opportunities post-graduation. I have spoken with multiple students who didn’t even apply for any of the scholarships because they know that they cannot compete, although they really need the help. 

• Students coming from less-advantaged countries: Students from less-advantaged countries often face additional academic challenges due to the limitations they experienced growing up. These students may not have had access to the same opportunities, resources, or funding as their peers from more developed countries. How can we expect someone to be good with using the Adobe Suite for example if they come from a country where the schools and universities can’t even afford a laptop or a PC that can even run the program? Without access to these resources during their previous education, it's unrealistic to expect them to compete on the same level as students who have had these tools readily available. These disparities create a significant barrier, as their academic journey is not starting from an equal playing field. 

• These students’ mental health and general wellbeing is severely impacted because of their financial situation with many struggling with anxiety, depression, and other conditions, which then gets further reinforced when they are met with more hurdles and challenges coming their way that privileged peers may never have to experience. 

The current approach to scholarships and funding prioritizes academic merit in ways that inherently favour students who are not burdened by financial hardship, while the financial criteria fail to capture the full spectrum of students in need. This creates a system that rewards privilege rather than addressing inequality, ultimately defeating the purpose of having scholarships and funds in the first place. The system favours those who already have resources and opportunities, rather than those who need the support the most. This results in a cycle where financial hardship and lack of resources prevent deserving students from competing for the very scholarships designed to help them. The current framework, therefore, disproportionately benefits middle and upper-middle-class students, while excluding those from lower-income and disadvantaged backgrounds, including students from mixed backgrounds, less-developed countries and students from regions outside London. 

By campaigning to change these systems, we can create a more equitable support system for UAL students. UAL should undertake these changes to ensure their commitment to Access, Participation, and Inclusion. 

1. Join the national movement to change the education funding system (e.g, working with other Students’ Unions, or the NUS).  

1. Raise these issues with UAL directly through the elected Sabbatical Officers. 

1. Work with / lobby UAL to review their funding and scholarship policies. Working to reduce or eliminate reliance on the SFE system, and implement alternative methods of assessing financial need to ensure accuracy, equity, and fairness (especially in situations where the system employed further disadvantages students who are already coming from a place of disadvantage). To ensure equitable access to resources, opportunities, and programs.  

1. Increased awareness of intersectionality and the additional challenges faced by students from mixed backgrounds or with non-British parents, including Eastern-European ethnic minorities. Some students have been disqualified from scholarships because UAL failed to recognize and denied that they are an ethnic minority. (Eastern Europeans are often overlooked as minorities, as they are grouped under the broader "Europe" label. However, they do not share the same privileges as Western Europeans like the British, French, or Germans.) 

1. Increased awareness of intersectionality when it comes to ‘Home’ students also. Relying on SFE’s system places students from London and students from other regions of the UK under the same umbrella, which fails to acknowledge the different levels of access to resources and privileges. Just because both groups are classified as "British" does not mean they have the same access to opportunities or financial support. Students from outside London often face higher living costs, fewer local resources, and additional financial burdens, yet they are assessed in the same way as their London counterparts, who likely have additional support and who may not even have to pay any rent or work at all. This oversight exacerbates existing inequalities and further disadvantages students from outside of London who may already be struggling with the financial implications of their education. While the system acknowledges these students, it doesn’t necessarily prioritise them. 

1. Increased support for ‘International’ students who pay increasingly huge fees. International students who choose to study in the UK and at UAL are being ultimately exploited for their money, and Arts SU should lobby UAL to change the funding system.