ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

"Bemused" is the only word I can find to describe my reaction to the apparently surprised tone of your article on financial incentives for prospective students ("Will cash deals fill courses?", July 28).

During the passage of the Higher Education Bill, students and campaigners warned of the establishment of a market in higher education that could lead to students on the same course paying different fees, but this was brushed aside, as were many of our other arguments.

The spectre of Sir Martin Harris imploring universities not to undertake such activity is frankly laughable. A market system that allows universities to vary their prices has been introduced but now they are being told that they should not exploit it. This not only fuels fears that the Office for Fair Access as a regulator is unclear of its role and beholden to the Government, but it also suggests that the Act in practice will differ substantially from the theory.

It appears that there never was an intention to open up a market in higher education and the Government knew full well that most, if not all, universities would be forced to charge the full ?3,000. Rather, it appears that variability was the carrot used to entice those wary of such an increase in the contribution expected from students and their families.

Here at King's College London Student Union we are well aware of the fact that those institutions that will suffer because of the new fee arrangements will not be the likes of King's and Oxbridge. Although we have opposed and will continue to oppose top-up fees and the introduction of a market in higher education, we feel it is only right that students and institutions should be able to benefit from the mess that is the Higher Education Act.

Daryn McCombe
President, KCLSU