STUDENTS are reeling from the Higher Education funding report from Lord Browne which paves the way for universities to set their own tuition fees.

The former BP boss yesterday published his review of student funding in England, calling for the current £3,290 cap on fees to be lifted with the prospect that institutions could charge as much as £12,000 a year for some courses.

There is a fear the move may put students off from attending university.

Martin Rostron, principal of Greenhead College where 95% of students go on to higher education, said removing the cap could be “socially divisive.”

“It has caused quite a bit of concern because especially our first year students could be affected if the changes are introduced by 2012,” he said.

“We are worried that many students may alter their choices and may now think of alternatives to higher education after discussing the situation with their families.’’

Huddersfield University radio journalism and media third year student Dave James branded the review as “absolutely abysmal.” The 30-year-old said: “We have been let down by the Government.

“This was a great opportunity to right a lot of the wrongs of the Labour Government but this is very much re-establishing the monetary class and what people can afford to pay is what they get.

“This review sends out a very clear message that the Government is not willing to invest in the future of the country through art, media and entrepreneurism.”

First year history and English student Nicole Harding said she was surprised the Government was failing to take responsibility for higher education.

She said higher education was not being seen as way of helping the country out of recession but plunging students into further debt.

Matt Christie, president of Huddersfield Student’s Union said the enquiry was thought-provoking with some progressive elements such as support for part-time students and maintenance support grants for low income students.

But he accused the Government of “pulling the rug from under student’s feet” and privatising education by forcing them to possibly pay double the tuition fees they do today.

Mr Christie said the cuts would hit hardest at humanities courses which was surprising considering both David Cameron and Nick Clegg had history, politics and social anthropology degrees.

“Students will be paying for the financial deficit and filling the hole created by other economies,” he said.

Professor Peter Slee, deputy vice-chancellor of Huddersfield University, said the report suggested possibly the most radical changes to higher education for the last 50 years.

But he said the proposals would be dependent on the political perspective and would need to be discussed by the university in the light of funding reduction through the Comprehensive Spending Review.

He said the university welcomed the proposals for part-time students as there were many in Huddersfield and the plans for student support which were more progressive than was first thought.

He said that students earning £25,000 would only be paying back less than £1 a day of their student loan under the new plans which, when seen in context, was not quite as challenging as had been first thought.

The cap on tuition fees should be lifted from the current £3,290, allowing universities to charge what they like – and different fees to be set for different courses.

The Government would underwrite fees of up to £6,000. After that, universities would pay a tapered levy to cover the costs to Government of providing students with finance upfront.

Universities charging more than £6,000 per year will keep smaller amounts of that fee, for example an institution charging £7,000 for a course, will keep 94% of the fee. The review sets out figures up to £12,000 per year – universities charging this will still keep nearly three-quarters (73%) of the fee.

Similar to the current system, students would not have to pay fees upfront. The earning threshold at which graduates would have to start repaying loans would rise from £15,000 to £21,000.

Unpaid loans would be written off after 30 years.

Higher-earning graduates would pay back their loans at an interest rate equal to the Government’s cost of borrowing, while those earning below the threshold would pay no real interest rate, and would just see their loans rise in line with inflation.

Every student would be entitled to a flat-rate maintenance loan of £3,750.

The review estimates that students taking out tuition fee loans of £6,000 per year for three years and £3,750 in maintenance loans in the same period will owe £30,000 by the time they graduate.

It calls for student numbers to increase by 10% over the next three years, and for no restrictions on the numbers universities can recruit.

The Government should continue investing in “priority” subjects such as science and technology, medicine, nursing and healthcare as well as “strategically important” language courses.

All new academics with teaching responsibilities should have a teaching qualification.