Advertisement

Changing the emphasis on university funding

Theresa May speaking at Derby college on Monday 19 February 2018.
‘That the prime minister herself should now claim that university is “too expensive” is puzzling given that this is the direct result of the fees and funding policies for which she has previously voted,’ writes Pam Tatlow. Photograph: Reuters

Sonia Sodha (How to fix our universities, 20 February) misses some key weaknesses in English higher education. No other OECD country graduates its students at such a young age. We make worse use of graduate skills than most advanced economies: as graduate numbers have risen, so has the proportion not working in graduate jobs. The expansion of higher education for 18-year-olds has been at the expense of part-time and work-based higher education (leading to an overall decline in social mobility). The root of these problems lies in the doomed pursuit of the perfect market in higher education advocated equally by the government, Lord Adonis and Lord Browne. It is and was crazy to believe that the collective choices of 17-year-olds could ever be an adequate tool to shape higher education.

While students don’t react much to market forces, universities – for whom income maximisation is the precursor to teaching and research – certainly do. High fees and market liberalisation have rewarded institutions that prioritise three-year degrees for 18-year-olds, no matter how poor value that education is. Higher education won’t change unless the incentives on universities change: even the abolition of fees will change nothing if universities still find it more profitable to target school leavers.

The current system encourages universities to create £8bn of public debt a year that taxpayers will have to write off. There is no comparable public spending over which government has ceded so much control and gained such poor value for money and public benefit. Instead of fruitless attempts to “improve the market” by micromanaging fees and universities, the government needs to take back control of funding and use it to incentivise universities to provide the diverse courses that students and the economy need. That may well mean restricting open-ended provision for 18-year-olds, as Sodha suggests, but should be balanced by increased provision for older students and work-based learners.
Professor John Denham
Former secretary of state, Department for Universities, Innovation and Skills (2007-09)

• Any review of student finance that looks only at universities is hopelessly compromised from the start. Sonia Sodha is quite right to say that we need to channel some proper cash into the non-university routes. Our proposal for a national learning entitlement, published last week by the UCL Institute of Education, does exactly that. We argue that all 18-year-olds should be given access to funding for education fee payments up to a total of £5k a year, up to a maximum of £10k. The central point of the proposal is that they could use this for studying in further education colleges as well at universities, and in recognised adult education institutions. They could study on a part-time basis and spread the entitlement over several years. If universities choose to charge higher fees then students would have to think whether they wish to borrow the difference.

The result would be equity between universities and other forms of post-school provision – and so much greater equity for different social groups. It would also spur universities to provide something other than full-time three-year degrees, so we could have badly needed diversity of courses.

We argue that adults who have not yet got a university degree could also benefit from the entitlement. This would be a real boost for lifelong learning.

We estimate the cost at £7bn-8bn. This is far less than abolishing all tuition fees. More importantly, it would mean real parity across the post-school sector.
Professor Tom Schuller UCL and University of Wolverhampton
Professor Alan Tuckett University of Wolverhampton
Tom Wilson University of Wolverhampton

• The only higher education fight that Theresa May has picked is with the policies that her own and the coalition government have pursued since 2010. These policies and the spurious application of market principles have ensured that the costs of higher and further education (regarded as an investment in many European countries) have been transferred to students and graduates not only in universities but also in colleges. In the latter, students who are aged 19 or over now have to take our loans to study for level 3 courses such as A-levels and BTecs if they cannot afford to pay the costs upfront. These “advanced learner” loans accrue the same compound interest and are repayable on the same terms as higher education loans but are rarely mentioned by ministers.

That the prime minister herself should now claim that university is “too expensive” is puzzling given that this is the direct result of the fees and funding policies for which she has previously voted. Equally disappointing is the rhetoric which implies that would-be students should study higher “vocational” qualifications at colleges rather than “academic” degrees. One of the great successes of the UK’s modern universities has been their willingness to develop new courses to respond to emerging industries, technologies and needs in both the private and public sectors. As a result, high-quality courses and qualifications combining academic and vocational knowledge and skills are now offered throughout the university sector – a fact that seems to have escaped No 10.

A year-long review hidebound by market ideology and funding constraints has only a slim chance of delivering the radical reform required to ensure that access to further and higher education is available to all who can benefit whatever their age, background or family circumstances. We can only hope that out-of-date prejudices that seek to divvy up people, qualifications, institutions and courses on the basis of “vocational” or “academic” or limited and limiting views of future earnings potential of students are given short shrift early in the review panel’s deliberations.
Pam Tatlow
London

• In answering questions after her Derby speech, Theresa May justified an emphasis on student fees in financing higher education, saying, “You’ve got two groups of people: those who go to university and benefit from going to university, and those who do not.”

In reality, of course, there are other important groups too. One is those who go to university but do not benefit from it, at least not financially in proportion to the huge debts so many have run up. Another is those who may not have gone to university themselves but benefit from the knowledge and skills of others who have. All of us, whether we have gone to university or not, benefit directly or indirectly from the higher education of doctors and teachers. Many businessmen and businesswomen, irrespective of their own education, benefit from the university training of their employees.

The traditional argument for financing higher education through progressive taxation, allowing the heaviest burdens to fall on the broadest shoulders, remains as strong as ever.
Donald Mackinnon
Newport, Gwent

• Cheap jewellery is generally regarded as being less good than expensive, and we don’t want the same to apply to university degrees, which is why they all have to charge the same amount for any particular course. Any review should concentrate on matching students to types of education from which they can benefit most, and then ensuring that whoever teaches them has the appropriate resources, rather than concentrating on the “50% of children should go to university” target.
Dr Richard Turner
Beverley, East Yorkshire

• It costs up to £100,000 to qualify at the bar. This and the below-minimum-wage fees that the junior bar receives will leave the future of our profession in the hands of the elite and privileged few who can afford it. The more diverse the representative, the more representative becomes the justice. The government is failing in this area of social mobility. Equality, fairness and the rule of law demand that this situation is reversed as soon as possible.
James Keeley
Barrister, The 36 Group, London

• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com

• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters