It’s time to give London students more money | Nick Hillman

In higher education, general elections generally mean endless discussion of tuition fees and little of anything else. One area being overlooked is the relatively poor student experience in London.

Before the election was called, this issue was about to hit the headlines. The first results from the Teaching Excellence Framework – the government’s new gold, silver and bronze ranking system for universities – were expected to show London’s institutions struggling to match their provincial competitors. The results have been delayed until the middle of next month but we know what they are likely to show. When Times Higher Education produced a mock set of TEF results last year, the top London institution was Imperial, placed at 37 out of 120. Most other London institutions were in the bottom half of the list.

London is large, vibrant and cosmopolitan – and so are its universities. There are research-intensive institutions (such as King’s College London), newer universities (like London South Bank University) and places known for particular strengths (like Soas University of London). There are famous medical schools, such as the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, and specialist institutions, like the University of the Arts London. There are also London campuses of universities elsewhere in the UK and of overseas universities, as well as “alternative providers”, such as the New College of the Humanities.

Some people think rationalisation is overdue. A few years ago, Policy Exchange [pdf], the rightwing thinktank, complained: “There are a staggering 42 higher education institutions in London, many of them competing for the same pool of students.” Since then, the number has risen further, prompting more concern. The 2015 Conservative manifesto (pdf) favoured clamping down on the “satellite campuses” opened in London by universities located elsewhere.

Yet London’s higher education institutions continue to thrive. International students, in particular, are attracted to the capital. At some London institutions, more than four in 10 students come from other countries.

However, on arrival, they find some features of student life in the capital are difficult. As a result, student satisfaction is lower in London than elsewhere. City, University of London, is the top non-specialist Hefce-funded London higher education institution for student satisfaction but it comes 87th out of 160 institutions. The world-famous London School of Economics is at number 155.

One problem is that student accommodation is so expensive. According to an NUS/Unipol survey, student rents in London averaged £226 a week in 2015, compared with £147 elsewhere. They tend to rise faster in London, too, so the gap is always getting bigger. The recent UCL rent strike was not caused by profiteering; it was just evidence of how hard it is to offer affordable accommodation in London.

To cover these extra costs, home students can claim a maintenance loan of about £2,500 more than those studying elsewhere in the UK (£10,702 v £8,200). But assuming a tenancy of 42 weeks, their rent is, on average, more than £3,000 higher. In fact, their rent eats up nearly all their maintenance support before other costs, such as expensive tube tickets, are accounted for.

We need a new conversation about the right response to this problem. There are three options policymakers could think about. First, provide students in London with significantly more money than those elsewhere: drop-out rates in London are high as the capital is the one place in the UK where lack of finance may well force a student to quit. Second, accept London is different by assessing its institutions differently and contextualising their results in measures such as the TEF – though some people might regarded this as making excuses, rather than fixing the problem. Third, deliver structural changes, such as ensuring London institutions receive more in subsidy, or making it easier to build new student accommodation.

After all, the biggest city in the UK will remain the best choice for many students. It is certainly the best place for those who want to grow rich: the most detailed study of graduate outcomes, by the Institute for Fiscal Studies [pdf], instructs readers to: “note the strong levels of earnings of the London-based HEPs [higher education providers]: Imperial, LSE and King’s”.

Going to university is about a lot more than money but the financial success of London graduates means they are more likely to pay off their student loans. So lending them more money may not even have a long-term cost.

The election has pushed these issues away from the centre of political debate. But whoever is the minister for universities after the election will have to grapple with them.