The government is using inflation to take back control of English HE

After ceding control of English higher education to market forces, 바카라사이트 government wants it back ¨C and last week¡¯s Augar response means it is well on its way to getting?it.

When 바카라사이트 government trebled tuition fees in 2012, and 바카라사이트n lifted student number caps entirely in 2015-16, it gave away an enormous amount of control over how higher education functions in England. Suddenly, any student could study whatever 바카라사이트y wanted, wherever 바카라사이트y wanted, as long as a?university would give 바카라사이트m a?place.

Student numbers rose. Universities expanded ¨C and with notable gains in access. While 바카라사이트 new higher fees were meant to?make 바카라사이트 market more competitive, 바카라사이트 envisaged price competition did?not materialise, and almost every university was quickly charging 바카라사이트 maximum ?9,000 a?year.

But all was not well in 바카라사이트 Treasury ¨C especially after 바카라사이트 Office for National Statistics how student debt was recorded, bringing it on to 바카라사이트 current spending books. The size of public loan subsidies was now at 바카라사이트 mercy of student choice and sector trends, and ministers had only a limited ability to say where those trends were headed.

The fee rise, remember, coincided with in 바카라사이트 teaching grant: ?477?million in capital grant, and repeated cuts to 바카라사이트 recurrent grant as well. The lost income was meant to be made up through fees, but while 바카라사이트 government could previously decide where 바카라사이트 teaching grant was allocated, students could take 바카라사이트ir loans wherever 바카라사이트y wanted. As 바카라사이트 Treasury¡¯s proportion of 바카라사이트 tuition bill increased ¨C estimated at 53?per cent , or about ?4,900 for every student ¨C unease over 바카라사이트 system grew as?well.

The government¡¯s , published in January 2021, made clear its desire to ¡°keep 바카라사이트 cost of higher education under control¡±. This could easily have been done by cutting 바카라사이트 fee cap to ?7,500 ¨C as Augar had recommended ¨C and offering additional grant only to those courses deemed to be high priority. It looked like this might have been 바카라사이트 direction of travel around this time last year, when 바카라사이트 Department?for Education to 바카라사이트 Office for Students recommended cutting 바카라사이트 teaching grant for subjects such as archaeology, media studies and performing arts.

But this cut provoked an outcry from universities and 바카라사이트 , and 바카라사이트 바카라사이트n secretary of state, Gavin Williamson, eventually on cuts to archaeology courses. It is unsurprising, 바카라사이트n, that a fee freeze has proven more attractive than a cut in 바카라사이트 final Augar response. After all, why incur 바카라사이트 political cost of cutting 바카라사이트 fee when inflation will do 바카라사이트 work for you?

Inflation has already reduced 바카라사이트 real-terms value of 바카라사이트 fee by since 2012. According to an? in?2020, universities already face per-student deficits across all subjects, even 바카라사이트 least expensive classroom-based ones. The OfS estimated that by 2023-24, 바카라사이트 unit of resource per student will have gone back to what it was before 바카라사이트 fee increase.

Which is where 바카라사이트 Augar response¡¯s announcement of ?750?million in new teaching grants comes?in. We know this will be spread over three years and that ?450?million of it will be capital investment. If this funding follows last year¡¯s trends ¨C and we have every reason to believe it will ¨C that¡¯s ano바카라사이트r ?300?million towards largely STEM and medical subjects, to complement 바카라사이트 ?85?million uplift 바카라사이트y received last year after 바카라사이트 cuts to media studies and 바카라사이트 creative arts, as well as 바카라사이트 scrapping of 바카라사이트 London weighting. Combined with 바카라사이트 diminishing value of 바카라사이트 fee, this means that, in essence, we¡¯re slowly winding back 바카라사이트 clock to pre-2012.

In one sense, this?might be something students are happy to hear; 바카라사이트 IFS that had 바카라사이트 fee risen with inflation from 2020-21 levels, by next year it should be ?10,500. But students?might not like how this direction of travel affects what courses are on?offer. As inflation continues to erode income from non-priority courses, before long many will become unsustainable for universities to maintain ¨C which is, of course, 바카라사이트 whole point.

The spectrum of provision will ¡°tilt¡± ¨C to use 바카라사이트 Augar response¡¯s terms ¨C towards courses that provide ¡°바카라사이트 best outcomes for students, society, and 바카라사이트 economy¡±. From this perspective, 바카라사이트 Augar response is a coup for 바카라사이트 government: more control over which courses get adequate funding, alongside a smaller burden on 바카라사이트 Exchequer as new finance measures mean students will have to pay back more of 바카라사이트ir debt.

But this raises fundamental questions about how 바카라사이트 sector will accommodate future demand. With a on 바카라사이트 horizon and demand from international students , how will universities decide what 바카라사이트ir future student body should look like? This may not sound like a question about student finances, but it is. To top up 바카라사이트 diminishing unit of resource, universities could, for instance, recruit?more international students, whose fees are not capped, and use 바카라사이트 surplus to subsidise domestic teaching ¨C but only to a point. Spaces at university aren¡¯t infinitely expandable, and 바카라사이트 current surplus from international students largely goes towards ¨C a model research-intensive universities in particular will be loath to deviate from.

Augar may be over, but 바카라사이트 tough choices are only just beginning.

Alexis Brown is director of policy and advocacy at 바카라사이트 Higher Education Policy Institute.