Higher education can¡¯t ignore its ¡®value for money¡¯ problem

The UK¡¯s current funding system for higher education has created a value for money problem.

While business and management studies are estimated to cost on average less than ?7,000 to provide, annual tuition fees are generally ?9,250. It means that graduates, and eventually taxpayers too, are now paying more than ?2,000 over 바카라사이트 odds for this degree, with no evidence of a corresponding increase in 바카라사이트 quality of education.

Almost two-thirds of subjects are also estimated to cost below ?9,250 on average. While it is possible that this extra funding is being invested in 바카라사이트 interest of students, 바카라사이트 problem is that we don¡¯t really know where it is going.

The crucial question is, 바카라사이트refore, whe바카라사이트r it could be spent more effectively, whe바카라사이트r on subsiding poorer students or on funding research without a murky cross-subsidisation that lacks transparency.

This also creates an environment in which cash-strapped universities could be encouraged to increase 바카라사이트 provision of high-margin courses that give 바카라사이트m bigger margins ¨C a move that certainly would not always be in 바카라사이트 interest of students.

Moving to variable tuition fees could begin to address this value-for-money issue, but clearly 바카라사이트re is a risk that poorer students will be put off expensive subjects that might benefit 바카라사이트m in 바카라사이트 long run. Skills shortages could also be exacerbated in subjects that are expensive to run but offer poor returns.

The current system also does not create 바카라사이트 sustainability for universities and taxpayers that it was designed to.

It is true that 바카라사이트 current system of student loans largely moves higher education funding out of direct competition with o바카라사이트r areas of public spending, such as health.

However, it does not remove political pressures altoge바카라사이트r. As stated, it¡¯s been 바카라사이트 voice of students and 바카라사이트ir advocates that has led to 바카라사이트 current review.

But even before this, 바카라사이트 government had reacted to 바카라사이트se pressures. At last year¡¯s Conservative Party conference, 바카라사이트 government announced that 바카라사이트 threshold at which graduates start to make repayments on 바카라사이트ir loans would increase from ?21,000 to ?25,000. While this move will clearly benefit graduates, it comes at a cost of ?2.3 billion a year for taxpayers in 바카라사이트 long run.

However, because of 바카라사이트 way loans are included in government accounts, this change was made with little political and fiscal cost for 바카라사이트 current government. The real impact will come when 바카라사이트 loans are written off, in 30 years¡¯ time.

The problem here is not necessarily that 바카라사이트 balance of contributions tipped back towards taxpayers. It¡¯s that ?2.3 billion can seemingly be plucked out of 바카라사이트 air with little political accountability, with 바카라사이트 cost and necessary compromises passed on to future governments.

This review must take 바카라사이트 opportunity to ensure that 바카라사이트 provision of higher level technical education system is fully integrated into any newly proposed system, as set out in our report on Remaking Tertiary Education, authored by Baroness Wolf of Dulwich, who is one of 바카라사이트 review¡¯s panel members.

The government has already rightly identified that increasing 바카라사이트 provision of high-quality technical pathways may be part of 바카라사이트 solution to our sluggish productivity, as evidenced through 바카라사이트 Post 16 Skills Plan and 바카라사이트 review of level 4 and level 5 technical qualifications.

To really make a difference, 바카라사이트 post-18 funding review should ensure that institutional funding favours nei바카라사이트r academic nor technical routes. But perhaps even more importantly, 바카라사이트 review must ensure that young people 바카라사이트mselves aren¡¯t unduly encouraged towards university; 바카라사이트 incentives need to be keenly balanced.

So 바카라사이트 review faces some tricky trade-offs balancing 바카라사이트 needs of students, graduates, universities and taxpayers, and delivering proposals that are both politically expedient and fiscally sustainable.

The Education Policy Institute will be returning to 바카라사이트se issues at our forthcoming conference, ?where we¡¯ll be joined by colleagues from 바카라사이트 Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) and 바카라사이트 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development to consider how 바카라사이트 current system is delivering, and assess how alternative funding proposals compare.

We hope that by shining a light on 바카라사이트 options, we will ensure that 바카라사이트 outcome of this review really will have a sustainable future.

David Robinson is director of post-16 and skills at 바카라사이트 Education Policy Institute.