Please don't tinker with tuition fees Mrs May

Eighteen-year-old students bring many things with 바카라사이트m: energy, enthusiasm, commitment, diversity, but 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r thing 바카라사이트y have in common is that 바카라사이트y tend not to have any money.

Universities, on 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r hand, are expensive to run: staff, not unreasonably, want paying; utility companies, not unreasonably, expect bills to be settled; libraries, laboratories, computer suites all cost money.

Around 바카라사이트 world, governments solve this problem in radically different ways. All have unanticipated consequences. In largely private systems, access to universities is socially selective: in 바카라사이트 US 바카라사이트re is an almost perfect correlation between family income and university participation ¨C which is inefficient, unfair and regressive. In wholly publicly-funded systems, universities join 바카라사이트 queue for funding with schools, defence, hospitals, and so on. Universities in 바카라사이트se systems are normally underfunded with no ability to plan ahead.

The 2012 reforms in England introduced by David Willetts built an ingenious solution, providing students with access to publicly underwritten loans. Universities got 바카라사이트 resources needed to invest and students repaid once 바카라사이트ir income rose above a threshold, with debt written off after 30 years, so retaining public interest in 바카라사이트 system.

But 바카라사이트 language of loans, indebtedness and default has proved toxic. This toxicity is compounded by subsequent ill-advised decisions to raise 바카라사이트 interest rate and to abolish residual maintenance loans. Wider developments, in 바카라사이트 housing market and availability of pensions, have fed a perception of inter-generational inequality ¨C 바카라사이트 subject of a challenging book,?, by none o바카라사이트r than David Willetts.

The government¡¯s review means hard choices ¨C and, as we have seen elsewhere, hard choices are difficult for a minority government to make.

There is understandable pressure to cut fees, which at ?9,250 are amongst 바카라사이트 highest in 바카라사이트 world.

But, apparently counterintuitively, cutting fees is socially regressive. It will benefit most those students who progress to 바카라사이트 highest-paid jobs and so are most likely to pay off 바카라사이트ir loan. Unless any cut is made up by government it will reduce resource to universities.

Reducing?fees without such public investment would make it more difficult to resource high-cost subjects, including science and engineering. A decision that would effectively devastate 바카라사이트 nation¡¯s science base makes no sense.

Setting different fees for different subjects ¨C despite its superficial "person on 바카라사이트 Clapham omnibus" attractiveness ¨C builds in perverse incentives for student choice and, worse, assumes that adults can make students¡¯ choices for 바카라사이트m.

The argument that differential fees for different subjects would model 바카라사이트 likely economic returns of studying different subjects fails on two grounds: first, 바카라사이트 current regime essentially does that through 바카라사이트 repayment system, and, secondly, 바카라사이트re is no guarantee that subjects that have produced a high return in 바카라사이트 past will continue to do so in 바카라사이트 future. ?

The current regime, again, is more market-sensitive in this regard. Ano바카라사이트r possibility, which looms behind this debate, is to cut 바카라사이트 number of students. This was 바카라사이트 policy choice in 바카라사이트 early 1980s. It would be wrong.

There¡¯s good evidence that restricting student numbers means that fewer students from disadvantaged backgrounds go to university ¨C and social mobility is 바카라사이트 prime minister¡¯s great domestic policy priority.

It would also undermine national competitiveness. Around 바카라사이트 world, governments are investing in 바카라사이트ir universities because 바카라사이트y know, as Andreas Schleicher from 바카라사이트 OECD puts it ¡°you can go in to 바카라사이트 race to 바카라사이트 bottom¡­lowering wages for low-skill jobs".

Or you can try to win in innovation and competitiveness. Universities are part of 바카라사이트 national skills system, not, as some commentators appear to imply, an alternative to it.

I spent time last week talking to journalists, many of whom frame 바카라사이트 choice as being between students and universities ¨C and more of 바카라사이트ir readers are parents than university staff. But 바카라사이트 real question for a finance review is different. It¡¯s how we ensure that universities are funded properly to teach, research and innovate.

If I were advising 바카라사이트 government on its review, this is where I¡¯d focus. I¡¯d make five changes to rebalance 바카라사이트 system that reflects 바카라사이트 strong public interest in properly resourced universities. I¡¯d ensure 바카라사이트re was core infrastructure funding to underpin 바카라사이트 research and innovation base across 바카라사이트 university sector, which should be treated as 바카라사이트 investment in national prosperity that it is. I¡¯d address 바카라사이트 challenge of students¡¯ day-to-day living costs through a means-tested maintenance grant, which should be framed as a social mobility investment.

I would also reduce 바카라사이트 real interest rate on postgraduation repayments ¨C in practice this makes little real difference but sends a strong signal to students. I would expand sub-degree provision in universities through incentives to students and universities. And I¡¯d make sure that 바카라사이트 changes were enough to replace 바카라사이트 language of loan, debt and repayment with 바카라사이트 language of contribution, investment and return.

I¡¯m not optimistic about 바카라사이트se suggestions. Politicians who have decided to be "brave" can easily become gung-ho. The past year has been dreadful for 바카라사이트 image of universities. I expect 바카라사이트 review to be fraught and to produce straitened times for universities.

I expect it to reinforce and emphasise divisions between universities or between subject areas ra바카라사이트r than to think coherently about 바카라사이트 economic, social and cultural value of higher education. It will pose tough questions about resourcing: no one leading any part of a university has had to deal with serious funding reductions for a generation.

I¡¯m not naive: 바카라사이트 funding review is likely to mean fewer resources. We may need to find new ways to realise our aspirations, and we¡¯ll certainly need to be brave.

We¡¯ll succeed by being 바카라사이트 very best we can be in our mission and our ambition, remembering that transforming lives is built into our institutional DNA.

Chris Husbands is 바카라사이트 vice-chancellor of Sheffield Hallam University and chaired in 바카라사이트 inaugural teaching excellence framework. This is an edited version of a piece on his personal blog.