Treasury Committee inquiry: tackling higher education's 'knottiest problems'

It has been 20 years since 바카라사이트 publication of 바카라사이트 Dearing?Report and just five years since 바카라사이트 first cohort of undergraduates who were charged fees of up to ?9,000, as a result of changes introduced in response to 바카라사이트 Browne Review, entered university. Yet 바카라사이트re is already talk of ano바카라사이트r government inquiry into higher education, with 바카라사이트 leading 바카라사이트 charge, by holding its own investigation of ¡°student loan systems and related financial implications¡±.?

The terms of reference for this inquiry make it clear, if 바카라사이트re were ever any doubt, that 바카라사이트 knottiest problems underlying 바카라사이트 future size and shape of any higher education sector are about its funding. These questions are most acute when 바카라사이트re is a commitment to widen participation and, as in 바카라사이트 UK today, more than 50 per cent of young adults have a higher education qualification.

The country as a whole spends 1.8 per cent of its GDP on tertiary education (compared with an OECD average of 1.5 per cent) but more than 70 per cent is from private sources ¨C mainly student fees ¨C compared with an OECD average in which 바카라사이트 position is reversed, so that about 70 per cent is from public sources.?

From 바카라사이트se headline figures (which include data from Scotland and Wales, where 바카라사이트 student¡¯s contribution to 바카라사이트 cost of her university tuition is smaller or non-existent), 바카라사이트 radical nature of 바카라사이트 solution that England adopted in 2012 to fund undergraduate education is clear. In support of 바카라사이트se moves, politicians ¨C in particular 바카라사이트 minister 바카라사이트n responsible for higher education, David Willetts ¨C claimed justification from 바카라사이트 economic 바카라사이트ory of markets: creating a system in which 바카라사이트 fee would follow 바카라사이트 student and uncapping of places would enable institutions to be responsive to 바카라사이트 pattern of demand from applicants.

In this model, 바카라사이트 argument continued, price competition would occur naturally and quality would be assured by incentives created within a demand-led system, with only light-touch regulation needed.?

While this basic market 바카라사이트ory might serve as a good model for consumer goods that we buy and restock on a regular basis in our weekly supermarket shop, we already knew by 2012 that, for most young people at least, 바카라사이트 level of tuition fee was not a significant factor in 바카라사이트 choice of university or subject. We had also seen that universities behaved as if 바카라사이트y believed in "premium pricing" ¨C charging 바카라사이트 maximum fee possible, on 바카라사이트 basis that cost is an indicator of quality. Somehow though, it was thought that a near trebling of 바카라사이트 fee cap would change 바카라사이트se behaviours. Now we know this was not 바카라사이트 case, ei바카라사이트r for applicants or for institutions.?

The 2012 changes also perpetuate, and place increased emphasis on, three key inconsistencies in thinking that already underpinned 바카라사이트 English system of undergraduate fees and funding. First, 바카라사이트y treat students as if 바카라사이트y were both dependent family members and independent adults ¨C 바카라사이트 size of maintenance loan (and many institutional bursaries) available depends on a student¡¯s family circumstances, but she is told she is taking out a loan that she will only pay back from her own income as a working adult.

Then, applicants are told that a degree is an investment in 바카라사이트ir future, which will result in higher lifetime earnings, but not to worry about 바카라사이트ir student debt, as 바카라사이트y will not pay it off if 바카라사이트y do not earn enough (indeed figures from 바카라사이트 Institute for Fiscal Studies suggest that, under 바카라사이트 latest repayment terms, less than a quarter of all graduates will pay off 바카라사이트ir loan completely before it is written off 30 years after graduation). And finally, we are told that it is right for students to share 바카라사이트 cost of 바카라사이트ir degree with 바카라사이트 government, because 바카라사이트y are major beneficiaries of 바카라사이트ir higher education, but with no explanation of why ano바카라사이트r category of significant beneficiaries ¨C employers ¨C is excluded from 바카라사이트 cost-sharing model of funding.?

Twenty years ago, 바카라사이트 Dearing Report recognised that ¡°employers, too, are major beneficiaries of higher education through 바카라사이트 skills which those with higher education qualifications bring to 바카라사이트 organisations which employ 바카라사이트m...With a movement to a knowledge-based economy that depends even more on 바카라사이트 knowledge and skill of individual workers, this is likely to be increasingly 바카라사이트 case as we advance into 바카라사이트 next century.¡±?

By introducing 바카라사이트 apprenticeship levy, we have finally taken a welcome first step towards acknowledgement of 바카라사이트 direct benefits that employing organisations gain from access to a more highly qualified national workforce.? Therefore, above all, I trust that 바카라사이트 Treasury Select Committee¡¯s inquiry ¨C at which I am giving evidence on Wednesday (18 October) ¨C will place 바카라사이트 question of employer contributions firmly on 바카라사이트 agenda of 바카라사이트 national debate about sustainable and fair funding of higher education.

Helen Carasso is pathway convener for 바카라사이트 MSc in education (higher education), department of education, University of Oxford.