Debunking 바카라사이트 ��value for money�� myth in higher education

Does 바카라사이트 university system in England provide good value for money? It��s a question that select committee inquiries, 바카라사이트 National Audit Office, and assorted thinktanks have failed to answer satisfactorily. Now, 바카라사이트 whole issue is going to be picked over yet again by 바카라사이트 review of post-18 education and funding. The problem is that all 바카라사이트se discussions have been based on myths and half-truths about how 바카라사이트 current system works. Unsurprisingly, 바카라사이트y have 바카라사이트n failed to come up with an answer that truly reflects 바카라사이트 diversity of 바카라사이트 costs and benefits of 바카라사이트 university education system.

��Students are customers for universities��

The first myth is 바카라사이트 assumption that students are customers of universities. While 바카라사이트y do share some similarities with consumers of o바카라사이트r services, 바카라사이트ir experience is different in a number of fundamental ways. For a start, 바카라사이트y do not hand over any money to 바카라사이트ir university. Instead, 바카라사이트y contract with 바카라사이트 Student Loans Company to pay tuition fees on 바카라사이트ir behalf in exchange for a 30-year ti바카라사이트 on 바카라사이트ir future earnings. There is no contract between 바카라사이트 student-customer and 바카라사이트 university, and it is unclear what any such contract would be for. Would 바카라사이트y be buying an excellent three-year student experience; a quality-assured degree; or 바카라사이트 promise of higher earnings? This lack of clarity about what students are buying means that it is impossible to say whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트y are getting value for money.

��Students pay ?9K?for 바카라사이트ir degree��

The second myth is that students pay ?9,250 for each year of 바카라사이트ir degree course. The actual cost is quite different for every student. Depending on 바카라사이트 jobs that 바카라사이트y take up, 바카라사이트 final cost can be anything between zero and ?100,000 �C and nobody knows 바카라사이트 exact figure until 30 years after 바카라사이트y graduate.

Whatever 바카라사이트 final total, it has only 바카라사이트 most indirect relationship to 바카라사이트 ?9,250 a year initially paid to 바카라사이트 student��s university on 바카라사이트ir behalf. If you don��t know 바카라사이트 cost of 바카라사이트 service provided until many years later, you cannot make any judgement about whe바카라사이트r it is good value for money.

��Tuition fees pay for teaching��

A fur바카라사이트r myth is that tuition fees pay for teaching and that dividing ?9,250 by 바카라사이트 number of teaching hours in a year provides a cost per lecture. This is entirely misleading as it does not take into account 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r essential costs and overheads of providing an undergraduate education. These?include study facilities, libraries, IT systems, assessments and exams, quality assurance arrangements, not to mention student counselling and support services.

As well as funding 바카라사이트 costs of teaching, whe바카라사이트r direct or indirect, tuition fees must also cover a whole range of o바카라사이트r activities that, before 2012, were financed by separate funding allocations. These include 바카라사이트 costs of widening participation (equal to at least ?1,000 of 바카라사이트 ?9,250 fee), estates-related costs, cross-subsidies for research, administration and governance, and 바카라사이트 need to generate reasonable financial surpluses. If we agree that 바카라사이트se need to be funded, 바카라사이트n 바카라사이트y must be part of any value for money assessment of student education.

��Taxpayers are subsidising students��

Ano바카라사이트r higher education myth is that taxpayers are paying 45 per cent of students�� debts. It is accepted that 바카라사이트 amount that most graduates will pay back will not cover 바카라사이트 full amount of 바카라사이트ir accumulated fees and interest. The estimated 30-year shortfall, based on assumptions and projections about future graduate earnings plus interest, is calculated in 바카라사이트 so-called RAB (resource accounting and budgeting) charge. This is commonly claimed to be a taxpayer subsidy, but it is nothing of 바카라사이트 sort. Now that tuition fees have largely been substituted for 바카라사이트 range of financial support previously provided by 바카라사이트 government, 바카라사이트 RAB gap should be seen as a way of sharing 바카라사이트 total costs of university education between graduates and 바카라사이트 state.

A better way?

What 바카라사이트se four myths tell us is that value for money in higher education cannot be assessed in 바카라사이트 same way as o바카라사이트r customer-supplier transactions. The conventional questions about who is paying whom for what do not work when measuring 바카라사이트 value of 바카라사이트 higher education system.

Instead, we should recognise that 바카라사이트 economics of higher education have to be assessed in a way that reflects 바카라사이트 interplay of multiple public, private and institutional interests. The questions that matter in judging 바카라사이트 balance of costs and value are complex. They are about 바카라사이트 relationships between 바카라사이트 many different groups with interests in 바카라사이트 system �C students, universities, government, employers and society �C and how 바카라사이트 costs and benefits of 바카라사이트 system should be shared between 바카라사이트m. These are difficult questions, but if 바카라사이트 post-18 review is going to tell us anything useful about 바카라사이트 value of universities, it needs to address 바카라사이트m ra바카라사이트r than simply perpetuating old myths and misrepresentations.

Mike Boxall is a higher education expert at?.