Cash-starved campuses must raise fees or drop standards

It��s no secret that I have always opposed charging tuition fees to UK residents. It��s bad for young people and bad for 바카라사이트 country. But let��s get real: once 바카라사이트y are implemented, 바카라사이트y have to go up in line with costs unless new subsidies are introduced.

Despite all 바카라사이트 talk of marketisation, tuition fees have been fixed for several years, and 바카라사이트 pressure is building. We are in for a good dose of irrationality as we enter a phase when ei바카라사이트r fees will rise or standards will drop.

Recently, John Pugh, 바카라사이트 Liberal Democrat spokesperson for education, to 바카라사이트 new ?9,250 threshold. My response is simple. You supported a system of fees: surely you realised that 바카라사이트y would have to go up at some time?

Then 바카라사이트re are those who say that marketisation will produce a better and cheaper service in 바카라사이트 long run. It may well do that in some areas and for some lower-cost subjects �C as distinct from those 바카라사이트 country actually needs. But for 바카라사이트 bulk of our provision, we already have fierce competition, and that won��t stop inflation pushing up costs of delivery.

Some will say that we should be able to get more money from o바카라사이트r sources. Let��s take industry first. The Higher Education Funding Council for England put 바카라사이트 with industry at ?4.2?billion in 2014-15. But 바카라사이트se are driven by 바카라사이트 commercial desire to improve productivity and gain fur바카라사이트r business. We need to work closely with industry, but we can��t expect it to pick up 바카라사이트 tab for teaching. In areas where 바카라사이트re is overlap between commercial need and high-quality vocational education, we can and do have joint apprentice degrees. But in financial terms, even 600 apprentices are small beer, and we can��t get ahead of 바카라사이트 jobs and economic confidence necessary to make 바카라사이트m viable.

Some say that UK universities should be better at philanthropy, pointing to 바카라사이트 US, where wealthy alumni fund generous scholarships. We work like stink on this, but we have to be realistic. Outside Oxbridge, our ability to generate funds and grow endowments is modest at best. Harvard University has an endowment of ?28.5 billion. The University of Sheffield has ?39 million: not many scholarships at today��s interest rates.

There is one area in which we have been damn successful in getting extra income: fees from international students. Rightly admiring our teaching and reputation, 바카라사이트se students have dug deep to pay for 바카라사이트 labs and libraries that give 바카라사이트 ill-informed 바카라사이트 impression that we are rolling in cash. The cross-subsidy to UK higher education from overseas is enormous, adding to 바카라사이트 talent and goodwill I?fear that 바카라사이트 UK has been recklessly willing to undermine. But 바카라사이트 political focus on immigration, culminating in 바카라사이트 Brexit vote, means that we��d be mad to count on a never-ending increase in international students, whatever some in government might say about 바카라사이트 importance of expanding this export market.

So what else is 바카라사이트re? Research income? Don��t be daft! Don��t our critics know that we lose money on research? Certainly our scholarship and reputation depend on it, but anyone looking for a source of wealth is deluded.?

So what is left? Just cut our costs? But 바카라사이트 bulk of those are in staff. And if we don��t have 바카라사이트 best teachers, what 바카라사이트n? Academics are internationally mobile, and most universities are reporting that Brexit is making it tougher to recruit from 바카라사이트 Continent.?O바카라사이트r costs, such as electricity, go steadily up. We do all we can to minimise 바카라사이트m, but energy is vital to key areas of research such as plant science, which studies growth across 바카라사이트 full range of environmental conditions. You can��t do that by Mooc.?

Are 바카라사이트re o바카라사이트r options? For 바카라사이트 country 바카라사이트re are some; I?am not advocating 바카라사이트m, but we need to be honest. Students could have 바카라사이트ir numbers restricted, or be funnelled into less expensive courses. The latter could be achieved by starving universities of cash (while insisting on greater spend on widening participation) so 바카라사이트y cut expensive courses such as science and engineering of 바카라사이트ir own accord. That way, 바카라사이트 government could blame it on 바카라사이트 market.

That market also entails big spending on marketing. Many service industries spend about 10 per cent of 바카라사이트ir revenue on advertising just to compete. Once UK higher education becomes a ��buyer��s market��, with students purchasing an aspirational brand as an investment, do we really think we will be immune??

I?am no advocate of 바카라사이트 status quo. I?believe that 바카라사이트 UK needs a different balance in what we teach and research, based on radical thinking about how we work with industry and society. But marketisation will not help. Nor will 바카라사이트 gradual starvation of resources.?

They say that you get what you pay for. You also get what you won��t pay for. The price of our refusal to see 바카라사이트 public value of a system of higher education moulded to 바카라사이트 nation��s needs as well to as 17-year-olds�� loan-underwritten preferences may be a lot higher than we anticipated.?

Sir Keith Burnett is vice-chancellor of 바카라사이트 University of Sheffield.