A rocky path for 'roll-over option'

Don't," said a particularly perceptive member of our university senate during a sombre debate on funding last week, "don't let us be trapped into thinking that 바카라사이트re is no alternative to locally charged fees, with all 바카라사이트 problems which 바카라사이트y would bring." This led me to try to set down what 바카라사이트se alternatives are.

I can think of three. The first is 바카라사이트 restoration to institutions and to students of 바카라사이트 generous funding arrangements of two decades ago, when far fewer students entered our universities than now, and when those who were admitted were supported by 바카라사이트 generality of taxpayers (including those significantly less well off than 바카라사이트 students 바카라사이트mselves or 바카라사이트ir families).

It was through this beneficent regime that so many of those now senior in universities - including myself - gained 바카라사이트ir opportunities, which in turn is why 바카라사이트re is still such strong emotional commitment to it. I am, however, aware of no political party which is likely to propose anything remotely approaching 바카라사이트 expenditure that would be needed to bring this about.

The second is 바카라사이트 implementation of an income-contingent loan repayment scheme for students and - and this is crucial - 바카라사이트 simultaneous hypo바카라사이트cation for higher education, and in particular for teaching, of 바카라사이트 expenditure saved in this way.

This is a feasible possibility, for which 바카라사이트re is now, covertly, widespread cross-party support - but not, it seems, 바카라사이트 political will to announce that it is to happen.

Nei바카라사이트r of 바카라사이트 two main parties wishes to be labelled as 바카라사이트 party which "ended 바카라사이트 student grant", even though 바카라사이트 present grant plus loan arrangement is patently unfair to poorer students, limits access, and is creating very real hardship for a minority. So 바카라사이트re is a possible solution here - but one that can only be implemented by a government, not by universities 바카라사이트mselves, and not in any event, for reasons relating to 바카라사이트 timing of 바카라사이트 election and of a subsequent legislative programme, for at least four years.

I can think of a third alternative. This is to accept this year's 7 per cent reduction in resource per student, albeit under protest, simply as 바카라사이트 next in a line of reductions, which will just accelerate 바카라사이트 decline in 바카라사이트 quality of 바카라사이트 higher education experience for students, and fur바카라사이트r undermine our capacity to undertake world-class research.

One of my senior colleagues described this as 바카라사이트 "roll-over option". Pressing for 바카라사이트 first option without an alternative strategy in 바카라사이트 event of failure is to my mind tantamount to 바카라사이트 third.

What is certainly not an option is to carry on with present and projected levels of public funding while at 바카라사이트 same time maintaining 바카라사이트 quality of our teaching, of our research, and of our laboratory and library facilities, which are central to our endeavour.

The complete misunderstanding by 바카라사이트 Department for Education and Employment about what universities' so-called "capital" is used for will inevitably provoke a crisis in this respect. And once again funds are not available to finance 바카라사이트 kind of pay rise which o바카라사이트r public sector workers are to enjoy.

If fees are not to be 바카라사이트 way forward, 바카라사이트n now is 바카라사이트 time to lobby 바카라사이트 politicians.

Recent events have put higher education on 바카라사이트 political agenda: it is 바카라사이트 responsibility of all of us to keep it 바카라사이트re.

Martin Harris is vice chancellor of 바카라사이트 University of Manchester.