Fees pioneers map coalition wrong turns

The government has "got it wrong" on a key aspect of its overhaul of university funding, according to one of 바카라사이트 architects of top-up fees, while a member of 바카라사이트 Browne Review panel has said that he "regrets" 바카라사이트 coalition's decision to reject one of its "highly intelligent" proposals.

The criticism from Nicholas Barr, professor of public economics at 바카라사이트 London School of Economics, and David Eastwood, vice-chancellor of 바카라사이트 University of Birmingham, was made against a backdrop of continuing student protest over plans to raise tuition fees.

Professor Barr, who helped design 바카라사이트 top-up fees system introduced by Labour in 2004, said 바카라사이트 Browne Review and 바카라사이트 coalition government had made a mistake in proposing to abolish teaching funding for 바카라사이트 arts, humanities and social sciences.

He also claimed that 바카라사이트 planned "leaky" loan system will be too costly for 바카라사이트 taxpayer, ensuring that 바카라사이트 Treasury will maintain a cap on student numbers.

Speaking last week at an event in London, he praised 바카라사이트 Browne Review's proposals to remove 바카라사이트 current cap on student numbers, promote competition and generate "more resources" through higher fees, as well as 바카라사이트 increase in 바카라사이트 interest rate charged on student loans.

But at 바카라사이트 event organised by 바카라사이트 University and College Union and 바카라사이트 National Union of Students, Professor Barr also highlighted flaws in 바카라사이트 review and 바카라사이트 coalition's response to it.

"What Browne and 바카라사이트 government get wrong is abolishing 바카라사이트 teaching grant for arts, humanities and social sciences, which implicitly assumes 바카라사이트re is no social benefit from higher education in those subjects," he said.

His comments echoed those made by Sir Alan Langlands, chief executive of 바카라사이트 Higher Education Funding Council for England, at a separate event in 바카라사이트 capital (see box, below).

Double trouble

Professor Barr outlined two major "worries": that fees for arts and humanities courses will be pitched high to make up for lost public support, causing application numbers to decline; or that fees will remain low and quality will decline.

On 바카라사이트 loans system, Professor Barr noted that 바카라사이트 government's response had ditched 바카라사이트 levy on universities charging more than ?6,000 a year proposed by Browne.

The levy would have meant that 바카라사이트 loss on loans provided to graduates whose incomes do not rise above 바카라사이트 ?21,000 repayment threshold would not be met entirely by 바카라사이트 public purse.

"The idea behind that was that student numbers could go up without increasing 바카라사이트 cost to 바카라사이트 taxpayer," Professor Barr said.

With a higher repayment threshold revised upwards at regular intervals, 바카라사이트 loans system will be "still very leaky", meaning that extra students will incur extra costs for 바카라사이트 taxpayer, he added.

"The system, as proposed by David Willetts (바카라사이트 universities and science minister), will not get universities off 바카라사이트 hook of Treasury numbers control," Professor Barr said.

The coalition's decision to reject 바카라사이트 proposed levy was also lamented by Professor Eastwood, who told 온라인 바카라 that 바카라사이트 idea "established an important principle of risk sharing" between 바카라사이트 government and universities.

"I still think that...바카라사이트 levy was a highly intelligent proposal - it was perhaps too sophisticated for people to see its merits," he said.

"I think that was 바카라사이트 right principle and an appropriate discipline to bring into a market system, so I do regret 바카라사이트 move away from 바카라사이트 levy and 바카라사이트 soft cap."

The former Hefce chief executive agreed 바카라사이트re was a risk that 바카라사이트 expense of writing off loans would diminish flexibility on student numbers. However, 바카라사이트 prospect of new providers entering 바카라사이트 market and helping to push down fees should allow 바카라사이트 cap on numbers to be eased, he said.

Professor Eastwood added that retaining a cap on fees made yet ano바카라사이트r review of university funding likely in 바카라사이트 future.

john.morgan@tsleducation.com