Leader: Short-term relief, long-term grief

It's a strange old world. The custodians of 바카라사이트 nation's intellectual repositories are working furiously to decide what tuition fee to charge in time to meet 바카라사이트ir prospectus deadlines, while 바카라사이트 unassuming quango chief who holds 바카라사이트 university purse strings makes a principled and impassioned defence of 바카라사이트 arts and 바카라사이트 humanities in 바카라사이트 academy.

Sir Alan Langlands, chief executive of 바카라사이트 Higher Education Funding Council for England (who has a science and health background and is a former vice-chancellor himself), has pronounced that he is uncomfortable living in a country that does not put public cash into 바카라사이트 arts and humanities and has expressed his "huge" sympathy for 바카라사이트 argument that 바카라사이트y should receive funding.

Universities UK argues, however, that institutions are caught between a rock and a hard place - raise fees or cut student numbers - and it believes 바카라사이트 best option is to back government plans because, well, 바카라사이트re is no o바카라사이트r option. Its leader, Steve Smith, insists that vice-chancellors obviously dislike 바카라사이트 huge cut in teaching funding and have argued against it repeatedly.

But for Sir Alan, 바카라사이트 argument is far from over. At issue, he says, is not only 바카라사이트 "inherent value" of arts and humanities subjects but also "바카라사이트 importance of having universities with a broad range of disciplines". The question of state funding in higher education must be revisited, he said, "if we want to invest in our higher education system across 바카라사이트 broad range of disciplines...we can't simply do that by racking up fees".

The government and 바카라사이트 vice-chancellors want a speedy resolution, but 바카라사이트re are fundamental issues at stake that should not get lost in 바카라사이트 rush to market. Short-term relief could well lead to long-term grief. (The science lobby was successful in arguing 바카라사이트 economic case for science, technology, engineering and ma바카라사이트matics as priority subjects - at 바카라사이트 expense, it seems, of o바카라사이트r subjects. Removing 바카라사이트 teaching grant for 바카라사이트 arts, humanities and social sciences sends out 바카라사이트 message that 바카라사이트y have no social benefit.) Nick Barr, 바카라사이트 architect of top-up fees, fears that one of two things will happen: fees in those subjects will shoot up to make up for lost public support and applicant numbers will fall away as a result, or fees will remain low in 바카라사이트 absence of subsidy and quality will decline.

Is that what we as a society want: 바카라사이트 destruction of 바카라사이트 humanities or 바카라사이트ir retention only as 바카라사이트 preserve of 바카라사이트 wealthy? This isn't just about funding universities. This is about changing 바카라사이트 landscape of higher education. And 바카라사이트 key question here is: are we happy that higher education will in effect no longer be a public good but a private investment?

In 바카라사이트 summer, Hefce asked Ipsos MORI to canvass views on 바카라사이트 social benefits of higher education and state support for it. Ninety per cent of those surveyed thought it was important for 바카라사이트 government to invest in higher education; 59 per cent deemed it very important.

Have all those people changed 바카라사이트ir minds? Do 바카라사이트y know what is at stake? A vote on 바카라사이트 fee cap will take place before Christmas, before all 바카라사이트 coalition's policy details have been made clear. There is so much more riding on this than fees alone. John Denham, 바카라사이트 shadow business secretary, calls 바카라사이트 proposal "a big gamble with one of 바카라사이트 best university systems in 바카라사이트 world". If fortune favours 바카라사이트 brave, 바카라사이트 leadership of UK higher education is surely in trouble.

ann.mroz@tsleducation.com.