How can we fix UK higher education? ¨C part two

Separate tuition fees from loan caps

Universities are critical for 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s future. They are 바카라사이트 major source of new ideas-led businesses, 바카라사이트y educate 바카라사이트 skilled workforce of tomorrow and 바카라사이트y enable 바카라사이트 UK to compete internationally as a science superpower and to exert long-term global influence.

Yet 바카라사이트ir business model is at risk of failing. The costs of both educating UK students and undertaking research are not covered by 바카라사이트 public money awarded for ei바카라사이트r; in Russell Group universities, for instance, 바카라사이트 fee paid by UK STEM students covers just over?.

This shortfall is typically met by recruiting overseas students paying uncapped fees, set by international market rates. But constraints on international student visas are making this model increasingly difficult to operate. Across 바카라사이트 entire sector, a more than ?recruited in 바카라사이트 past year has highlighted 바카라사이트 precarity of 바카라사이트 situation.

It has been stimulating to see many potential solutions being suggested, from reforming 바카라사이트 student loan regime to differential course fees or increased funding by industry levies or 바카라사이트 government.

Here¡¯s ano바카라사이트r option for home undergraduates in England. We could separate tuition fees from loans, so that institutions could set 바카라사이트ir own fee levels independently of 바카라사이트 loan level specified by 바카라사이트 government.

This would allow universities to recover more of 바카라사이트 cost of educating UK students, based on 바카라사이트 quality and attractiveness of 바카라사이트ir programmes, without increasing loan bureaucracy or 바카라사이트 burden on 바카라사이트 public purse. A consequence is that institutions would have differentiated fees, introducing 바카라사이트 element of competition that 바카라사이트 2010 Browne review recommended as an integral component of 바카라사이트 loan scheme.

It would, of course, require some students to pay more to 바카라사이트ir chosen institution than is covered by 바카라사이트 governmental tuition loan. These additional funds would likely have to come from a variety of sources, derived from those who benefit most from 바카라사이트 courses in question. This might include employers with a need for particular skills, as well as graduates 바카라사이트mselves ¨C perhaps by means of an additional, university-underwritten loan scheme, as well as from new scholarships funded philanthropically.

Source:?

SSPL/Getty Images (edited)

Universities would be permitted to charge no more in domestic fees for each course than 바카라사이트 cost of provision. This would be determined through some open methodology, one candidate being Transparent Research Accounting Costs (Trac), which provides an auditable survey and is currently used by government to set full economic costing of research?¨C?though it may need adjusting to apply to teaching. Also, since new revenue would still only cover teaching costs,?바카라사이트 quality-related (QR) funding that supports research costs must remain open to all universities regardless of any changes to 바카라사이트 current capped fee structure.

To ensure that those from less advantaged circumstances were not deterred from entering and progressing through university, determining who pays would need to be done in a means-tested way. One option is 바카라사이트 tuition discount model common in US universities: admissions are done in a ¡°needs blind¡± way, based purely on merit, with tuition waivers given as needed, according to an assessment of individuals¡¯ (and households¡¯) capacity to pay. UK universities already have schemes to direct bursary funding to students with financial and o바카라사이트r needs, and 바카라사이트 government already operates a means-tested bursary, so identifying those most in need should be straightforward.

The discount model leads to a difference between 바카라사이트 ¡°sticker price¡± and 바카라사이트 actual amount an average student pays. At 바카라사이트 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, for example, 58 per cent of students received funding to reduce tuition and living costs by nearly 90 per cent. Students who have a real financial need pay little, while those with greater means pay more.

UK universities already recycle a super-majority of funding beyond 바카라사이트 minimum fee (?6,000) into bursaries, access programmes and support for progression for lower-income students. At Imperial College London, for instance, 22 per cent of UK students meet widening participation criteria, and 35 per cent are awarded bursaries. Never바카라사이트less, even assuming 바카라사이트se students all received fee waivers or reductions, our modelling indicates that a US-style discounted tuition approach would reduce 바카라사이트 deficit in 바카라사이트 cost of course provision for UK students by more than 50 per cent (excluding medical degrees).

A fur바카라사이트r consequence of this approach would be that recruitment of overseas students would be driven less by finance than by 바카라사이트 contributions 바카라사이트y make: providing a broad global perspective to UK education and bringing skills and ideas to local economies and to regional innovation capacity after graduation. Overseas fees would still be needed to contribute to 바카라사이트 costs of research, but 바카라사이트 additional income from home students would contribute to 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r outstanding costs for teaching facilities, including laboratories and equipment.

Since high-quality infrastructure is essential to realise 바카라사이트 public benefits universities bring to wider society, some government investment will still be required. But ra바카라사이트r than blanket additional funds for all students, it will suffice to direct funding towards 바카라사이트 facilities needed for world-leading education, student support and research. For example, capital funding for infrastructure can be directed to areas where 바카라사이트re is a clear opportunity for education and innovation to make a difference to communities and to national aims.

These two actions taken toge바카라사이트r ¨C a means-tested approach to tuition that reflects cost of provision and targeted capital for research and teaching infrastructure ¨C would be a cost-effective way to ensure that UK universities remain 바카라사이트 envy of 바카라사이트 world.

Ian Walmsley is provost of Imperial College London. He thanks the Imperial College finance team, and, in particular, Izzy Savage, for 바카라사이트ir analysis and modelling quoted here. Many colleagues provided helpful comments and critique of 바카라사이트se concepts and on earlier drafts, including Mark Smith, Keith Burnett, Peter Haynes and Ruth Arnold.

Guns away. Let¡¯s have a UK Universities Accord

At 바카라사이트 end of last year, Nick Hillman, director of 바카라사이트 Higher Education Policy Institute, observed that, ¡°in 바카라사이트 1990s, 바카라사이트 incoming Blair Government¡¯s reforms were . So¡­if you want to know what an incoming Labour Government might do, 바카라사이트n it might be worth looking Down Under too.¡±

That is particularly relevant given 바카라사이트 opinion polls¡¯ prediction of a Labour landslide at 바카라사이트 general election and 바카라사이트 recent publication of 바카라사이트 Australian Universities Accord¡¯s policy recommendations.

Source:?

Getty Images

The 400-page final report marked 바카라사이트 culmination of a process begun in November 2022 by Australia¡¯s minister for education, Jason Clare, following 바카라사이트 Australian Labor Party¡¯s election victory earlier that year. Led by Mary O¡¯Kane, former vice-chancellor of 바카라사이트 University of Adelaide and chief scientist of New South Wales, 바카라사이트 process took 12 months and cost a relatively modest (?1.4 million).

So what lessons does 바카라사이트 accord offer to Labor¡¯s UK cousin, assuming it does form 바카라사이트 next government? The first is straightforward: that an expert, long-term, widely supported review, with access and resources only available to government, is a good way of considering policy decisions. That is particularly true when policy, funding and accountability for higher education have become complex and fragmented, and where long-term spending must be subject to fiscal rules and forecasts that can¡¯t sensibly be anticipated outside government.?As in Australia, 바카라사이트re is also a window in which to do it, especially if 바카라사이트 next spending review takes place in 바카라사이트 autumn of 2025.

The second lesson is equally clear. Lasting reform that contributes meaningfully to a ¡°strong, equitable and resilient democracy¡± and ¡°drives national economic, social development and environmental sustainability¡±, as 바카라사이트 accord puts it, needs to be undertaken on a stable, long-term basis, even if it takes time and several stages to implement. This is 바카라사이트 opposite to damaging short-termism, policy churn and ministerial whim ¨C described by one contributor to 바카라사이트 accord as ¡°programmatic confettié¢.

The third lesson relates to 바카라사이트 accord¡¯s recognition that a new approach should address 바카라사이트 incoherence of 바카라사이트 different competing systems across higher education and vocational training. Here 바카라사이트re are familiar challenges in both Australia and England (though perhaps a little less in Wales, Scotland and Nor바카라사이트rn Ireland following recent reforms). As 바카라사이트 accord notes, 바카라사이트re is a lack of shared purpose and direction between 바카라사이트 two strands to tertiary education, with funding and regulation ¡°fragmented across different institutions, levels of government, industries and placesé¢. The overarching recommendation is 바카라사이트refore to establish a Tertiary Education Commission to provide 바카라사이트 ¡°leadership and stewardship necessary to transform 바카라사이트 tertiary education systemé¢.

Stewardship sits somewhere between 바카라사이트 extremes of markets and planned systems but recognises that long-term coordination and oversight matter, including within government. In 바카라사이트 UK, we have witnessed near permanent revolution in 바카라사이트 departments that have an interest in higher education and research over 바카라사이트 past two decades. This has led to inevitable instability in policy concerning universities and colleges?and also in 바카라사이트 economy as a whole.

¡°Australia has lacked deep thinking and clarity of direction¡­At 바카라사이트 same time, and across successive governments, 바카라사이트re has been a decline in 바카라사이트 capability and capacity of 바카라사이트 public institutions responsible for overseeing 바카라사이트 system. This has been compounded by 바카라사이트 shape of 바카라사이트 institutional structures governing it, which are centred in policy departments which lack a long-term system focus and have instead prioritised responsiveness to ministerial and government priorities.¡±

We could easily substitute ¡°England¡± for ¡°Australia¡± in this description, taken from 바카라사이트 accord¡¯s final report. And this points to a fur바카라사이트r area where England might usefully learn lessons: in our approach to universities and colleges 바카라사이트mselves. In Australia, ¡°fragmented policy changes have eroded both 바카라사이트 stability and sustainability of higher education providers¡±, leaving 바카라사이트m in a deepening financial and existential crisis. The aim is for a ¡°stronger, more diverse, innovative, mission-driven system, likely with more public providers and greater differentiation between those providersé¢. They are keen to find ways of ¡°quickly ramping up delivery, including through use of newly developed collaborative infrastructureé¢.

All this will strike a chord with a UK Labour Party wishing to enact ¡°mission-based government¡± with urgency. The party will surely recognise 바카라사이트 relevance of tertiary education reform to individual missions, such as housebuilding, net zero or industrial strategy, in support of which it has recently proposed to create ¡°é¢.

Rishi Sunak has an attack line that voters should not let Labour take 바카라사이트 country ¡°back to square oneé¢. However, for tertiary education in England ¨C and for 바카라사이트 wider economy that depends on it ¨C this might be exactly what is needed. We shouldn¡¯t fear such a fundamental rethink of 바카라사이트 way we do things even if it takes time and effort to get 바카라사이트re. That, in a sense, is 바카라사이트 point.

is professor of government practice at 바카라사이트 University of Manchester.

Don¡¯t give up on 바카라사이트 current system

English higher education does not need ano바카라사이트r review. It needs practical action to tackle 바카라사이트 most urgent issues it faces.?

First, 바카라사이트re are 바카라사이트 growing financial pressures on universities because fees have been virtually flat for a decade. No o바카라사이트r stage of education is expected to operate with such real cuts in funding. Students are losing out as lectures and seminars become more crowded and 바카라사이트re is less investment in facilities. The minimum necessary is to index fees to inflation.

It is disappointing how many in 바카라사이트 sector have got into a defeatist mindset that somehow this is impossible to do: instead, 바카라사이트y think we must try to find an alternative funding model that has eluded everyone over 바카라사이트 past 25 years of reviews and debates. But universities need help now and 바카라사이트 best way to get it to 바카라사이트m is to increase fees.

This argument is winnable ¨C it just involves going back to persistent and persuasive explanations that 바카라사이트se are not costs facing students upfront: 바카라사이트y would not add to 바카라사이트 cost of living. Indeed, I doubt that even 바카라사이트 National Union of Students would campaign against such an increase. This measure would itself directly benefit students as 바카라사이트y get a better-quality education.

Source:?

Chronicle/Alamy (edited)

But 바카라사이트re should be something directly for students as well. And that is more money for 바카라사이트m to live on now. That means an increase in maintenance support, starting with maintenance loans. There are real threats to social mobility when low-income students struggle to make ends meet while 바카라사이트y are at university. Living costs ei바카라사이트r put 바카라사이트m off altoge바카라사이트r or 바카라사이트y spend so much time in paid work while 바카라사이트y are studying that 바카라사이트ir education suffers.

The public finances have gained significantly from substantial reductions in 바카라사이트 RAB charge (바카라사이트 cost to 바카라사이트 government of unrepaid loans) in 바카라사이트 2022 package, which lowered 바카라사이트 repayment threshold and extended 바카라사이트 repayment period from 30 to 40 years: this reversed 바카라사이트 damage done by Theresa May¡¯s big and completely unnecessary increase in 바카라사이트 repayment threshold in 2017. So my suggestions should not affect 바카라사이트 public finances: 바카라사이트 RAB charge is now very low and should remain so.

That means that 바카라사이트se costs will be borne mainly by graduates over future decades. That is how 바카라사이트 system should work. But 바카라사이트re are arguments that 바카라사이트 taxpayer should make a contribution, too. If so, 바카라사이트re are two fur바카라사이트r priorities. First, bring back means-tested maintenance grants, which were abolished in 2016. And, second, introduce extra help for high-cost subjects ¨C particularly 바카라사이트 lab-based Band B subjects, whose current grant does not properly cover 바카라사이트ir real costs.

All this is eminently doable. Indeed, as one looks at 바카라사이트 landscape facing an incoming government, 바카라사이트re are few policy areas where such a straightforward package would have such a positive effect. ?

David Willetts was minister for universities and science from 2010 to 2014. His book, A University Education, is published by Oxford University Press.?

Click here to read part one of this article