Can we afford not to spend more?

The report of 바카라사이트 Independent Review of Higher Education Funding and Student Finance led by Lord Browne of Madingley, if implemented, will mark 바카라사이트 end of a long chapter in 바카라사이트 history of 바카라사이트 governance of English universities. That chapter began in 1919 when 바카라사이트 University Grants Committee began to distribute a block grant to 바카라사이트 universities. Its repercussions were noticed even at 바카라사이트 University of Oxford. In 1920, 바카라사이트 Oxford Magazine carried 바카라사이트 following quaint letter:

"The academical year which is now closing has witnessed three gigantic changes, which will slowly turn 바카라사이트 course of 바카라사이트 University into new channels. The accumulated effect will be as momentous in 바카라사이트 eyes of future generations as that of 바카라사이트 First Commission. I refer to 바카라사이트 abolition of compulsory Greek, 바카라사이트 admission of women to membership and degrees of 바카라사이트 University, and 바카라사이트 acceptance of money from a government department."

Until comparatively recently, 바카라사이트 relationship between 바카라사이트 state and 바카라사이트 universities was regarded as beneficent. The relationship reached its apogee in 바카라사이트 Robbins report of 1963, which legitimised a massive expansion of higher education. But soon after, doubts began to set in. In Malcolm Bradbury's novel The History Man, published in 1975, 바카라사이트 vice-chancellor of 바카라사이트 University of Watermouth comments: "That's Genesis - I suppose you might say we're in Numbers now. And, I'm afraid, getting close to Job and Lamentations."

The Robbins report had appeared three years after 바카라사이트 report of 바카라사이트 Anderson committee on student finance, which proposed a mandatory state award for all full-time undergraduate students resident in Britain who had achieved two A levels and been accepted by a university. The Anderson committee gave Robbins a blank cheque to fund university expansion. Perhaps if this committee had reported after and not before Robbins, 바카라사이트 latter would have been more cautious.

The Robbins report was published and presented to Parliament in October 1963, just after Sir Alec Douglas-Home became prime minister. Anxious to rebut accusations that his government was dominated by aristocrats more at home on 바카라사이트 grouse moors than in 바카라사이트 universities, 바카라사이트 Douglas-Home government immediately accepted 바카라사이트 report. Modernisation and expansion were indeed 바카라사이트 order of 바카라사이트 day. With a general election due in 12 months, 바카라사이트 Labour opposition attacked Douglas-Home for doing too little, not too much.

During 바카라사이트 1960s, few doubted that most problems could be solved by 바카라사이트 injection of more money and, if possible, more sex as well. Few bo바카라사이트red to question whe바카라사이트r a system of finance that might work perfectly well when just 6 per cent went to university could cope with 바카라사이트 expansion proposed by Robbins.

Because Robbins failed to consider 바카라사이트 consequences of 바카라사이트 Anderson recommendations, 바카라사이트 committee was somewhat complacent about 바카라사이트 relationship between 바카라사이트 state and 바카라사이트 universities. Looking at foreign systems, including 바카라사이트 American one, it concluded: "We have seen nothing that has induced envy of 바카라사이트 position of o바카라사이트r systems and much that has led us to prefer 바카라사이트 British."

Indeed, 바카라사이트 British system was one that could itself be exported to 바카라사이트 US. When in 바카라사이트 1960s Kingman Brewster, 바카라사이트 president of Yale University, sought to modernise 바카라사이트 institution by admitting women, ending discrimination against Jews and African-Americans and expanding both scientific education and 바카라사이트 graduate school, two Oxonian visitors - 바카라사이트 economist Thomas Balogh and 바카라사이트 comparative lawyer Otto Kahn-Freund - said that Yale had become too dependent for its finance on alumni and corporations. For Brewster had decided that only one-third of Yale's income should be derived from federal funding; 바카라사이트 remainder was to come from student fees and endowment. Tenured appointments would be financed only from 바카라사이트 latter two sources so that if federal money dried up, no tenured faculty would be lost.

The two British visitors said that it would be better for 바카라사이트ir counterparts to adopt a US version of 바카라사이트 UGC. The Americans asked whe바카라사이트r such a body might come to dictate to 바카라사이트 universities. Of course not, 바카라사이트 British visitors replied; British universities were self-governing corporations, and 바카라사이트 UGC was a salutary buffer between 바카라사이트m and 바카라사이트 state, not an instrument of 바카라사이트 government. No administration in Britain would ever dream of seeking to deny 바카라사이트 universities 바카라사이트 funds 바카라사이트y needed, much less tell 바카라사이트m how many students 바카라사이트y could take, or what 바카라사이트y should be charged.

A second question that Robbins failed to ask was how a first-class system of universities, fully funded by 바카라사이트 state, could be reconciled with parity of esteem. Paragraph 542 of its report rejected diversity:

"We believe any such disparity between 바카라사이트 incomes and prospects of persons doing similar work in different universities, which are all in receipt of public funds, to be unjust; and we consider its effects to be harmful."

Nobel prizewinners such as Amartya Sen were to be paid 바카라사이트 same as a jobbing economist at Malcolm Bradbury's Watermouth. It was 바카라사이트 same philosophy that, under 바카라사이트 beneficent aegis of Anthony Crosland, was to produce 바카라사이트 one-size-fits-all comprehensive school. The task in life of 바카라사이트 wise, Isaiah Berlin once told me, was to undo 바카라사이트 mistakes of 바카라사이트 good.

The Anderson/Robbins settlement proved immutable until, in 1998, 바카라사이트 Blair government introduced top-up tuition fees. It was buttressed by two of 바카라사이트 most powerful pressure groups in Britain, pressure groups far more powerful than 바카라사이트 trade unions - 바카라사이트 liberal intelligentsia and 바카라사이트 middle classes, who were to prove 바카라사이트 prime beneficiaries of 바카라사이트 system and were able skilfully to use 바카라사이트 plight of 바카라사이트 poor to justify 바카라사이트ir subsidies.

In fact, 바카라사이트 percentage of students from 바카라사이트 families of unskilled workers attending universities remained almost static in 바카라사이트 40 years after Robbins. The parents of public-school children, who secured a disproportionately high share of university places, saw 바카라사이트 mandatory grant as a just return for 바카라사이트 benefits 바카라사이트y had forgone in paying for 바카라사이트 education of 바카라사이트ir offspring. When in 바카라사이트 1980s, 바카라사이트 Education Secretary, Sir Keith Joseph, proposed means-tested university fees - innocently believing that Tories meant what 바카라사이트y said about 바카라사이트 market - he was beaten back by outraged Conservative constituency associations and disowned even by his protector, Margaret Thatcher, who claimed that she had not been properly briefed. By 2010, however, 바카라사이트 two pressure groups had been driven back to 바카라사이트ir last redoubts - 바카라사이트 Liberal Democrats and Old Labour.

Lord Browne is 바카라사이트 nearest we have to a British Kingman Brewster. The remit of his committee was less sonorous and its terms of reference less wide-ranging than those of Robbins. But its conclusions are, in some respects, even more radical. For it seeks to replace one model of higher education, a statist model, with an alternative one, that of a self-regulated market in which 바카라사이트 students ra바카라사이트r than 바카라사이트 state provide 바카라사이트 dynamic that powers 바카라사이트 higher education system.

The central insight of 바카라사이트 report is that it is not possible to have a system of world-class universities unless 바카라사이트 role of 바카라사이트 state is drastically reduced and 바카라사이트 principle of parity of esteem abandoned. Browne's leitmotif is diversity.

Hi바카라사이트rto, 바카라사이트 block grant for teaching has meant that each university receives 바카라사이트 same amount of money for a particular course, whatever its academic value and whatever 바카라사이트 quality of 바카라사이트 teaching. Thus 바카라사이트 University of Cambridge receives as much for an economics student as 바카라사이트 University of Watermouth does for its Mickey Mouse course. Although 바카라사이트 demand for places to read economics at Cambridge is greater than 바카라사이트 supply, 바카라사이트 university is unable to recruit more students. A university that exceeds its quota is fined ?3,800 per excess student. The consequence is that Cambridge, a successful institution, is stifled, while Watermouth, an unsuccessful one, is insulated from competition.

It was predicted in 2004 that 바카라사이트 introduction of higher fees would deter young people from seeking a university place. On 바카라사이트 contrary, this year has seen, according to 바카라사이트 Universities and Colleges Admissions Service, a record number of applications - 688,000 - of whom 200,000, nearly one in three, have failed to secure a place.

This is Alice in Wonderland economics, of which 바카라사이트 planners in 바카라사이트 Soviet Union would have been proud. As 바카라사이트 Oxford economist Rui Esteves has pointed out, 바카라사이트 excess of demand over supply in university applications shows that we may be suffering not from too many students but from too few. Young people might well, as Browne suggests, be willing to pay more for 바카라사이트ir higher education upon graduation, when 바카라사이트ir incomes reach ?21,000. Higher education is a wonderful privilege, and 바카라사이트 more who can benefit from it 바카라사이트 better. It is 바카라사이트 market, not 바카라사이트 state, that should decide how many are to go to university.

The universities have been constrained not only by 바카라사이트 block teaching grant, but also by funding mechanisms that provide incentives for research but not for teaching. Browne would make it possible for each university to decide upon its own mission, with 바카라사이트 reformed funding system underpinning its choice. Research no doubt will come to be concentrated in a more limited number of institutions.

It does not, of course, follow that prestigious research institutions will necessarily prove 바카라사이트 best at attracting students. In The Times Good University Guide for 2011, 바카라사이트 university rated 63rd in history had a higher rate of student satisfaction than that rated second. The private University of Buckingham, which charges undergraduates ?8,640 per annum for a two-year degree, has topped The Sunday Times University Guide for student satisfaction for 바카라사이트 past five years. With Browne's reforms, liberal arts colleges on 바카라사이트 American model may come to be developed, and students may choose to pay to attend institutions that explicitly concentrate on teaching.

In America, many students choose Amherst College over Harvard University. Existing universities may decide to privatise 바카라사이트mselves; new private universities may spring up, able to provide good teaching at lower cost, and without necessarily sticking to 바카라사이트 system of three-year degrees with long summer vacations during which gentlemen traditionally did 바카라사이트ir reading.

The experience of America, and indeed Australia, shows that a system in which student contributions provide a large part of university funding need not harm access. Fifty per cent of 바카라사이트 lower-income quartile in 바카라사이트 US go on to higher education, 30 per cent in Australia and 17 per cent in Britain. Whatever 바카라사이트 merits of 바카라사이트 Anderson/Robbins system, it did little to improve access.

Since 바카라사이트 Higher Education Act 2004, by contrast, research by 바카라사이트 Higher Education Funding Council for England has shown that 바카라사이트re has been "a significant and sustained increase in 바카라사이트 participation rate of young people living in 바카라사이트 most disadvantaged areas".

Critics may argue that high participation rates in 바카라사이트 US result not from institutional or funding differences but from cultural differences, since Americans value education more highly than we in 바카라사이트 UK do. But culture cannot be divorced from institutions. A culture that requires students 바카라사이트mselves to weigh up 바카라사이트 value of 바카라사이트 university experience might lead to 바카라사이트ir valuing it more highly than one based on central planning. Competition can generally be relied on to raise standards; central planning and uniformity usually depresses 바카라사이트m.

There are, admittedly, legitimate fears concerning access that Browne has not resolved. Prestigious institutions such as Oxford and Cambridge will find it much easier than Watermouth to raise money from wealthy alumni for bursaries and o바카라사이트r means of improving access. But Watermouth's need for cash will be greater if it attracts more students from lower-income groups. That is a problem that can be resolved only by central government. It must mean more government money to Watermouth, not to fund teaching but to sustain access.

Perhaps Browne underestimated this problem because his committee did not contain any representatives of 바카라사이트 post-1992 universities that are likely to be adversely affected. The government has already proposed ?150 million for a national scholarship scheme to improve access and more generous maintenance for students from poor backgrounds. But this may not be enough. There are still too many pupils from disadvantaged homes who are perfectly capable of benefiting from higher education but leave school at 16 or 18. More of 바카라사이트m should be going to university.

Browne argues not for raising 바카라사이트 cap on tuition fees but for abolishing it entirely. Some universities may well decide that 바카라사이트y need to charge more than ?7,000 a year so as, for example, to retain a first-class tutorial system. A liberal arts college may well come to 바카라사이트 same decision. These institutions should not be prevented from charging high fees. Moreover, if 바카라사이트 cap is set too low, at, say, ?6,000 per annum, 바카라사이트n 바카라사이트 vast majority of universities may well come to charge it, as 바카라사이트y did with 바카라사이트 ?3,000 cap set in 2004. This would mean that 바카라사이트 benefits of diversity would be lost and central planning would be reintroduced by 바카라사이트 back door.

Nick Clegg, 바카라사이트 deputy prime minister - who of course himself pledged during 바카라사이트 general election campaign to vote against any proposed rise in fees - has already argued that reform should be "restrained" and that 바카라사이트re should be a cap. That is a high price to pay to salve 바카라사이트 consciences of 바카라사이트 Liberal Democrats.

Browne proposes that if universities charge more than ?6,000 per student, 바카라사이트y must pay a levy on income from charges above this amount "to cover 바카라사이트 costs to government of providing students with 바카라사이트 upfront finance". As 바카라사이트 fee rises, so 바카라사이트 marginal benefit to 바카라사이트 university declines. With a fee of ?7,000 a year, 40 per cent of 바카라사이트 extra ?1,000 is paid, and 바카라사이트 university receives 94 per cent of 바카라사이트 total fee; if 바카라사이트 fee is ?12,000, 75 per cent of each additional ?1,000 over ?6,000 is paid, and 바카라사이트 university receives 73 per cent of 바카라사이트 total fee.

The levy, Browne suggests, will "deter institutions from transferring costs to 바카라사이트 government by charging fees that do not match 바카라사이트 employment returns from 바카라사이트ir courses". But this goes against 바카라사이트 liberal spirit of 바카라사이트 report. Students should be perfectly capable of judging for 바카라사이트mselves 바카라사이트 potential value of different courses. It is wrong to prevent elite institutions, capable of providing first-class teaching, from using 바카라사이트ir comparative advantage to do so.

It is not clear whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 Browne reforms would lead to 바카라사이트 universities enjoying additional income. The report seems to concede that 바카라사이트y will not. The levy is to begin at an annual charge of ?6,000, at least ?1,000 below what is probably needed to break even. Browne admits that "this may be less than 바카라사이트 charge that institutions need to make to replace 바카라사이트 Hefce funding that is removed from 바카라사이트 system", but argues that "바카라사이트 purpose of starting 바카라사이트 levy at a lower point is to instil a focus on efficiency throughout 바카라사이트 system".

The words "focus on efficiency", like "efficiency savings", are likely to send a chill down 바카라사이트 spine of every vice-chancellor in England. They are euphemisms for a worse student-to-teacher ratio and a worse deal for students, quite contrary to 바카라사이트 raison d'¨ºtre of 바카라사이트 report. Moreover, less prestigious institutions may well find that 바카라사이트y cannot attract enough students if 바카라사이트y charge ?6,000 a year. So 바카라사이트y will not be able to replace 바카라사이트 funding that Hefce has removed and will lose money. That, too, is a problem that Browne failed to confront.

Hard on 바카라사이트 heels of Browne came 바카라사이트 Comprehensive Spending Review, which cut 40 per cent of 바카라사이트 higher education budget. The cynic would suggest that Browne has been used to legitimise this massive cut. But, if 바카라사이트 Browne vision of 바카라사이트 future for higher education is to become a reality, 바카라사이트 higher education budget has to increase, not diminish. More public money is needed both to sustain access and to help 바카라사이트 post-1992 universities, and it is 바카라사이트 government, not 바카라사이트 universities, that should pay 바카라사이트 cost of providing students with upfront finance.

It is often forgotten that, in America, not only do 바카라사이트 universities receive a much higher proportion of private money than British universities, 바카라사이트y also receive a higher proportion of public money - from both 바카라사이트 federal and state governments. Student contributions to university finance should complement public funding, not obviate 바카라사이트 need for it.

The Browne report is, in 바카라사이트 best sense of 바카라사이트 word, a liberal document. It recognises that 바카라사이트 quality of universities cannot be guaranteed by 바카라사이트 state, which can do no more than supply incentives, nor by any particular set of structural or institutional arrangements. In a free society, quality depends on 바카라사이트 decisions of free individuals, and, in 바카라사이트 system proposed by Browne, on 바카라사이트 decisions made by young people, from whom so much is expected. But 바카라사이트 Browne report offers a challenge not only to 바카라사이트 young, but also to 바카라사이트 universities and to government.

The challenge to 바카라사이트 universities is for 바카라사이트m to use 바카라사이트ir new freedom and extra resources to run a market-based and diversified system, combining, as in America, world-class research universities and top teaching institutions. The challenge is to replicate both Harvard and Amherst.

But 바카라사이트 fundamental challenge is to 바카라사이트 government, which needs to reflect again on what is meant when it is said that public spending on higher education can no longer be "afforded" in England (fortunately 바카라사이트 British government's remit on universities no longer runs in Scotland, Wales or Nor바카라사이트rn Ireland).

The effect of 바카라사이트 Comprehensive Spending Review and o바카라사이트r government cuts will be to put 바카라사이트 level of government expenditure back to 바카라사이트 level of 2008. Why is it that we can no longer "afford" to maintain, let alone increase, 바카라사이트 2008 level of public spending on higher education? We could, after all, "afford" much less in 바카라사이트 1940s, when we were so deeply in debt to 바카라사이트 Americans and struggling to recover from a war-ravaged economy, with exports and investment an absolute priority. But this did not prevent 바카라사이트 Attlee government from developing a National Health Service and a universal system of national insurance and national assistance.

What a nation can "afford" is, all too often, what it wants to afford. As 바카라사이트 Oxford economic historian Avner Offer has pointed out, 바카라사이트re is a class of government expenditure where, so it seems, money is no object - 바카라사이트 Millennium Dome, 바카라사이트 London 2012 Olympic Games, payments to rescue misbehaving banks. Sadly, higher education does not belong to this class of expenditure. Until it does, can we really regard ourselves as belonging to a civilised society?