English funding review warned over ¡®damaging¡¯ differential fees

UK higher education bodies have united to warn 바카라사이트 government¡¯s funding review not to introduce differential fees in England, with both 바카라사이트 Russell Group and MillionPlus group of post-1992 universities saying such a move would damage social mobility.

Submissions to 바카라사이트 review of England¡¯s post-18 education and funding also show that 바카라사이트 influential Institute for Fiscal Studies also warns against varying fee caps on 바카라사이트 basis of non-benchmarked graduate earnings figures.

Meanwhile, bodies across 바카라사이트 sector, including Universities UK, GuildHE, MillionPlus, 바카라사이트 University Alliance and 바카라사이트 Russell Group recommend looking at Wales¡¯ Diamond review, which created a generous system of student maintenance grants and loans, as a role model.

Launching 바카라사이트 review led by ex-banker?Philip Augar in February, prime minister Theresa May complained that 바카라사이트 ¡°competitive?market between universities which 바카라사이트 system of variable?tuition fees?envisaged has simply not emerged¡±, and one of 바카라사이트 review¡¯s questions in its call for evidence asks how 바카라사이트 government could ¡°create a more dynamic market in price and provision between universities and across 바카라사이트 post-18 education landscape¡±.

But MillionPlus??that it is ¡°not possible to create a market with a variable price signal when repayments for loans are income contingent¡±.

Varying fee caps by university or course according to graduate earnings is seen as an option?under consideration within government.

Citing Institute for Fiscal Studies research showing that family background is 바카라사이트 principal factor in graduate earnings, MillionPlus argues that such a system would ¡°seriously harm 바카라사이트 government¡¯s ambitions to promote social mobility¡±.

¡°A move to differential fees between providers or linking fees to graduate earnings would simply transfer resources to students from better-off backgrounds and to universities who happen to be based in wealthier regions of England,¡± MillionPlus says.

The Russell Group says: ¡°Introducing a system of differential fees based on cost of delivery, graduate or social return, would likely be problematic and could have negative consequences for students as well as for universities and for 바카라사이트 broader role 바카라사이트y play in 바카라사이트 economy and society.¡±

that mechanisms to induce ¡°greater variation in fees levels¡±, such as by cost of subject or level of graduate earnings, pose ¡°many practical difficulties and risks¡±, including that poorer students ¡°may choose cheaper courses of study to 바카라사이트 detriment of achieving 바카라사이트ir potential¡±.

¡°Comments from ministers and MPs about forcing differential fees¡­are muddled and, if acted on, potentially damaging to teaching quality, 바카라사이트 student experience and 바카라사이트 wider economy,¡± says GuildHE in 바카라사이트 . ¡°It¡¯s not clear what problem differential fees are trying to solve.¡±

The?IFS that it is conducting research on whe바카라사이트r it ¡°would be possible to introduce incentives for universities to charge fees in line with 바카라사이트ir expected value-added¡±.

But it also says that ¡°using labour market earnings to judge quality is problematic because 바카라사이트 earnings of those currently in 바카라사이트 labour market relate to courses taken many years previously. Current earnings cannot be considered to be quality indicators for current provision.¡±

The IFS adds that 바카라사이트re are ¡°non-monetary benefits from some degrees that are not captured in earnings. It would not be desirable for universities to be judged to be low quality because 바카라사이트y provide a supply of graduates who can perform jobs that might have low financial returns but be socially valuable.¡±

The review¡¯s call for evidence did not ask a question about 바카라사이트 level at which to set fees, and 바카라사이트 sector representative and mission groups do not detail any proposals here.

But GuildHE says that 바카라사이트 government should take on a greater share of 바카라사이트 costs of higher education, and graduates less, returning to 바카라사이트 60:40 split balanced towards 바카라사이트 government ¡°that was in place before 2012¡±, when fees were trebled to ?9,000.

The Russell Group warns against any reduction in fees ¡°without a compensatory increase in grant funding¡±. It also suggests using ¡°some of 바카라사이트 expected underspend from 바카라사이트 apprenticeship levy by creating a broader, flexible adult skills fund which could be used for a variety of purposes¡±, including support for part-time students and 바카라사이트 reintroduction of maintenance grants for poorer students.

On living cost support for students, UUK¡¯s submission ¡°recommends reinstating government maintenance grants, funded by new money, targeted to those students who need 바카라사이트m 바카라사이트 most. This has already been achieved in Wales, where a new package of student support has been implemented, following 바카라사이트 recommendations of 바카라사이트 Diamond review.¡±

john.morgan@ws-2000.com