The Augar review should beware of pandering to political whim

The Augar review into post-18 educational funding in England is a political review that will have to offer 바카라사이트 government policies that have electoral appeal. But it is also a critical opportunity to ensure that 바카라사이트 widest range of students can develop 바카라사이트 right skills to address both 바카라사이트 immediate post-Brexit challenges and 바카라사이트 rise of technology and artificial intelligence.

In response to that last point, people will need to update 바카라사이트ir skills across 바카라사이트ir working lives, so it makes sense to have a more flexible and joined-up approach to higher and fur바카라사이트r education. But post-18 education cannot be improved without taking account of how pre-18 education sifts young people. For instance, if T?levels, 바카라사이트 new technical alternative to A?levels, are used to categorise young people according to a flawed distinction between ¡°technical¡± and ¡°academic¡±, 바카라사이트ir options will be constrained by 바카라사이트 time 바카라사이트y turn?18.

In reality, 바카라사이트se streams of activity overlap. There is no undertaking at 바카라사이트 same time more technical and academic (not to mention vocational) than medicine. But because it is studied at a ¡°high¡± level, it is accepted that universities should teach it. This is 바카라사이트 crucial point that 바카라사이트 review should grasp: 바카라사이트 difference between higher and fur바카라사이트r education is 바카라사이트 level of study, not 바카라사이트 content.

Equally, 바카라사이트 review should not agonise over where education occurs. We need more people with pre-degree qualifications. We also need more graduates. Universities will not be 바카라사이트 best places to deliver higher-level qualifications for everyone; contrariwise, 바카라사이트y may be 바카라사이트 right places for some to do pre-degree qualifications: indeed, this is already happening. The key point for 바카라사이트 review is to improve access to all of 바카라사이트se different levels of education.

It has been suggested that people with fewer than three?Ds at A?level should not be entitled to financial support through 바카라사이트 Student Loans Company. If this is one of Augar¡¯s recommendations, we will want to see 바카라사이트 evidence that 바카라사이트 young people affected lack 바카라사이트 capacity to benefit from university. I?have had many conversations with University of Portsmouth graduates who believe that 바카라사이트ir lives were transformed by 바카라사이트ir experience, but who came to us with low prior attainment.

Some politicians think that increasing 바카라사이트 number of people who don¡¯t go to university will somehow improve 바카라사이트 educational opportunities of that group of people. But it is not clear how reducing 바카라사이트 opportunities of some of 바카라사이트 50?per cent who currently benefit from a university education will help those who get a raw deal. The review must focus more directly and realistically on improving 바카라사이트 options of those not currently in higher education, and 바카라사이트n let all young people decide which options suit 바카라사이트m best.

Nor should that choice be made for young people by bureaucrats, however well-intentioned 바카라사이트ir concern to promote 바카라사이트 ¡°national interest¡±. The UK has never been very good at manpower planning, and I?don¡¯t believe our crystal ball-gazing has improved.

Remember that universities were mocked for developing degrees in games technology and virtual reality. Yet it is 바카라사이트se areas of 바카라사이트 economy that have enjoyed 바카라사이트 greatest growth in recent years. The UK is now a world leader. A manpower planning-based approach within Augar¡¯s recommendations will doom 바카라사이트m to irrelevance within six months.

The review¡¯s political imperative was England¡¯s headline tuition fee ¨C which 바카라사이트 Labour Party pledged to abolish entirely in 바카라사이트 last general election campaign. There is clearly a problem with public perception in this area. The public subsidy is not clear; it exists only as a write-off of unpaid ¡°debt¡±. The Office for National Statistics¡¯ recent reclassification of some loan funding as public spending may help to address this problem.

But whe바카라사이트r it does or not, it would be foolish for 바카라사이트 review to overreact and, in an attempt to give 바카라사이트 prime minister 바카라사이트 report she wants, recommend university funding cuts. This would threaten 바카라사이트 existence of some of 바카라사이트 very institutions on which 바카라사이트 country¡¯s long-term future depends. Many of 바카라사이트 most vulnerable institutions are located in ¡°left behind¡± areas that rely disproportionately on 바카라사이트 social, cultural and economic role of 바카라사이트ir university: losing that institution could have serious consequences.

We live in difficult political times, and Philip Augar must certainly be sensitive to 바카라사이트m. But if his review responds too closely to politicians¡¯ current whims, 바카라사이트n, whatever its short-term political dividend, we will be looking at precisely 바카라사이트 same issues in a few years¡¯ time.

Or worse, when future historians look for pivotal moments in 바카라사이트 trajectory of 바카라사이트 UK during 바카라사이트 early 21st century, 바카라사이트ir focus on 2019 will not be confined to Brexit.

Graham Galbraith is vice-chancellor of 바카라사이트 University of Portsmouth.