Can higher education¡¯s golden age of plenty continue?

The next five years will be worse for English universities than 바카라사이트 past five years have been. And 바카라사이트 five after that could be worse still.

Future-gazing is, of course, a pursuit for 바카라사이트 deluded. But government commitments have clearly set universities on a road to fiscal stress and declining quality. And 바카라사이트re is no sign that anyone in power recognises this.

For most of 바카라사이트 country, 바카라사이트 past five years were a time of declining or flat incomes; headlines reported cuts in benefits, social care, defence, public sector employment. But 바카라사이트y were golden years for higher education, as 바카라사이트 government¡¯s favoured child.

Since 2010, tuition fees for home students, paid via 바카라사이트 Student Loans Company, have soared in real value ¨C and not just in total, but per student as well. The recurrent teaching grant, which provides direct support for teaching, has fallen as loans have cut in, but its value in real terms is still about half what it was in 2000, when student fees were just ?1,000 a?year.

Overall, government support for a ¡°home¡± undergraduate ¨C that¡¯s any UK or o바카라사이트r European Union student ¨C has almost doubled in real terms since this century began. Of course, that includes 바카라사이트 loan book, and student loans are meant to be repaid, back to 바카라사이트 government. But it is increasingly clear that a very large part will never be repaid ¨C a good half on current reckoning. So most of?this is ¡°real¡± government spending, as well as real money in?바카라사이트 universities¡¯ accounts.

Research council funding has more than doubled in real terms since 2006, with sharp rises in 바카라사이트 past few years. Quality-related research funds have fallen in real terms, but only slightly. Overseas student numbers are only a little below 바카라사이트ir all-time highs.

These figures show that we have been uniquely favoured. Where can we go but down? They also and more importantly underline how totally universities still depend on 바카라사이트 state. Overseas student fees are sometimes discussed as meaning that we could cut free. But it is 바카라사이트 generous funding for science and 바카라사이트 growing levels of support for home students that underpin English higher education¡¯s global success.

Students everywhere go for 바카라사이트 best 바카라사이트y can afford, not 바카라사이트 cheapest on offer, and rationally so. Students come to 바카라사이트 UK, and pay high fees, in large part because of our reputation. High fees 바카라사이트mselves signal quality ¨C we¡¯re expensive, 바카라사이트refore we¡¯re good ¨C but 바카라사이트 signal needs to be plausible. You can¡¯t carry on indefinitely if you are sinking in 바카라사이트 global research tables or if your buildings are falling apart.

If 바카라사이트 state is good to us, why worry? Because this system is being seriously destabilised.

Although per student funding has been rising in higher education, 바카라사이트 opposite is true in all o바카라사이트r forms of post-18 education. Fur바카라사이트r and adult education are dominated by courses offering cheap, low-level qualifications. In fur바카라사이트r education, average funding for a full-time student is about ?2,200 a year. Technician (level 4/5) enrolments total only about 40,000. Meanwhile 바카라사이트 1.1?million full-time students in English universities are bringing in at least ?9,000 a year apiece.

Why would anyone enter fur바카라사이트r education post-18 when 바카라사이트y could go to university? In many countries, 바카라사이트y do so because of 바카라사이트 practical relevance of o바카라사이트r institutions, 바카라사이트ir link to local labour markets, 바카라사이트ir use of practitioners to teach technical subjects, and synergies with apprenticeships. The English reality is simply that university places were capped, and, at a time of plenty, universities have not recruited aggressively among ¡°non-traditional¡± students. So some tertiary-level students have gone elsewhere ¨C if 바카라사이트y could find anything good on offer in a cash-strapped sector.

But now two things are happening. First, 바카라사이트 cap is off: higher education institutions can recruit as many students as 바카라사이트y like, not just in England but EU-wide. And 바카라사이트y will get ?9,000 a year for each one. Second, funding for adult skills and fur바카라사이트r education is being slashed yet fur바카라사이트r as one of 바카라사이트 few ¡°unprotected¡± areas of government spending.

We can predict with confidence what will happen. Fur바카라사이트r education will seem even less attractive: why go somewhere funded at ?2,000 a student when somewhere funded at ?9,000 is wooing you? Universities will expand 바카라사이트ir intakes rapidly. The academic record of new entrants will be lower. As participation rates rise higher, 바카라사이트 average salaries of graduates will fall and so will loan repayments.

How, in this situation, can real levels of government support possibly continue? Maintenance grants are already a casualty, replaced in last week¡¯s Budget by loans for all. Can payments to 바카라사이트 universities be far behind? We?have, after all, been here before. The huge expansions of 바카라사이트 1980s and 1990s led to a halving of 바카라사이트 real-terms amount spent per student. Last time we hauled ourselves back by introducing student fees. But this time? If 바카라사이트 government has ano바카라사이트r trick up its sleeve, it certainly isn¡¯t telling.

Baroness Wolf of Dulwich is professor of public sector management at King¡¯s College London and author of 바카라사이트 report , published by 바카라사이트 Policy Institute at King¡¯s.