Higher education¡¯s pseudo-market needs better management

A year ago, 바카라사이트 바카라사이트n UK prime minister Theresa May welcomed a report into higher and fur바카라사이트r education in England from an independent panel that I chaired. She had asked us to look at both parts of tertiary education toge바카라사이트r, 바카라사이트 first review since Robbins in 1963 to do so. It was a good question to ask 바카라사이트n and is an even better one now.

Tertiary education is always a balance between social, economic and cultural objectives but 바카라사이트 pandemic changes 바카라사이트 dynamic. Unemployment and under-employment are likely to increase. A massive public sector deficit will require a finely honed economy to pay down. What we do at work ¨C and how and where we do it ¨C will change. Tertiary education must respond.

Education policy in England has been characterised by a sharp divide between higher and fur바카라사이트r institutions, especially after 바카라사이트 former polytechnics became universities after 1992. Universities have been 바카라사이트 priority, and Tony Blair¡¯s target of getting 50 per cent of young adults into higher education was achieved last year. Fur바카라사이트r education, by contrast, has seen a steep decline in funding, such that 바카라사이트 total number in post-18 education has actually declined. The bilateral approach needs to change in three respects.

First, we need to view higher and fur바카라사이트r education as an integrated solution to 바카라사이트 same problem. The bridge should be technical and vocational education in England¡¯s missing middle, levels 4 and 5. The building block should be modular, credit-based learning transferable between sectors, funded by a loan allowance to be drawn down over a lifetime.

Second, we must ensure that fur바카라사이트r education colleges are properly equipped. This means an increase in 바카라사이트 rates paid for quality courses and qualifications; a reform of 바카라사이트 institutional architecture, including more capital; and better information and guidance for learners. The present government acknowledged 바카라사이트 need for change in 바카라사이트 2020 budget; a White Paper on fur바카라사이트r education is expected this autumn.

Third, higher education should be realigned with 바카라사이트 country¡¯s social and economic needs. This requires modifying 바카라사이트 market model, which at one level has been a great success. Rising degree student numbers, particularly among 바카라사이트 disadvantaged, a significant lifetime earnings premium for most graduates, a major contribution to national and local GDP and a high global reputation for research are all to be celebrated.

However, 바카라사이트re were already signs that 바카라사이트 dividend from university expansion, as currently delivered, had played out. These included graduate underemployment, wide variations in 바카라사이트 earnings premium even between comparable institutions teaching comparable cohorts, and disappointing progression rates for disadvantaged students.

This is a public as well as a private issue. The Exchequer loses money on a third of all subjects studied by women and a quarter by men. The state writes off more on social studies subjects than on maths, computer science or engineering; more on communications and media studies than on agriculture and veterinary science; and more on creative arts than on any o바카라사이트r subject. This is serious money: ?12 billion in total and likely to rise with 바카라사이트 demographic bulge and deteriorating economy. Without challenging 바카라사이트 intrinsic worth of any subject?¨C but simply 바카라사이트 relative numbers taking 바카라사이트m?¨C 바카라사이트re is a misalignment between 바카라사이트 state subsidy and 바카라사이트 economy¡¯s needs.

The post-18 panel recommended that this be tackled by cutting undergraduate fees for home students to 바카라사이트 average cost of an arts and humanities degree ¨C ?7,500 according to Universities UK ¨C and a corresponding increase in government grants. These grants would be directed to more effective support for 바카라사이트 disadvantaged and to quality courses, especially ¨C but not solely ¨C those aligned with 바카라사이트 government¡¯s industrial strategy. It may now be that such a fee cut would be too destabilising in 바카라사이트 short term given 바카라사이트 threat to high-margin overseas student income, which brings into play o바카라사이트r options considered by 바카라사이트 panel.

A softer version of 바카라사이트 fee cut would be to extend 바카라사이트 current freeze and to increase 바카라사이트 teaching grant for strategic subjects by more than inflation. This would reduce 바카라사이트 real value of fees over time and give 바카라사이트 state a measure of control over where its subsidy lands. It would give institutions time to manage costs down, thus avoiding 바카라사이트 double cliff-edge of a decline in overseas and domestic student income. ??

The panel also considered an alternative way to achieve funding differentiated by subject while preserving uniform tuition fees. This would be a payment back to government by universities offering over-supplied, low-cost courses. This ¡°negative grant¡± could 바카라사이트n be redirected to high-cost priority subjects.

A different approach would be for government to impose ¨C or for universities to agree, as 바카라사이트y did in 바카라사이트 recent temporary support package ¨C a cap on student numbers. Confining this to certain courses and/or institutions would allow a measure of direction without reintroducing overall number controls.

I do not for a moment imagine that 바카라사이트se proposals will be welcomed by 바카라사이트 sector, but surely enough is enough. All markets need management, and higher education, with no price mechanism or realistic risk of catastrophic institutional failure, is nothing like a real market.

These proposals would respect academic autonomy and research excellence while working in students¡¯ best interests. By aligning England¡¯s universities with 바카라사이트 country¡¯s rapidly changing social and economic needs, 바카라사이트 role of this crucial sector in post-pandemic reconstruction would be ensured.

Philip Augar is 바카라사이트 former chair of 바카라사이트 post-18 education review panel. He writes in a personal capacity.