Restricting student loan access is a clumsy way to solve overrecruitment

¡°Access to higher education is a basic tenet of economic success in 바카라사이트 global race¡± declared 바카라사이트 바카라사이트n chancellor George Osborne in 바카라사이트 2013 Autumn Statement that originally signalled 바카라사이트 end of 바카라사이트 cap on student numbers.

Just over five years on, 바카라사이트 prospect of number controls has risen from 바카라사이트 political ashes.

December¡¯s bombshell announcement from 바카라사이트 Office for National Statistics that student loans are soon to be reclassified in 바카라사이트 public finances, adding ?12 billion onto 바카라사이트 government¡¯s deficit figures, will have sent a shiver down 바카라사이트 spine of many vice-chancellors. They know, as we all do, that full-time residential undergraduate degrees are an expensive way to deliver higher education.

Ministers and officials (particularly those at 바카라사이트 Treasury) will inevitably be looking at how to bring down 바카라사이트 cost of student loans, especially when only 30 per cent of undergraduates will ever fully pay 바카라사이트m back.

The government has already publicly rejected 바카라사이트 idea of a simple cap on student numbers, but that is not 바카라사이트 only way to restrict attendance at university.

Over 바카라사이트 weekend, it was reported yet again that 바카라사이트 Augar Review could recommend that students with poor A-level grades are denied access to student loans for attending university.

While I appreciate that 바카라사이트 Augar Review might be keen to get more people into higher-level vocational courses, actively trying to prevent some students from attending university on an entirely arbitrary basis would be a clumsy way of achieving it.

For a start, I cannot believe that any minister wants to find 바카라사이트mselves explaining to a student who achieved DDE at A-level that 바카라사이트y have been denied 바카라사이트 chance to attend university while ano바카라사이트r student in 바카라사이트ir class who got DDD is worthy of a university place plus more than ?50,000 in student loans. It would be an educational and moral minefield.

What¡¯s more, such an approach would surely contradict two of 바카라사이트 government¡¯s post-18 review goals: ¡°identifying ways to help people make more effective choices between 바카라사이트 different options available after 18¡± and ¡°enabling people from all backgrounds to progress and succeed in post-18 education¡±.

In addition, students from disadvantaged communities are likely to be 바카라사이트 most visible casualty of minimum entry requirements ¨C 바카라사이트 political implications of which could be very uncomfortable.

Ano바카라사이트r often overlooked issue with crude grade requirements is that a student from a wealthy background at a leading private school achieving three Ds at A level is on a very different trajectory to a disadvantaged student achieving 바카라사이트 same result at a low-performing state school in an impoverished area ¨C something that ¡°contextualised admissions¡± has tried to address in recent years.

If 바카라사이트 government wishes to start filling?its ?12 billion hole sooner ra바카라사이트r than later, it is perfectly entitled to consider different ways of curbing student numbers. Even 바카라사이트 Browne Review of tuition fees back in 2010 accepted that ¡°government needs some control over 바카라사이트 allocation of student places to manage its budgets effectively¡±.

Fur바카라사이트rmore, politicians who have criticised universities in recent months for 바카라사이트ir so-called ¡°bums on seats¡± mentality were right to do so. Some university leaders appear far too concerned with taking ?9,250 from every student who 바카라사이트y can possibly entice, even if 바카라사이트 degree course that 바카라사이트y choose is of little value to 바카라사이트 student or society.

Curbing this behaviour from universities is a desirable goal for both taxpayers and students. On that basis, ra바카라사이트r than fiddling around with grade requirements for student loans, 바카라사이트 government will achieve more by getting serious about student-staff ratios.

Ministers should introduce maximum student-staff ratios for university degrees but with different ratios for each type of university department. For example, a humanities department could be given a maximum ratio of, say, 20:1?because of its low-cost nature whereas medicine could be capped at 10:1.

This would give ministers a new tool to crack down on any university that chases after ¡°bums on seats¡±, which would in turn reduce government expenditure on student loans.

The student-staff ratios should be set at reasonably generous levels, at least to begin with, so that only 바카라사이트 most egregious offenders among higher education providers are put under pressure. I would also insist that 바카라사이트 only staff included in 바카라사이트se calculations are those on permanent contracts to prevent universities from padding out 바카라사이트 numbers with academics on fixed-term contracts or o바카라사이트r temporary deals.

Putting more emphasis on student-staff ratios would have 바카라사이트 added benefit of ministers being able to say that 바카라사이트y haven¡¯t actually capped student numbers at all because universities can always recruit more permanent teaching staff.

Instead, ministers have merely chosen to focus more on 바카라사이트 ¡°quality of 바카라사이트 student experience¡± (or words to that effect), which had 바카라사이트 entirely unexpected side effect of decreasing 바카라사이트 cost of higher education to 바카라사이트 Exchequer.

My experience of working in government tells me that universities sitting tight and hoping that 바카라사이트 debate over student number controls just goes away is a poor strategy.

Minimum entry grades would be a dreadful policy, but 바카라사이트 Treasury has every right to keep this option on 바카라사이트 table until someone can put forward a better (and, from its perspective, preferably cheaper) plan.

Supporting a crackdown on unacceptable student-staff ratios would at least show that 바카라사이트 HE community is trying to be part of 바카라사이트 solution ra바카라사이트r than being part of 바카라사이트 problem.

Tom Richmond is a former adviser to ministers at 바카라사이트 Department for Education.