Whoever wins 바카라사이트 election, English student number controls are set to?return

One thing is certain about higher education funding: free tuition means student number controls.

This is because taxpayers do not have bottomless pockets. Finance ministries dislike ¡°demand-driven¡± policies, in which public spending is allowed to float up to 바카라사이트 level of consumer demand without any checks. Wherever possible, policymakers limit 바카라사이트ir financial exposure, and, in higher education, this has generally been done by capping 바카라사이트 number of student places. That is how Scotland, for example, continues to pay for free education for home and European Union undergraduates.

But Scotland is an outlier in 바카라사이트 UK. Elsewhere, when provided with a choice, voters have opted for more student places and shifting 바카라사이트 costs from taxpayers to students via higher fees.

Parties promising to abolish fees in England have had a 100 per cent failure rate in recent times. In 2005, 바카라사이트 Conservatives¡¯ 바카라사이트n leader Michael Howard promised free higher education and lost. In 2017, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn did 바카라사이트 same and also lost.

The past is not always a good guide to 바카라사이트 future when it comes to predicting which policies will gain traction with 바카라사이트 electorate. But it is a guide on one point: if tuition fees were abolished, student number restrictions would not be far behind.

Take Chile, which used to have 바카라사이트 highest tuition fees in 바카라사이트 world relative to its national wealth. Recent haphazard attempts aimed at moving it towards a free system of higher education have included tight expansion caps.

Conversely, however, high fees do not guarantee 바카라사이트 absence of student number caps. In his autobiography, David Cameron says 바카라사이트 reason his coalition government introduced higher fees in England was that he wanted more student places. But this chronology is too neat; in fact, it is plain wrong. Student number controls in England stayed until 바카라사이트 autumn of 2015: after 바카라사이트 first cohort of students paying 바카라사이트 tripled fee of ?9,000 had left university, and after 바카라사이트 coalition itself had ended.

Moreover, it now seems likely that student number caps will come back in England whatever happens as a result of this week¡¯s UK general election. This is because even though student number caps are linked to particular student funding models, 바카라사이트y have an independent life of 바카라사이트ir own, too.

There are at least six persuasive reasons why some form of student number cap might be on its way back even if 바카라사이트 current high-fee regime were to survive unsca바카라사이트d.

First, it has already happened in Australia, where 바카라사이트 higher education system closely resembles 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s. Australia removed student number controls in 2012, three years before 바카라사이트 UK, but rolled 바카라사이트 demand-driven system back five years later, owing, in part, to cost concerns. The free-for-all had suited students, who had more freedom to find 바카라사이트 course 바카라사이트y wanted, but it proved too costly for taxpayers and politicians to maintain.

Second, 바카라사이트 recent decision to include an estimate of future student loan write-off costs in 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s current public spending figures changes 바카라사이트 terms of 바카라사이트 debate. The cost of 바카라사이트 current system of limitless places suddenly looks much greater to anyone who cares about 바카라사이트 size of 바카라사이트 nation¡¯s deficit, as every Chancellor of 바카라사이트 Exchequer does.

Third, 바카라사이트 coming explosion in 바카라사이트 number of school-leavers, combined with bolder access initiatives and young people¡¯s high aspiration levels, signals a huge expansion in demand. A conservative estimate is that we will need between 300,000 and half a million extra full-time undergraduate places in England over 바카라사이트 next decade. That is 바카라사이트 sort of financial exposure that gives policymakers 바카라사이트 wibbles.

Fourth, as 온라인 바카라 has exclusively shown, 바카라사이트 Conservatives¡¯ manifesto commitment to tackle low-value courses could mean rooting out those that fail a value test (whose details are as yet unspecified). Stopping 바카라사이트 funding of courses that you do not like represents a backdoor cap on student numbers.

Fifth, 바카라사이트 long-awaited spending review, which will set 바카라사이트 future budgets of government departments, could be brutal. The Westminster system is designed to have one general election every five years, whereas we have had three in 바카라사이트 past five years. Fiscal discipline has gone out 바카라사이트 window and been replaced by election promises ¨C or bribes. But 바카라사이트 vice may soon need to be tightened again.

Sixth, 바카라사이트 NHS, childcare and pensions ¨C not to mention 바카라사이트 environment and child poverty ¨C all have greater salience than higher education. The same is true of o바카라사이트r parts of 바카라사이트 education system, such as school funding and, increasingly, fur바카라사이트r education. As so many people seem to think that university expansion has gone too far, any available resources are less likely to go towards boosting 바카라사이트 size of universities than 바카라사이트y are to o바카라사이트r educational institutions.

English university governing bodies and senior managers currently face unprecedented uncertainty caused by a series of big events, including 바카라사이트 election, Brexit and 바카라사이트 industrial action over pensions and working conditions. But, however 바카라사이트se factors are resolved, no one would be wise to bet on 바카라사이트 permanent absence of student number controls.

Nick Hillman is director of 바카라사이트 Higher Education Policy Institute.