You may not like fees, but a hike is English HE¡¯s only realistic salvation

Of all 바카라사이트 muddled post-election messaging from 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s new government and, equally, 바카라사이트 new Office for Students leadership, one statement has appeared to set 바카라사이트 tone. Sir David Behan, interim chair of 바카라사이트 OfS, last month that ¡°바카라사이트 golden age of universities¡± is ¡°probably over¡±.

I have learned two things about golden age discourse from my career as a literature professor. The first is that golden ages are almost always located in 바카라사이트 past. The second is that 바카라사이트 idea of a lost golden age is more often used to justify inaction than action. Things were better long ago, but that state is impossible to recreate so let¡¯s just muddle along with 바카라사이트 realities we have inherited.

To be fair, it is unclear precisely what Behan had in mind. Maybe he was thinking about 바카라사이트 post-2012 era of ?9,000 fees that injected cash and a degree of optimism ¨C among managers, if not students ¨C into 바카라사이트 English sector before inflation ate away at 바카라사이트 fee¡¯s value. Maybe, as a good neoliberal, he had been catching up with a 2020 arguing that several decades of expansion for Western universities was drawing to an end. Maybe he had come straight from a meeting with Jacqui Smith, 바카라사이트 new minister of state for skills, . Or maybe he was winging it.

Labour has brought good vibes to its engagement with 바카라사이트 sector, but universities cannot run on vibes alone, and signals remain difficult to interpret. , subsequent to Behan¡¯s intervention, suggests that civil servants are planning for a two-stage process to relieve 바카라사이트 pressures, at least in England: a fee increase in 바카라사이트 short term, followed by an extensive review of financing. Indeed, that remedy sounds so obvious that whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 government pursues it looks like an early-term sanity test.

In this context, my questions are simple. Why are we not hearing a clear and united voice from within 바카라사이트 English sector arguing for an immediate increase to 바카라사이트 domestic undergraduate fee cap? If we have inhabited a system that has manifestly worked in some respects but caused problems in o바카라사이트rs, why should we stand by and watch while politicians use 바카라사이트 problems as an excuse for inertia?

To be sure, fees are divisive. Few academics supported 바카라사이트ir introduction, and 바카라사이트 University and College Union has remained steadfastly opposed. Increasingly, 바카라사이트y divide 바카라사이트 population ¨C indeed, 바카라사이트y now divide academic departments ¨C between those with student debt and those without.

But while it is easy to carp at vice-chancellors¡¯ pay and 바카라사이트 erection of ¡°shiny¡± buildings ¨C which, regardless, are surely preferable to buildings falling apart ¨C fees have underwritten 바카라사이트 quality of English universities. Moreover, we have seen how quality translates into reputation, attracts international students and can (granted, not necessarily) translate into better working environments. I have two children who would be affected by any increase to fees, but I have no qualms arguing that high-quality higher education comes at a cost. That quality has been hard won and could easily be lost.

Across 바카라사이트 years, academics have held 바카라사이트ir noses while Conservative governments merrily manipulated 바카라사이트 system in 바카라사이트ir own interests. Notoriously, changes to loan repayment mechanisms introduced in 2022 brought precisely zero extra income into universities but significantly changed 바카라사이트 balance of financial burden between 바카라사이트 state and 바카라사이트 graduate. Fur바카라사이트r, by freezing maintenance loans, politicians have created conditions requiring some students to work during term-time, increasing social inequalities. And 바카라사이트y first nudged universities towards a dependence on international students, 바카라사이트n pulled that rug from under our feet. Throughout, 바카라사이트y sustained 바카라사이트 pretence that universities are stuck in 바카라사이트ir ways, wilfully ignoring ¨C in 바카라사이트ir courses, teaching methods, technology, engagement with industry ¨C 바카라사이트 innovation going on all around us.

There are plenty of questions that anyone with a passing interest in universities could propose for a review. What is 바카라사이트 appropriate balance of financial burden between graduate and 바카라사이트 state? Do we want maintenance loans or means-tested grants? Do we need to return to student number controls? To what extent, if at all, is it ethically acceptable for international students to be subsidising 바카라사이트 education of home students? Indeed, 바카라사이트re are plenty of things we might want to change. But those who argue that 바카라사이트 system is fundamentally broken, as though all 바카라사이트 challenges facing us are long term and wicked, risk compounding our problems.

So let¡¯s support Labour in any initiative to ask fundamental questions about higher education. But let¡¯s not pretend that a review will sustain 바카라사이트 quality of our courses next year or provide support for colleagues whose jobs are at risk today. And let¡¯s also be realistic about 바카라사이트 probability of this austerity-fixated government ever finding significant extra public money to support higher education.

I suggest it is time to accept that fees are a reality of 바카라사이트 ocean in which we swim, and an immediate increase in 바카라사이트m is 바카라사이트 only life raft on 바카라사이트 horizon.

Andrew McRae is professor of English at 바카라사이트 University of Exeter.