University Reform: Unintended Consequences
Andrew Chappell 13th July 2011
As a current member of the university system in the UK, I am feeling rather fortunate at the moment, fortunate in that when I was applying to university I didn’t have to deal with all the reforms currently affecting higher education. First, the prospective undergraduates will have to translate ‘political speak’ into something understandable and then to make an informed decision about where they might want to apply to. Following the uproar upon the announcement that tuition fees could rise to £9,000 per year, the government has now tinkered a little further with the system in an attempt to try to realise what they initially intended.
The intended effects of the rise in tuition fees were in principle to pass on the cost of education off the taxpayer and onto the consumer: the students. It was hoped that only the elite universities would charge the maximum and a high proportion would charge somewhat less than the cap. Raising the cap also intended to open the gates to new private institutions, lowering the barriers to entry in the higher education market thus increasing competition. They were designed to provide a “sustainable financial future” for universities with extra freedom and less bureaucracy. The alarm bells probably began ringing in the Department for Business Innovation and Skills when university after university announced they would be charging the maximum level of fees. Although the state will eventually not be paying these fees, they have to front the initial cost. Students will only begin paying back their loans once they are earning over £21,000 a year. As a consequence of this the government has produced a White Paper named ‘Students at the Heart of the system’, outlining some tinkering in an attempt to achieve their initial intentions. In principle the new changes are as follows:
- Universities will have an unlimited cap on the number of students they are allowed to take in who achieved the grades AAB or higher at A-level
- 20,000 places will be reserved for institutions offering courses for less than £7,500
- In return the Universities will have to publish more detailed information regarding teaching hours, prospects for employment and salaries, accommodation costs and more.
The intentions of the new changes are aimed at the ‘mediocre universities’. The desired effect would be for the ‘middle institutions’ to drop their fees or else risk losing student numbers. This would happen in two ways: firstly, they would lose students to more respected universities who can now have as many students as they want and secondly, to those institutions who are charging less whereby students may see more value for money. There are big fears that the “middle universities’’ will be squeezed, possibly if worst came to worst out of the system. An interesting thought considering one of the initial goals was to increase competition. There is also the possibility that the well-respected institutions are now going to grow at unprecedented rates. Put yourself in the shoes of a student who has achieved AAB at A-level or higher; knowing that the top universities can now take as many students as they like - you may as well apply to as many top institutions as possible.
A two tier system is a distinct possible outcome, whereby the elite remain the elite and then the second tier, possibly viewed as a sub-standard degree constructed on a budget. What the government has to be wary of is not to reduce the quality of the degree by trying to force the fees downwards.
On the other hand there may well be an influx of new private institutions, a process which may have already begun. I wrote earlier in the year about the New College of Humanities, a specialist private university, which is due to open for students from 2012/13. The introduction of new blood into the system may well be no bad thing. These institutions are likely to specialise in a certain field, intensifying the quality of the material. Furthermore there is a distinct possibility that new institutions could be set-up and funded by commercial giants; bridging the gap between higher education and industry. Consider this: you are head of recruitment at Giant Firm Ltd, how do you ensure that your new recruits possess the skills and knowledge they need to succeed in your firm? The answer: set up the Giant Firm University specialising in your work. Possible industries included finance and accountancy, engineering and design, IT and logistics to name a few. The concept that leading firms could have access to relatively cheap skilled labour available for advanced research is something which you would imagine to be quite attractive. This bridging process between universities and industry needs to be strengthened in the UK, but this is another issue altogether.
Another possible solution to reducing the fees is to use the university league tables as a measure of how much each institution can charge. For example only the top 10 would be allowed to charge the maximum, the next ten say £8,500 a year and so on. The table would have to be constructed of data which truly represented the quality of the institution, which would be the most difficult part. Introducing a league-style charging mechanism would ensure the universities are competing to get into the top bracket against the relevant variables taken. It was also provide more transparency for prospective students whilst deciding where to apply to.
The UK currently lies 2nd in world tables for universities behind America, other nations are catching up, and we need to ensure our university system stays world class. If the government wants to pass some of cost of education to students that is acceptable to some degree but the investment in our institutions needs to remain. The university system in the UK is one of the very few success stories and is a great attraction for foreign students; it is something which needs to remain successful for the UK as a whole as well as the universities themselves.