The coming battle over university places
Peter Hoskin 9:03am
Until now, the debate over universities has dwelt inevitably on how much students need
to stump up in tuition fees. With the release of today's White Paper, the government will hope that the emphasis shifts to what students
receive in return for that cash. Basically, it is all about fixing a subverted market by making it more transparent. With universities good, bad and indifferent rushing to charge the maximum
possible amount for fees, the idea is that forcing them to release more information about their courses — about teaching standards, job prospects and the like — will help students
decide which are offering value-for-money. Who knows? It might even shame one or two institutions into lowering their asking prices.
All of which augurs a tremendous confrontation with the universities. Our halls of learning are already feeling unduly burdened by the impostions of the coalition's fees policy. Adding more demands on top could push some of them even further towards stepping outside the system altogether, severing their ties with the state and going independent.
But the bigger confrontation could be the political one over university places. There is, after all, a possibility that the number or proportion of university students could go down in the next few years. If so, Labour will no doubt claim that, by raising fees, the coalition has turned a generation off higher education. Whereas the coalition might say that students are making more informed choices about whether university is for them, and aren't being conned by the cheap courses that proliferated under the last government. Whoever wins out, tuition fees — and what they buy — are likely to be a fractious doorstep issue at the next election.
Previous
SD
June 28th, 2011 9:33am Report this commentI agree it could be a doorstep issue but the experience in Australia and New Zealand is quite the reverse. Because fees are not paid up front by students, the idea of a graduate tax (which is basically what we are seeing implemented albeit under a different name and with a cap and a guillotine in place) has been accepted really very quickly and is normalised within societal expectations and thinking about education.
Martyn
June 28th, 2011 9:35am Report this commentRather than going independent, the top universities may just stop taking undergraduates. They only contribute 10% to income anyway. The top dozen universities will then become postgraduate educators, enlarging their international presence and cornering the big research grants.
Perry
June 28th, 2011 9:38am Report this commentwill help students decide which are offering value-for-money
… always, I hope, predicated on the fact that the courses on offer are for real subjects, rigorously taught and examined … rather than the NooLieBOre cod courses …
oldtimer
June 28th, 2011 9:53am Report this commentIf these issues are deemed to be important now (teaching standards, job propsects etc) they were just as important before the introduction of student fees. Why was this not raised by Ministers then?
I think we can conclude this is an attempt by Ministers to change the issue in order to distract our attention - an old, and stale, political ploy.
As for job propspects that depends as much, if not more, on the student. I`ve posted before about a conversation with an Oxford maths don who said that Oxford maths graduates need to achieve a 2.1 or 1st just to get an interview for a decent job. Anyone with a 2.2 or 3rd was deemed by propspective employers to be an unreliable prospect for employment.
startledcod
June 28th, 2011 10:37am Report this commentStudents (and prospective students) are more than capable of seeking out good value when shopping for beer or clothes, so they should able to seek out the good value University courses.
My son is at University in the US. It was particularly noticeable that when attending presentations from the different Colleges they emphasised their value for money and what their students went on to do. They were doing their best to attract students to fill worthwhile courses.
By the time my son had selected his preferred two choices we could not afford one of them and so he had to get into the cheaper College which was far more competitive.
It is worth noting that if he had been a talented US student he could have afforded either course because of the range of bursaries and grants available from the individual colleges.
Raffles
June 28th, 2011 10:38am Report this commentToo many youngsters go to University on a false premise. Its not in their interest to do so if what they learn/experience is not really that beneficial. Simple really.
jackal
June 28th, 2011 1:58pm Report this commentSame old argument I know but: It's about bloody time the further educational system in this country was gutted - I KNOW I graduated two years ago from a 'top' red brick where the majority of students were on a state-funded triple gap year. This sickening idealism left behind New Labour that motivates a generation of march-happy losers has to come to brutal end. The value of a University Degree has been diluted to such a level that I have no respect for someone with 2:1. We have a country full of lazy, useless 20 year olds who expect jobs to land on their lap.
Kingstonian
June 28th, 2011 3:13pm Report this commentWith any luck, this will shift the debate away from the cost of tuition given to the value of the tuition received, as measured by the lifetime of remuneration that results from it.
And, as an added bonus, it will make redundant the debate about access for "poor" students. There are no poor students per se (all students are intrinsically poor), the debate is about students from families who are poor. By the time they graduate, their potential wealth will be determined by a combination of the value of the tuition they have received and the effort they themselves have put into absorbing what is on offer. How they then realise that wealth is up to them and their own efforts.
David Lindsay
June 28th, 2011 3:27pm Report this commentWhy are universities under Business rather than under Education? The latest effusion from No Brains answers that one only too well. You should indeed find the degree course with the highest future earning potential. In order to avoid it like the plague so that you can get yourself an education instead.
Ruby Duck
June 28th, 2011 9:34pm Report this comment@David Lindsay
Are you independently wealthy, by any chance ?
Back to top