University funding: The richest get the best, the poorest the rest

By Stephen Brown / @lordbrownof

Browne isn’t listening. We all agree that Universities need more money. We all agree that the funding system needs to change. The status quo isn’t an option. Any eradication of the contribution made by students at this point isn’t realistic and the financial crash has changed everything. All of us – universities and citizens alike – have to play our part in the recovery. But the solution must be long term gain not short term fix. The solution is not to reduce university places – what good would that do? Compared to our international competitors the number of graduates we already produce is falling behind. To emerge from this financial battle victorious, we must build an army.

The fairness test so readily extolled by Nick Clegg and Vince Cable for the cameras has disappeared from their language – the mask is slipping. Cable has tripped and slipped and fallen through this debate, proposing different models to different people. He and Clegg are mere puppets of Cameronism and business and they can’t even see it. What happened to Dearing? Most of his proposals were introduced, most except the ones that attributed some of the responsibility to business. He suggested that contributions to higher education should be split three ways – a third from government, a third from students and a third from business. Lord Browne completely fails to progress this. In fact, he states that business should make no more contribution to education and skills development than the wages it pays graduates. So first they’re absolved from the recovery and now the coalition are absolving business responsibility from future economic success. I’m beginning to feel more like a bank to the government.

This debate has to be about more than just money. Browne seems to suggest that the best system is the most expensive. That the one with the most income is the system best placed to lead the international skills revolution. And he may be right but this proposal isn’t going to be the best funded system, it’s going to be the most variably funded system. This debate has to be about consequences.

Let’s be clear about what the removal of the cap means. When the £3,000 cap on fees was introduced in 2006, universities were told that they could charge anything up to £3,000 per year. Every single university in England accept one choose to charge the full amount. I fully expect the top universities in the country to be expecting students to take on a debt of up to £30,000 for fees alone. Even the Browne report acknowledges that universities will have to charge at least £7,000 to stay competitive.

A market driven system will create more wealth for the already wealthy. Top universities across the land will attract wealthy students, willing to pay more. The natural conclusion to this therefore, is a system where the richest get the best, the poorest the rest – a university system which rewards the wealthy and not the brightest.

As the ex-National Secretary for NUS you expect me to say this of course, but Aaron Porter and his team are doing a remarkable job at making the argument, and making it public. And whilst we must make this argument now, we have to weave it into a wider political narrative. The history of the Labour Party is defending the most vulnerable against the destructive force of the market. It’s about equality not just fairness. It builds up a sense of confidence in their ability to succeed in their own ambitions and contribute to the common good at the same time. It is about organising and bringing them together. The NUS and UCU National Demo on November 10th seems a good place to start. But our opportunity is to offer an alternative – to University funding and to the way we do society. I think the people are quietly angry and this may be the moment to try and wake them.