The wrong call for the future of our country

By Gareth Thomas MP

The government’s decision to treble tuition fees and cut funding to universities by 80% was always unfair and unnecessary, but in the last six months it has become even clearer that it is also unsustainable.
Warned before the fees vote that allowing universities to treble fees would see the majority do exactly that, creating a big hole in the government’s higher education budget, David Willetts and David Cameron wouldn’t listen and that is exactly what has happened.

As a result, the White Paper on Higher Education; originally due before the tuition fees vote, contains a series of proposals that are designed to try and rescue the government’s university budget, but in so doing puts the quality of higher education at risk. This crisis in the Higher Education budget originally led Vince Cable to threaten University Vice Chancellors with even greater cuts to higher education funding or that he would axe more student places.

One of Britain’s leading experts on higher education Sir Peter Scott, the former Vice Chancellor of Kingston University, Vince Cable’s local University said “It is difficult to recall a worse example of public policy making” He went on to say “the whole thing is a mess, and getting messier.”

The White Paper cuts student places at mainstream universities with strong reputations by 20,000, other providers including private providers, so long as they are levying fees of less than £7,500, can then bid for those places in an auction, driving fees levels down.

The government’s desire to see more private providers comes despite warnings from the Higher Education Funding Council and the Higher Education Policy Institute about for-profit higher education having in some cases, notably in the United States, very high drop-out rates, very poor degree completion rates and aggressive recruitment practices that have been compared to the pension miss-selling scandals.

Labour is determined that students and their families should be protected against poor quality and that more rigour needs to be introduced to maintain quality.

Nobody could be against the principle of an increase in high quality universities but social mobility could be at risk if universities aren’t encouraged to take account of a student’s background to ensure there is a level playing field with those from independent and selective schools. In addition it is clear that most students doing well at A Level already get to university and that few Vice Chancellors at the leading universities want extra places. This suggests that government claims of an injection of competition into higher education owes more to smoke and mirrors than to real substance.

The government has been making error after error. The Prime Minister promised that universities charging the maximum would be the exception. Yet two thirds of universities are going to charge the full £9,000. Almost 24,000 student places have already been axed or are going. And Parliamentary Questions have revealed secret talks to try and get Britain’s banks providing student loans. And with 80 graduates revealed to be chasing every graduate job, double that of last year, the government should have used the White paper to set out a plan to incentivise universities to do more to stimulate new jobs in the industries of the future. Instead all they have announced is another review to look at university/business partnerships.

With RDA funding gone and funding for the Higher Education Funding Council reduced, this is another example of opportunities for economic growth spurned.

On research quality, the White Paper was striking for the lack of any mention of concerns that whilst the rest of the world is increasing their science spending, here in the UK, British researchers are having to cope with 40% or more cuts in their funding to invest in world class research facilities at our universities. Or that because of the bungled Visa changes, universities face even more intense challenges to recruit the brightest and best research students and lecturers, to work with our brightest and best students.

There was no mention of cuts in the funding for postgraduate courses or of the impact on postgraduate recruitment of graduates leaving university with £40,000 of debt.

There is growing concern that a new divide could open up between those who have a postgraduate qualification and those who do not.

It could have been so different. If university cuts had been in line with other public service cuts, tuition fee rises would have been far lower and the quality of higher education needn’t have been put at risk.
In short, university policy has been very badly handled. After the government’s mishandling of policy on forests, the NHS and on prison sentences, the future of universities appears to be the latest example of the government not thinking through the consequences and making the wrong call for the future of the country.