By Laurie Thraves, Education Researcher
It is interesting to observe the qualities that successful post-18 education institutions share. Perhaps the most important of these is independence. Professor Yves Mény, President of the European University Institute, has identified the responsiveness of the leading universities in the United States as the key to their success. The OECD has suggested that the strength and international prestige of the United States' education system lies in its large, diverse and competitive higher education system.
If the UK higher education sector is to perform similarly well, universities must be free from government control and able to set their own fees, entry requirements and course contents. Lifting the cap on tuition fees is an important step towards this aim. This proposal, made in Reform's new report, has been criticised, in particular by the president of the National Union of Students, Wes Streeting, as likely to disadvantage poorer students. Mr Streeting's concern for the poorest is genuine. His criticism, however, is misplaced. In fact, the available evidence indicates that he is flat wrong.
Research discussed in the report, shows that countries with high fees and well-developed student support systems have higher levels of participation among low income students. It is the current system of central subsidy that is inequitable. At present, more expensive courses at elite institutions, which tend to be the preserve of better-off students, receive the lion’s share of government funding. The current system works to the detriment of the vast majority of students, particularly those who study for degrees at colleges of further education. A mixed funding system provides a more equitable way forward. This point was well-made by David Blunkett at the time of the introduction of tuitions fees.
Mr Streeting’s accusation that these proposals would “put the long-term security of thousands of vital courses serving our most deprived communities in jeopardy” is similarly baseless. Courses such as social work out-perform arts and humanities degrees in the graduate employment tables. These courses have nothing to fear from more informed learners making rational decisions about their future. It is government control, not the market, that threatens the intellectual and academic freedom of higher education institutions. The provision of funds by HEFCE is used as a lever by government to achieve certain kinds of behaviour on admissions, research and learning and teaching.
The market, and not government, is the true source of long-term stability for higher education. The yawning government deficit provides an urgent wake-up call for the UK's complacent institutions. Exposing higher education institutions to greater risk encourages leaner operation, greater contingency and improved cost control. The obvious example here is the Ivy League universities that have fundraised aggressively and amassed vast endowments. This has allowed them unprecedented freedom to compete for the brightest and the best, irrespective of income. The public finances are under unprecedented pressure. There would be no better time for universities to put their houses in order.
