As student numbers increase so will the number of graduates competing for employment. This year the government has made an additional 10,000 university places available, meaning record numbers of graduates as those students complete their studies. As the cost of study increases students and parents are increasingly focused on the likely return on that investment. Does a good degree from a good university still represent value for money? And how will university and school assessment methods be forced to evolve to meet the demands of consumer?
There is an accepted premise that employers only look at students with an upper second degree or above, although it is worth noting that this is largely unproven and constantly shifting in today’s graduate market. However, the premise itself is misleading - can anyone justify using the same criterion to filter students from a top university together with those from a university with much lower entrance requirements? It is clear that a measure of the value-add which universities are achieving should be taken into account by employers – but is it?. The concept of a value add is well known in school measurements but has never developed across the HE sector: instead prejudices - negative and positive - come into play.
That apart, do students choose their course and university with an understanding of the outcomes of that course? Usually not – and yet there are huge differences between universities and even between courses even at the same university. At Oxford and Cambridge in subjects such as History and Law, over 95% of students gain a 2/1 or better degree whilst in science subjects such as engineering only about 65% achieve the same level of distinction. And a higher percentage of students achieve a 1st or 2/1 at Oxford and Cambridge than at any other UK university.
The net result is that if differential fees are introduced and as the graduate market continues it’s current trend towards saturation then students will naturally wish to evaluate the cost benefit of universities and the courses they offer. They will need information to achieve that, where information currently either is not collected, is held confidentially or is not available in one coherent place.
There is an underlying assumption that the current admissions assessment regime needs changing – and that assumption has been accepted for many years. And so we tinker with the system, introduce modular exams, retakes, AS, A*. We set up reviews (most recently the Sykes review). And on every occasion, individual bodies lobby. Most recently proposals by the coalition to scrap the modular A-level system in order to 'revive the art of deep thought' were held back by claims that to do so would seriously damage the uptake of maths at A level. Individual universities use their power to criticise what is planned (Cambridge, for example, criticised the aforementioned proposed changes to A-levels) but do not play a participative role in an integrated debate. We have a diverging exam system with many schools now starting to take IGCSE rather than GCSE and IB instead of A levels – thus introducing complexities not necessarily understood by the university admissions system.
And who misses out in this constantly changing scenario? The student and, critically, the uninformed student.
During the last government, Lord Browne was tasked with carrying out a review of how tuition fees should be modified as the cap was lifted – when the £3,000 tuition fee was introduced by the last government, a concession was that it would rise by no more than inflation and that it would be capped for five years. A change of government and the influence of the Liberal Democrats in the coalition means that all bets are off for how the fee system will evolve in the wake of Lord Browne’s review. What are the likely outcomes of the review and how can we expect the government to respond? And what is the likely impact on students and universities?
Lord Browne’s review was supported by all parties and he began his work under the previous government. Until the new coalition came in it was speculated that fees would be raised (and a figure of £7,000 was widely heralded). However, it is also expected that there will be some allowances for differentiation by university - universities have differing teacher to student ratios and styles of tuition - and by course. This fed from ongoing student unrest about the fact that fees are the same for arts courses as, for example, clinical medicine courses though their operating costs are wildly different.
Recently, a surprise intervention from the Vince Cable suggested the abolition of fees altogether and directed Lord Browne to consider a graduate tax, whereby graduates would pay a tax proportional to their earnings throughout their life. It is now seemingly supported by David Willetts and David Cameron and Lord Browne has been directed to consider it seriously, although there is some feeling that this concession to Liberal Democrat policy could diminish after the summer recess. However, what this clearly shows is that there are significant funding gaps and there is no clear and fair way forward to meet that gap.
Running parallel to this, is the possibility of privatisation of universities. It is no secret that the top UK universities have long been examining the implications of freeing themselves from the government constraints of quality assessment regimes and reporting. They have made no secret of the fact that they have also evaluated the cost of doing so - the loss of quality-assessed elements of grant funding and a dependence on government funds channelled through metric based criteria are an unwelcome intrusion on universities’ freedom to mange their own affairs and one which they would gladly be rid of. For the top universities government funding now represents possibly 15% or less of their income - therefore they see the opportunity of being self-funding and independent.
Such a move would change the whole structure of UK higher education and make it similar to the US, creating a “premier league” of exclusive, highly selective universities similar to the Ivy League. Top universities would then be free to charge fees to meet their chosen market. Ivy League universities have sufficient endowment funds to ensure that all applicants, irrespective of income can be admitted - for example 50% of students at Harvard are funded by endowment bursaries. However, the UK is nowhere near having the funds to achieve such support - so if the top universities were to privatise the effect on the socio-economic student profile could be very damaging.
It is, I believe, inevitable that fees will continue to be charged to students (either contemporaneously with their study or as a post-study tax), albeit there will be some loan/deferment system in order to protect fair access. It seems inevitable that those fees will be variable and that students at “better” universities will be charged greater fees – probably akin to levels in the US. Thus fee levels of £25,000 per year at some of the better universities are not out of scope within the next few years.
