The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Education contradiction

£533m cuts to university funding point to contradiction in Labour policy

By Samira Shackle Published 23 December 2009 17:38

Yesterday, in what has been called "a real Christmas kick in the teeth", the Business Secretary, Lord Mandelson, announced that more than half a billion pounds will be cut from university budgets next year.

The £533m cuts include £263m that had already been set out, with an additional £270m. This will reduce next year's university budget to just £7.3bn.

In another sting, the letter said that universities which over-recruited students this summer after a record number of applications fuelled by the recession will be fined £3,700 for each extra student they accepted. There will be no funding for extra students next year.

But hang on a minute. Isn't this the same government that pledged, back in 1999, to get 50 per cent of all young people into university by 2010?

The government's attitude towards higher education appears to have two clear, but utterly contradictory, strands. The first is the commendable aim to broaden access to education, while retaining the world-class standing of Britain's universities. The second is to give it less and less funding.

I hate to state the obvious, but widening participation was always going to be expensive: more people means greater costs. Indeed, this was the problem Labour faced when it came to power. By the mid-1990s, student numbers had increased hugely over those of the 1970s, but funding per student had dropped by roughly 36 per cent. Hence the introduction of tuition fees in 1999, and top-up fees in 2006, bringing them to their current level of £3,225 annually.

While Labour has failed to up the numbers to 50 per cent of young people -- it was 39.8 per cent in 2007 -- the pressure on universities to get more "bums on seats" has placed an inevitable strain on both quality and funding. The additional tuition fees only go so far to bridge the gap. Oxford University, for example, which steadfastly refuses to compromise its tutorial system of teaching in very small groups, said earlier this year that it loses £8,000 on each undergraduate student.

It cannot be disputed that there is simply not enough money in the pot to pay for our higher education system. But what I can't understand -- perhaps I'm being dense? -- is why and how a government that has placed such an emphasis on "education, education, education" (yes, that had to be in here somewhere) seems so resistant to funding it. In August, the former education secretary Estelle Morris http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/aug/25/university-places-estell... ">made the point that higher education would be the obvious area to protect for a government that "has made the case for investing in skills and knowledge as the best way to secure all our futures".

Mandelson suggests that universities reduce the length of their undergraduate degree courses to two years instead of three. Such a drastic move should not be undertaken to cut costs. As Michael Arthur, the then chair of the National Student Survey steering group, warned in 2007:

The UK HE system is right up there at second or third in the world after the US in terms of its competitiveness. I'm really worried that in ten to 20 years' time we will be 20th in the world and we are sleepwalking towards that outcome.

In 2006, UK spending on tertiary education was 1.3 per cent of GDP, up from just 1 per cent in 1997 when Labour took over. It's an improvement, but it's not enough -- even in 2006, the actual sum spent was £2.7bn less than for other countries surveyed.

Sally Hunt, general secretary of the University and College Union, said at the time:

No country that sees itself as a global leader in higher education can be in the bottom half of any table that lists how much money is being spent on higher education.

Her words ring true. Internationally and at home, those cuts could be devastating.

Follow the New Statesman team on Twitter

Tags: Peter Mandelson Recession education

More from Samira Shackle

View the discussion thread.

3 comments

Thu, 2009-12-24 00:15 — PUBLIC JOE (not verified)

Cuts have got to come from somewhere we're all feeling the squeeze these students have had it easy all there lives!!

Thu, 2009-12-24 09:06 — London Academic (not verified)

I think the inevitable consequence will be a two-tier education system. Expansion has been artificially pushed through for many years (prior to the Labour government, might I add), and there are a huge number of spurious and utterly useless courses, to be frank. These are the courses that could be compressed into two years. I remember reading in the New Statesman several months ago an article about young people doing performing arts degrees that prepared them for nothing in the real world. Inevitably, as funding gets cut, the top universities will have to charge more, or accept more overseas students to cover the shortfall. This saddens me. Education should not be decided on the basis of who can pay.

What would be more egalitarian would be a world-class university system, perhaps with fewer places, but with the equal opportunity for everyone to try for them.

Tue, 2009-12-29 22:10 — Disenchanted (not verified)

Public Joe says "Cuts have got to come from somewhere we're all feeling the squeeze these students have had it easy all there lives!!"

While I agree it's true there are many young people that happily cruise along for 3 or more years, enjoying student life and the numerous benefits that accompany it (e.g. tax free earnings up to approx £5000 and reduced council tax) lets try not to forget that some university students are actually interested in furthering their education and their subsequent contribution to the economy that you quite perceptively noticed is a tad precarious at the moment.
Along those lines let me put to you a scenario: A young man decides to go to university, he comes from a family that couldn't possibly support him through 3 years of university fees and living away from home but he's adamant that he will make it. He applies for his student loans and a part-time job at the student union bar and sets of for university. He's of a studious nature, but is also a social and physically active individual. Whilst at university he is expected to undertake at least 10 hours of study per week per module undertaken (that's 40 hours, already a full working week and I can tell you this student is the sort of person that will regularly go beyond the necessary minimum), he also has his part-time job which generally amounts to another 12-20 hours a week. After 3 years of this and other activities (such as working voluntarily in his chosen field in order to gain experience and increase his employability) the student leaves his course with a 1st class BSc (Hons) and is awarded associate membership to a well respected scientific institute as well as ending with more than £21000 worth of debt (that’s more than £1000 for every year he's been alive) and heads for a job market that is showing the effects of the economic turmoil you kindly pointed out. After searching every day for months, having to practically wage war to receive any sort of job seekers allowance (quite disheartening when the person at the job centre sat next to you waiting to sign on stinks of alcohol, has a beard like a birds nest and quite clearly has no intention of EVER doing a days work) our now ex-student ends up having to work a temporary xmas position for minimum wage in a shop. I fail to see how that is “having it easy”....
So you see there are those students who do wish to use the time wisely, it’s just unfortunate, as with any system made available in this country, there are those that abuse it. You suggest taking money from people that, in the long-run, will be putting far more money back in to the economy than they’ve taken out of it (via the interest added to their loan repayments and through taxation of their anticipated higher graduate incomes), how about taking a tighter stance on those that are unemployed and “claim” to be seeking employment, how about targeting benefit cheats, and how about trimming down the number of wasteful and utterly dispensable government jobs in which some over zealous pencil pusher is paid to sit and think up hundreds of non-essential and often detrimental rules, regulations and policies in order to make life just that little bit harder for everyone else. And if you’re still not convinced then I urge you please to voice your opinion on how “easy” students have it to one of the few that actually get their course for nothing....perhaps a doctor or even a surgeon the next time you or someone you know is due to go under the knife.