The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Why the issue of tuition fees will not go away

Average institutions charging top-rate fees will prove a continuing headache for the government.

By Duncan Robinson Published 15 March 2011 17:33

Oxford's announcement that it will charge £9,000 for undergraduate tuition fees is no surprise. It is the fourth university to confirm that it will charge the maximum amount, after Cambridge, Exeter and Imperial College London.

These announcements will not worry the coalition. All have an excellent reputation. What will concern the government, however, is a constant trickle of lesser universities announcing that they, too, will charge the maximum amount for tuition.

The Lib Dems have already gone on the defensive. Nick Clegg said this weekend: "I cannot think of anything more absurd than a university saying, to prove that they can offer a good education, they can whack up the price to £9,000. They are not Harrods." He is right – it is absurd. But what did he expect?

There is a market in higher education – one heavily weighted in favour of universities. Every single university in the UK has more applicants than places. Vince Cable's threat that "at some point, a university committee will destroy their own student base unless they are very, very careful" is as empty as they come. Universities call the shots when it comes to admitting students. They will not charge £9,000 to show off – they will do it because they can.

Even average universities are vastly oversubscribed. According to Ucas, the University of Chester had almost ten applicants per place in 2010. Kingston University had 44,083 applicants, of whom only 7,524 were accepted. Even the University of Lincoln has nearly five applicants for every place. Unless there is an improbably large drop in demand for higher education, practically any university in the UK could charge the full £9,000 and still fill every single place.

This leaves the coalition in a pickle, with little recourse other than to appeal to a university's sense of what's right and fair, as the government's universities minister, David Willetts, did last month. "Unless universities can prove that there will be a commensurate and very significant improvement in the education on offer, it is difficult to see how such an increase could ever be justified," Willetts claimed. It could, however, be justified by pointing to the 80 per cent cut in the teaching grant that the coalition introduced.

Justified or not, raising the cap and then castigating universities that decide to raise their fees accordingly is policy at its most incoherent. The government failed to make a convincing case for higher fees and is now attempting to compensate for its failure by intimidating universities. The coalition's policy is a mess. Its problems with higher education are not over yet.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

More from Duncan Robinson

19 comments

Tue, 2011-03-15 17:57 — MattNW5 (not verified)

Interesting article. The unanswered question though is the level of demand reduction. Whilst you can be reasonably sure that an Oxbridge degree is going to benefit your earnings by a multiple of £27,000, the same is far less true (I suspect) of Lincoln.
For Lincoln therefore, one may very well find that demand for a degree at that price does fall significantly, and it will be forced to lower its fees to remain credible academically. Remember also that the legislation requires lots more information being made available about graduate employment rates and salaries, so accepting a large amount of dumbing down to fill places shouldn't (in theory) be an option either.

In theory too, there should be scope for some of the newer universities to compete to a certain extent on price. An £18,000 debt on graduation must surely be much less frightening than £27,000. How this pans out in practice remains to be seen, but there is certainly a conceptually coherent approach to the whole thing which I think Duncan doesn't really acknowledge above.

Tue, 2011-03-15 18:06 — Duncan Robinson (not verified)

True. But do you want universities to compete on price, rather than quality? It's a coherent approach, but not an attractive one.

Tue, 2011-03-15 18:22 — Harriet Robinson (not verified)

Looking at applicants per place is complicated by the fact that almost all students apply for 5 universities through UCAS, and some will be very much as "insurance" options, in which case the student doesn't have a strong interest in that university. E.g. if there were only 5 universities and all prospective students could apply for all 5, then each university could boast 5 applications per place, yet there would be enough places for all prospective students.

Tue, 2011-03-15 18:30 — Hal (not verified)

You also have to add in the debt for living costs. Lincoln is probably not that much cheaper than Oxford, so it is probably more like £40,000 vs £50,000. So getting a "cheap" degree isn't going to make a massive difference.

Tue, 2011-03-15 18:43 — swatantra nandanwar

We can't stop these centres of excellence charging exorbitant fees but we can provide scholarships to support the poorer students to go there. And this Scholarship Fund should be made by from the wealthier donating to that Fund.

Tue, 2011-03-15 19:11 — Niffy Nog (not verified)

@ 17.43
Unfettered access/less competition for the wealthy and charity for the poor.What about us lot in the middle with hopes for our children but only just enough cover current expenses?
Just get on with it and don't complain.
To bad eh?

Tue, 2011-03-15 19:13 — Niffy Nog (not verified)

That's "too bad" not "to bad".

Tue, 2011-03-15 19:42 — Ali Gane (not verified)

Many universities will need to charge a minimum of £7,500 merely to stand still, given the 80% cut to the teaching grant. What did the government expect? Sadly this is the end of educational equality.

Tue, 2011-03-15 23:10 — DK (not verified)

Ali is right, but I would go further--by cutting the teaching budget and discouraging unis from charging top rates, the government is trying to force the universities to spend less per student, while charging students far more. The reason is clear--unless education can be delivered more cheaply, the private sector can't make a profit on it, and that's what the coalition really wants: higher education to be dominated by for-profit companies. Don't doubt that Virgin and Sky will be running "higher education networks" soon.

Tue, 2011-03-15 23:57 — jude.davies

Of course it's a credible policy. All the Government wants to see is a two tier further education system. Just like the one for schools. One establishment offering excellence at a price only the most wealthy can afford, and one offering a cut-price version to keep the lower classes from realising that they're being short-changed again. What's wrong with that? Next stop health!

Wed, 2011-03-16 00:40 — 1R4M

£9000
per student
per year

how much are these unis ging to be receiving>???

and where will the money go

Fri, 2011-03-18 16:46 — AMCH1 (not verified)

'Even average universities are vastly oversubscribed. According to Ucas, the University of Chester had almost ten applicants per place in 2010'.

......

You think merely an 'average' University would be over-subscribed by this amount? Chester was the 2nd 'most improved student experience' this year, and (if Learning Resources weren't included with us, the English Department at CHESTER would have been 2nd in the National Student Survey. Which includes Universities in the country).

Average... Yeah. Sure. There's more to a University than a league table. I took degrees at Chester and at Liverpool, and Chester was MILES better.

Some reporter for a publication like this should *not* be making sweeping statements like that.

Wed, 2011-03-16 11:31 — Matt Hurst (not verified)

The debt is actually burdened on to the state, so by charging more they are increasing debt, along with the changes on interest so the interest charged increase makes the loan worse.

It's burdening future generations with debt that is apparently after 25 years going to be wiped out. With the level set at 21k before you pay back any and with Graduates leaving University and starting jobs on below that level (Remember the actual average graduate salary falls well below the 28k often quoted when you chop off the top 10% and the bottom 10%) Potentially this government has condemned a government 25 years down the road to wipe off seriously high amounts of debt.

Didn't Cameron quip that he didn't want future generations to be "burdened with debt". I say that was a lie.

Wed, 2011-03-16 11:36 — Poppy (not verified)

I'm a student at the University of Lincoln and I would prefer to study here than at any of the institutions this article calls excellent rated. I would recommend Lincoln to anyone who wants a top quality education in a highly rated University.

Wed, 2011-03-16 14:36 — MattNW5 (not verified)

@Etchtee

"Study should be free, any sort, in life"

Of course, what you really mean is "taxpayers should pay for it". Do you really not see that that concept creates a massive value transfer being those who choose to work without studying, and those who choose to study? So someone who leaves school at 16 to work as a mechanic pays for the education of Eton-educated Tarquin at Daddy's college in Oxford? Is that really what you want?

Wed, 2011-03-16 14:39 — MattNW5 (not verified)

obviously that is a value transfer BETWEEN

Wed, 2011-03-16 15:30 — Hal (not verified)

Poppy, no disrespect to anyone at Lincoln intended. It was just a for-instance.

I would agree that graduates should contribute something extra somehow. How about a rebate off the 40p tax rate for anyone who either didn't go to university or did but paid for it. That would spread the load much more evenly, and not put anyone off going, I think.