The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

The coalition can’t favour the richest students over the rest

Why not lift the cap on student places altogether?

By George Eaton Published 10 May 2011 10:26

The news that rich students (or, more accurately, the children of rich parents) could be allowed to pay for extra places at oversubscribed universities is the sort of story that compels one to check that it's not 1 April. This year, a record 633,811 people have applied for university but only about 487,000 places are expected to be offered, meaning that at least 146,811 applicants will miss out.

The idea that the richest pupils will be then allowed to buy their way in to the system, while the rest are shut out, seems an almost comic rejection of social justice.

David Willetts, the man responsible for the plan, tells the Guardian: "There are various important issues that need to be addressed around off-quota places, but I start from the view that an increase in the total number of higher education places could aid social mobility." Yet at a time when the government is planning to cut 10,000 publicly funded places, it's hard to see how these plans will benefit anyone but the most privileged.

The idea, presumably, is that universities will be able to offer extra places at no additional cost to the taxpayer. The extra students would be charged fees comparable to those levied on international undergraduates (£12,000 for arts subjects, £18,000 for sciences and more than £28,000 for medicine) and would not be eligible for state-subsidised loans.

Given that the government's reforms are facing a £960m black hole (higher fees mean higher loans), it's not hard to see why ministers are keen for those who can afford to pay more to do so. Needless to say, the students would be required to meet the course entry grades.

On the Today programme, Willetts argued that extra places wouldn't just be available to children from wealthy families: "Imagine, say, there's a charity that said, 'We wish to sponsor people to go to university who have got a particular set of problems or come from a particular background.' If a charity wished to support places, would that be acceptable?" But few charities have the money to fund a significant number of extra places.

We're likely to get a clearer picture when the government publishes its long-delayed white paper on higher education. But here's one question that ministers will have to answer: why not lift the cap on places altogether? The vice-chancellor of Birmingham University, Professor David Eastwood, recently argued that such a move would drive fees down (two-thirds of universities are planning to charge the maximum £9,000) and, as a result, would not cost the Treasury more money.

"The key policy imperative is to say that numbers will follow informed student choice," Eastwood said. "At that point, all institutions have to think in a very different way about their market position, about student demand and about the way legitimate competition will work."

Without such a reform, one feels, allowing the richest to buy their place will just feel like another kick in the teeth for the poorest.

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

Tags: David Willetts tuition fees

More from George Eaton

21 comments

Tue, 2011-05-10 13:10 — Dadi (not verified)

To Matthew,

There should be intellectual selection at both 18 and 11, as people learn better around people of similar intelligence. Therefore having 2 universities, one for the bright and one for the less bright will result in everyone learning more than 2 universities with bright and less bright equally split (where the bright are held back and the less bright want things to move slower). This is the main reason why the UK state schooling is so bad compared to certain European countries and therefore has lots of private schools in comparison (with parents trying to get away from bad state funded schools). Look at the Netherlands for example.

Tue, 2011-05-10 14:17 — Seaman T

Speaking as an 11+ reject, this whole argument seems extremely silly. All universities are elitist institutions, conceived by privileged minorities to provide advantage to their own. But the world is still changed most by uncontrollable reactionary forces. There can be no patent or monopoly on intelligence, or even knowledge, it's just easier for some than others. Such ease is as much to be pitied for the exercise it inhibits, as envied for the weakness it encourages.

Tue, 2011-05-10 15:18 — Mrs.Josephine Hyde-Hartley (not verified)

Whatever happened to the age of consent? Are we forgetting that once people get to 16 they can work, get married and all the rest and when they get to 18 they can smoke and drink alcohol and are treated both privately and commonly as sentient and independent human beings.

But until they get a job they have no wage and until they get some relevant qualifications they may not be able to get a job they want.

In my view it's at best nonsensical and at worse rather sinister for institutions that are supposed to be decent providers of services to routinely expect one's whole family to keep paying for the needs of any members who don't have a wage coming in.

One wonders when and how will kids manage to grow up and leave the nest? The first steps towards independence are what matter most to both kids and their parents in my view - which is surely the most important aspect of this so-called social mobility that Sarah Tether M.P. and Frank Fields M.P. were talking about only yesterday in the House of Commons.

And besides.. what do we all pay our taxes for?

Wed, 2011-05-11 12:04 — Union Steve

All you have to do is scratch the suface and you are back to traditional Tory values.

Tue, 2011-05-10 16:30 — Sam (not verified)

Josephine - State funded universities obviously expect parents to pay for their children's education...

Dark Heart of Toryland - So basically you're saying kids who have had a good education benefit from that at uni?

Tue, 2011-05-10 17:43 — Dark Heart of Toryland (not verified)

@Sam

No, what I am saying is that there are kids who have parents rich enough to buy them training in how to pass A-levels with high grades (which is not remotely the same as a good education). Irrspective of their actual abilities - or lack thereof - these kids subsequently benefit at uni from a management culture which demands that all students be awarded a degree no lower than a 2:1, so that the uni's results look good.

Tue, 2011-05-10 17:59 — RK (not verified)

@Dark Heart of Toryland ......and why do management demand that?

Tue, 2011-05-10 21:17 — matthew fox (not verified)

Cameron has to order a U-turn, so much for joined up government.

Tue, 2011-05-10 10:38 — RK (not verified)

George, there is an assumption that you can take the horse to the pond and do something beyond that. I can tell, you cannot.

If the universities do offer courses to students just for paying and without adequate abilities to learn; those universities will see erosion of reputation and most employers will shun them. In business parlance, they will see their brand value depleted. I doubt too many universities would do that.

On the other hand, there are tens if not hundreds of useless courses which survive just to provide employments to the professors. Pupils struck in those can rarely make could career anyways.

This issue is being hyped up by left leaning media in bad faith.

Tue, 2011-05-10 10:38 — Lou (not verified)

Exactly. Why not free up spaces for all students?

For Willets to say that this could increase social mobility beggars belief. This is just another attempt to shut down poorer performing universities, cut the number of students requiring financial support and fund those who do by giving more places to the wealthier students. Everything about the coalition's policy on university education is aimed at making universities a place only the rich can afford to go to and returning further education to an elitist ideal.

Tue, 2011-05-10 10:47 — Lou (not verified)

I don't think the left is hyping it up and it's a serious subject that should be discussed, addressed and questioned.

It seems to me that we are headed for a US style university system with every policy announcement.

Vince Cable has just ruled out inviting more students who would pay but then why would one trust what Vince says?

Tue, 2011-05-10 11:11 — Matthew Evans (not verified)

The logical thing to do would be to allow universities to auction a certain number of places. If super-rich people are prepared to pay £1m a year so that their child goes to Oxbridge, why not let them? Selling 100 places at £1m would not reduce room for everybody else; indeed it would allow universities to take students overall.more

Tue, 2011-05-10 11:22 — Sam (not verified)

We desperately need to release education from the grip of the state. From primary education up, it's all going downhill. The gap in knowledge between the rich and the poor is widening, which is a key contributor the gap in wealth between rich and poor widening.

Tue, 2011-05-10 11:23 — Lou (not verified)

That's a reasonable point Matthew but it would have to be clearly legislated for lest we end up with the situation like tuition fees where the exception is proving to be the norm, it's easy to see how in ever decreasing budgets for universities and short falls in govt budgets regarding loans how your suggestion could be abused and extended.

Personally though, I think once you go down that route, you are inevitably on a slippery slope to university education not being funded at all by the govt and only by companies putting their own students through or the wealthy able to afford the costs.

University should remain based on access and ability not income, the company you work for, the parents you have or the size of your bank account.

Tue, 2011-05-10 11:28 — swatantra nandanwar

It is as inequitable to allocate a number of places to rich students as it is to poorer students.
There has to be a cap on Uni places as you cannot have them oversubscribed. Physically the campuses ould not accomodate them all. What has to be done is to encourage more students from poorer backgrounds to apply and they shouldn't be deterred by loans or getting in debt. In the long run that debt twill be paid off or written off in the future. And the Unis need to select students on ability and merit and interview, nd those processs need to be policed rigourously with Unis breaching fined heavily or grants Taken away.
Maybe there should be Independent Panel or Board to decide which student is given a place at which Uni. That is a proper Clearing House.

Tue, 2011-05-10 11:54 — Ivan (not verified)

We already allow rich families from outside the EU to send their children here on precisely this basis. The university system would be bust without them. Why is this so different?

Tue, 2011-05-10 12:02 — Matthew Evans (not verified)

Why should university places only go to clever people. The Labour Party campaigned (largely) successfully to abolish academic selection at 11. Why is everyone so keen on academic selection at 18. The choldren of the super-rich are going to be rich anyway. Maybe a few years at a good university would civilize them a bit.

Tue, 2011-05-10 12:23 — mary8

Ivan:
The difference is they are from this country. Children of rich parents already have phenomenal advantages in all aspects of life, whether education, health or job opportunities. This latest proposal just takes it a step further. At least, this Tory lot tell it like it is and do not seem to have any shame in acknowledging privilege.

Willetts' latest plan is a further kick in the teeth for all those students facing the prospect of years of debt for being allowed into the "hallowed halls" and for hardworking ordinary people who have encouraged their kids to aspire to a university education.

I wonder what Nick will have to say on this one?

This whole "trickle down" effect, that the rich spend and the rest of us get the benefits is delusionary. The gap between the rich and the rest has been growing ever greater, for the last thirty years at least.

Tue, 2011-05-10 12:27 — capt-price (not verified)

Wouldn't be the first time a complete dunce with a rich daddy found themselves at a top university. Often at the expense of someone who genuinely deserves to be there.

Tue, 2011-05-10 12:30 — Dark Heart of Toryland (not verified)

To an extent, this happens already. I have taught at one of the older universities, and there are plenty of not-very-bright but privately-educated students who have been coached at passing A-levels. Once at uni, they are way out of their intellectual depth; but neverthless, due to pressure from management to maintain the the uni's results, most still graduate with a 2:1. Effectively, wealthy parents are already able to purchase a good degree for their mediocre offspring by means of a private education geared solely to that end.