FYI.

This story is over 5 years old.

University

Theresa May's Higher Education Review Helps No One

Impressively, the Tories have managed to find the one way of lowering university fees that will actually leave everybody worse off.
Photo: Enrico Della Pietra / Alamy Stock Photo

Today, Theresa May is set to announce a big shake-up of fees and student finance in the UK. The Prime Minister plans to pressure universities into offering more competition, encouraging them to present a variety of prices for different courses based on their costs and potential earnings after graduation. As it currently stands, almost all courses at every university in the country cost the maximum £9,250 a year.

Advertisement

According to the BBC, May thinks "the level of fees charged do not relate to the cost or quality of the course" for many students. As part of the rethink, there will be a temporary freeze on fees at £9,250, as well as interest rates freezing at 6.1 percent – a move that will likely be extended for at least another year during the review.

Really, this is a reflection of what the Tories told us was supposed to happen when fees were trebled under Cameron and Clegg. The idea was never that every student would pay nine grand, but rather that universities could charge that much, depending on the value of the course. Obviously, what actually emerged was the cartel-style university model – fees went up across the board and vice-chancellors began to enjoy unprecedented levels of pay, with many earning as much as 8.5 times the average salary of other staff.

So now, having seen that – weirdly enough – the market didn’t behave itself according to what was fair, and instead spiralled uncontrollably at the detriment of students, and that their opposition in government are proposing to abolish fees completely, the government want to intervene. But can that actually work?

Many people, even within Tory ranks, have already criticised the notion that fees should vary based on the value of the course. The question most people are asking is: how would you work this out? Should an English student’s book-list mean they pay less than an engineer who needs access to expensive equipment? What about a nurse who requires far more resources than a business student, but could graduate to earn significantly less?

Advertisement

Justine Greening, who was education minister until earlier this year (when May replaced her with Damian Hinds), has criticised the move on grounds of social mobility. She reckons charging more for courses with the potential for higher earnings will mean poorer students are restricted to low-earning subjects. Funnily enough, it’s a line of thinking with cross-party consensus. Angela Rayner, Labour’s shadow education minister, has said much the same, arguing that the move would "put off students from the most disadvantaged backgrounds from getting those same qualifications". Mark Leach of the higher education think-tank Wonkhe said the government’s arguments were incoherent and could damage the sector. He added they "could simply entrench a cycle of poverty".

Impressively, the Tories have managed to find the one way of lowering university fees that will actually leave everybody worse off.

During the morning’s Radio 4 round-table, Tony Blair’s one-time education minister, Lord Adonis, suggested fees should be lowered back to £3,000, the pre-2010 level. In his mind, this is the amount that contributes to the costs of education without financially-crippling the student. Conservative MP Nicky Morgan disagreed, arguing that lowering fees wholesale would turn the issue into a political football – because it isn’t one already.

Clearly this is about the government’s inability to connect with younger voters. Applying a "pay what it's worth" logic to university fees is exactly the sort of weird compromise they’ve begun cooking up since their generational identity crisis has become so obvious. Much like the cut to stamp duty, which offered a nice-looking olive branch to first-time buyers, but next to nothing in terms of real, structural change, this "review" of higher education sounds like it’s moving things in the right direction, but is actually a low-impact, potentially harmful cosmetic fix. The Guardian has reported that the review will also look at restoring something resembling maintenance grants, but details on this are also vague. In terms of real change, there’s every chance nothing concrete will happen for years.

The real problems – like vice-chancellor salaries that have reached in excess of half-a-million pounds per annum – will go unchanged. At the very most, the government is trusting the people who are already abusing their powers to keep themselves in check. The only really important shift here isn’t in pricing, it’s in logic. This is the moment the Conservatives admit their own education policies are creating inequality, and more still that the logic of the market has failed. What's undoubtedly an attempt to win over younger voters is simply another ungainly attempt at broadening Conservative appeal without actually offering anything useful.

@a_n_g_u_s