Higher Education Funding 2

I thought it worth updating the last post, with today’s report by the Public Accounts Committee having confirmed that the decision of most universities to charge the maximum tuition fee permissible under the hatchet-job misimplementation of the Browne Report recommendations means the government’s sums are now officially broken. In order to claw back the unexpectedly high cost of subsidising loans, it will be necessary either to further cut central funding (to a point at which universities will definitely decline) or to impose tough limits on student numbers at each institution. This is madness. Browne’s key recommendation was that a true market should be allowed to develop in Higher Education. I have my doubts about the viability of this plan for the reasons set out in my last post. But imposing even stricter limits on student numbers in addition to a cap on fees completely wrecks even its the positive elements. Under the pre-Browne system, proper competition between institutions to attract students failed to develop because everyone charged the same and everyone had a fixed quota of students they could recruit in any one year, set by the government. Sound familiar? No wonder even those institutions which embraced Browne are now expressing no confidence in the government.


About jamesstrong

I'm a PhD Candidate in International Relations at the London School of Economics, writing a thesis on the public debate in Britain before the invasion of Iraq.
This entry was posted in Higher Education, Young People and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s