The much anticipated Universities UK (UUK) ‘Bluepring for Change’ (pdf) landed on Monday and presented the government with a mountain to climb. With many of our higher education institutions running substantial deficits, the blame lies at the door of the previous government. However, a new government cannot duck its responsibility and must respond with urgency. The quality of our university education and graduates lies at the core of economic success and, if we are to attract more investment, we need to maintain this at a high level across the board. The self inflicted wounds of the previous government caused considerable damage and culminated in branding many degrees as ‘Mickey Mouse’. That has been reversed to a small extent, but the new government will have to put its money where its mouth is, and soon.
A mountain looms large.
This post was written in a log cabin in the Mt Rainier National Park, a three hour drive south of Seattle. Internet and telephone connections are patchy, but the level of interconnectivity possible in such an isolated area is still astounding and a reminder of how communucations have made us interdependent in a shrinking world. It also offers a spectacular mountain backdrop analagous to the situation in which UK universities and the government find themselves. To date, the UK has punched well above its weight for a small country. However, this comes at a price and continued cuts only serve to reduce our influence and power. Equality of opportunity, and fairness in acessing social mobility, pivots on our higher education sector. The UK must promote all students with ambition and ability, regardless of background, not mostly the priviledged minority who ensure they win in an ‘attainment race’. The Universities UK ‘Blueprint’ is therefore welcome and sets out the scale of the challenge with positive ideas.
A rush job.
Despite its 143 pages penned by multiple authors, the output has the hallmarks of a rush job. It’s almost as if UUK did not expect Labour to form an administration. Releasing the report at the start of the Conservative Conference, and not before the Labour Conference, shows a misstep that might have been avoided with better foresight. The offering is therefore lacking in detail and financial projections that could have underpinned the plans if there was more time.
Nevertheless, the report covers many aspects of universities and their role. TEFS has taken a particular interest in the ‘Expanding opportunity’ and ‘Putting universities on a firm financial footing’ chapters. These underpin equality and fair provision for students.
Expanding the provision and opportunity.
At the core of the ‘Blueprint’ is a radical suggestion that 70% of school leavers should go onto Level 4 or above education by 2040.
“A whole-of-tertiary sector participation target of 70% of the population aged 25 studying at level 4 or above by 2040, with a particular focus on increasing access in low participation neighbourhoods”.
This is set as a target in the context of a falling population of eighteen-year-olds over that time. It is therefore not an impossible target since this includes students studying for HNC and HND as well as university degrees and higher. It is likely that the government will go along with this projection.
Part-time jobs and financial barriers.
There are also calls for the return of maintenance grants for the least well off alongside more rational contextual admissions to widen access. These are essential to restore some balance.
But it is odd that the issue of more students taking on term-time jobs is only raised in the context of mental health issues. The two may well be linked but this is not so well established. Instead, jobs are more likely to impact attainment alongside social isolation from student peers. These impacts should be better researched and delved into. One idea might be for universities and colleges to investigate how many hours their students work and are diverted away from their studies. Unfortunately, this appears to be low priority as TEFS has discovered. The number of hours worked by students has been something that most universities have failed to see as important for too long. TEFS issued a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to all UK universities in 2020 to find they did not hold any data on this. Reported in the Guardian in June 2020, ‘University students who work part-time need support – or they will drop out’ and TEFS, ‘University student part-time working is a dangerous blind spot’). This situation creates a two tier system and needs to be addressed with some firmer resolve.
Financing the blueprint.
This will exercise the minds of many experts as they try to double guess what the government will, and indeed must address. In this respect, the ‘Blueprint’ is far too cautious with its two phased approach. This would be applied to England only and somewhat dilutes the UK-wide representation that the title UUK promises.
“For England, we propose a two phased approach to this. In the first phase government and the sector should work to stabilise the sector’s finances. In the second phase government could support university led transformation”.
Firstly, it is proposed that fees and teaching support are raised in line with inflation as a matter of urgency with teaching grants restored. After that, there is no solid well researched plan in mind that indicates a fear of what might happen.
Shared cost plans to replace loans and student repayments.
TEFS 28th September 2024 ‘Boiling the frog: or how to save our universities and share costs’ laid out its longstanding call for a shared cost system that was supported by those who benefit; graduates, their employers and wider society.
Last week, economist Tim Leunig proposed an overly complex arrangement that shared the costs. The Leunig proposal came on the back of calls for fees to increase. Indeed, rumours are widespread in the media that fees will rise with inflation soon and maintenance grants will resume. In response, Leunig describes his solution as the
“Only zero-cost reform package out there”.
He is almost right in his assertion, but he did not consider the ‘Graduate National Insurance Levy’ offered by TEFS (10th May ‘Funding students and Universities: a graduate National Insurance Levy is gaining traction’). However, along with TEFS he has proposed a shared cost scheme that should attract more attention from the government.
A shared approach, whereby those who benefit the most share the costs, is clearly fairer (see TEFS last week, ‘University crisis as balloon bursts: Radical old ideas for funding needed’). The simplest way to achieve this is to add a graduate levy to National Insurance for graduates and their employers. The fund would be ringfenced for universities, be progressive and track wage inflation to protect against inflation over time. It’s an old idea going back to the last Labour government. Unfortunately, it fell alongside a graduate tax.
By way of summary, the UUK ‘Blueprint’ is disappointing because of its lack of detail and outcome modelling. It is clear they were not ready for an early election and a landslide Labour majority. There is a lot to do, but the tepid stopgap approach is a poor start. Bolder solutions are needed urgently and the hope is the government is better prepared to deliver them efficiently and with resolve.
The author, Mike Larkin, retired from Queen’s University Belfast after 37 years teaching Microbiology, Biochemistry and Genetics. He remains optimistic and loves mixed metaphors.