Is it time for clarity on the primary purpose of universities, and on how they might best serve the UK and its bright youngsters? So many able school leavers are unable to get places at a level to match their talents, so many students graduate no more skilled for a highly paid job after 3 years study than when they started, and so many graduates as they embark on independent working life are burdened with loans, most of which, it is expected, will never be repaid. Time for change?
TOP CLASS UNIVERSITIES IN A FLAWED SYSTEM?
UK universities are among the best in the world, with more in the top 20 than any other country bar the USA and more than other European countries put together. It is a testament, as well as a curse, that so many foreign students are keen to have their higher education in the UK, at no small cost in fees. UK research in universities, or on projects where they are core participants, in a number of sciences including medicine, is world leading. UK universities release into the world of work thousands of graduates who will be the mainstay of the UK’s economic future (but also sadly a great many for whom the university education will prove of little value, and a financial burden). As with all top-class assets of the UK, the asset which is universities needs to be maximised and nurtured. Perhaps too they need to change to fit the realities and strictures of an ever-changing world.
As it is the season of exam results, a plethora of statistics and commentaries point to a flawed university system which lacks a coherent strategy and clear objectives, each institution very much paddling its own financial and teaching canoe. Students can appear to be a source of cash rather than a core raison d’etre for these educational establishments and rather than the critical future contributors to society who make the UK a better and more successful place. Newspaper headlines have recently appeared such as “It used to be that hard work got you into university – not any more”; “Britain’s great university scam can’t be allowed to destroy another generation”; “The young feel done over: they have a point”; “Affluent A-level pupils least likely to have offers of university place”; “White working-class boys likely to slip further in race for university”; “University was a waste of time. Give me my money back”; “UK students must pay closer to £24,000 a year or lose their places to foreigners, argue [university] bosses”. A lot of issues need consideration.
UNIVERSITY, WHAT IS THE POINT – A MATTER OF DEGREES
So, what is the point of UK universities? Clearly research, leading to invention and innovation, with the potential economic benefits of the results for those involved and the country as a whole, is very important – and the UK could make a much better job of targeted investment in research and commercialisation of the output for the country’s benefit perhaps than it does. A government priority?
But first and principally a university often provides the last step in higher education; just like primary schools and secondary schools, perhaps the core purpose is to maximise the talents and potential of the UK students who attend, to enable them to take responsibility for themselves and make as valuable a contribution to society as possible, both economically and socially. Another plus for the UK is that opening universities to foreign students, who hopefully not only appreciate learning but also forge a goodwill bond with the UK, add to goodwill globally; that is as well as providing finance to subsidise university activities through high fees.
In the Tony Blair Government earlier this century, the mantra was “education, education, education”, a good idea. One aspiration was that half of school leavers should attend university for their higher education. This generated a rush for places in following years. It has become an idea that not going to university is a negative thing, which is absurd as university suits some people not others. The target took no account of the value of such an education to particular individuals, or whether a course was worthwhile to assist the student in the future or value to the country. Merely “going to university” is surely not a value in itself unless the particular experience for the individual will maximise their potential and help them contribute. Is not university just one form of higher education? People who do not go there may have abilities in many respects beyond those who do and the question for them may be what other higher education or skills training is most suitable. It is notable too that a number of sophisticated employers have removed the level of degree and university attendance from their recruitment criteria. Tony Blair has since upped the university attendance target in one of his advisory notes to 75%. Is this a worthy idea? It takes no account of affordability or suitability for example. Perhaps change rather than more of the same is required.
IS PUTTING GRADUATES IN EXTREME DEBT PURPOSEFUL?
The university structure and framework look in need of major repair or even reform. New thinking perhaps for new times. Covid certainly damaged the classic university experiences, and some of the bad habits then acquired, such as remote tuition or self-tuition, still endure. Pandemic affected students have it seems had some unsatisfactory experiences. A big question is whether it would be better to send far fewer, not more, young people to university: perhaps it would be, assuming that relevant and appropriate and fair higher education other than university is available too, such as apprenticeships.
So many students today leave university up to £50,000 in debt to the government. Funding tuition fees and other expenses by personal loans attracting inflation linked interest rates is embedded in the system.
Part of government strategy is to make society higher income, not low income, and thereby taking people out of the benefits system and creating financial self-reliance. Noble but a long way off. Education of both children and adults is a key plank in achieving that. The more skilled a person is, assuming the skill is commercially in demand, the more their income should be. But critically the skill must be relevant. Many an average degree may not be. It is startling that Government expectations are that only some 20% of student loans will be repaid in full. Repayments kick in at an income of about £28,000. That surely implies that the expectation is that a large proportion of graduates will not in fact earn a highish income, and in fact will not be large contributors for example through highly valued work and tax paying. That does not of course measure a social benefit contribution. The further implication is that many degrees do not move a student forward much at all. If that is so, what is the purpose of the 3-year higher university education? In 3 years, one might expect to learn a lot of useful stuff to equip a person for work among other things. Is that 3 years at university being well spent?
Nor does this loan system provide any equalisation or levelling. The children of wealthier people will often be paid for at university in whole or part by parents, and so in fact they emerge in better state than the poorer student who is saddled with debt.
In deciding which degrees are useful to the country, no national body seems involved and so it may not be considered in a consistent or most beneficial way. Is it reasonable to expect there to be a longer-term strategic plan, regularly updated to reflect the world as it changes, as to what skills the country may need say over 5-10 years? For example, X number of doctors, Y number of engineers, Z number of digital wizards, ZZ number of teachers and so on. Should there perhaps be university places allocated accounting for this need. Or perhaps it may be worth considering whether, to incentivise towards national plans, the cost to students in priority subjects might be subsidised more. However, for example, the UK has a clear immediate and medium and maybe long-term need for more doctors. Apparently though UK government funded medical student places are capped at 7,500, universities being subject to quotas. Over 80% of UK medical applicants were rejected in 2022. Does this make sense when foreign medical students are being accepted and there is a significant current and future need for more medics?
THE WORLD OUTSIDE TO THE RESCUE
Each university seems to have to pay its way, which seems reasonable. Since the pandemic, many a student have voiced that they get little value from their annual up to £9250 tuition fees, and the student loan burden plus interest is a life constraint after graduation, the typical indebtedness being £50,000. On the other hand, universities complain that tuition fees at that level are too low and do not cover costs, and that such fees have been frozen for a decade, and, if only inflation adjusted, need to be at least £12,000. And so, their funding is heavily supplemented by giving places to foreign students paying 2 or 3 times as much (e.g.£24,000). Asian and Chinese students from abroad predominate. It is reported that 25% of Russell Group university places go to foreign students. Elite universities have reportedly made fewer offers this year to UK high performing students. More and more of the UK’s best potential minds are not getting places they should, contrary to the purpose of the university system.
Another critical source of foreign money has been research projects funded by or in partnership with non-UK, commonly Chinese, entities, whose purpose evidently will be to acquire advanced UK know-how and technical developments. The linkage of academia with China has been identified as a security risk and there is at least some effort to curtail sensitive ventures.
What is clear is that funding of universities needs overhaul, at the same time as the dubious student loan system.
SOCIAL ENGINEERING
Education, including at university, is a critical tool in bringing people out of poverty, reducing the number who are deprived and unable to fend for themselves. Levelling-up is the stock phrase but you can level up in two ways, reducing standards and dumbing down or by improving standards and higher achievement. White deprived boys are the least likely social group to go to university and are the worst performing group at primary and secondary schools. Improving education for them across the board is nation critical. Regional differences too illustrate the inequality problem. Apparently over half of London children on free school meals (family receiving universal credit) went to university in 2020-21, while less than 19% did in South West England.
It seems now that privately educated children, often the wealthier ones, are least likely to get university offers according to the Daily Telegraph. Disadvantaged pupils have been “put first” by universities making offers this year, according to the CEO of UCAS, the universities admissions service. Privately educated pupils with 3 A’s or A * are being rejected from top universities. Does such an approach simply enable government to duck the responsibility of bringing up the standard of primary and secondary education in deprived areas?
According to the Times of 17 August, 25% of privately educated students are seeking places at universities in the USA, frustrated at the inability to get top class places in the UK. Does that matter? It certainly does if it could mean that those UK minds forsake the UK for future employment and do not end up contributing to the UK. A university education in the U.S. costs some £60,000 per year. But universities like Harvard subsidise extensively. A proportion of those going to the U.S.A. will be funded to some extent by their families: maybe such families would be willing to pay more in the UK, closer to the fees paid by overseas students. If that were so, could not these students be offered places now given to overseas people. That may not suit those who follow dogma that education should not be buyable, but if paying for a university education would not deprive another UK person a place and would secure one for a bright youngster, cannot dogma be side-lined?
It is an age-old debate, but rather than social engineering, would it not be a better approach to improve the education of the underprivileged, rather than penalise those at private school, remembering that a number of children in the private system are paid for by hard working parents who sacrifice to give their children what they perceive to be a better start.
DEBATE COULD BRING CHANGE
Background to any debate is that the UK is strapped for money after the subsidies and expenses of the pandemic, new subsidies to cover the increasing price of gas and other energy, and possibly other inflationary effects; at the same time many departments of government seem to require more funding, for example defence. “Underfunded” will be the comment of any proponent of a public service from health to policing to education. Overall education should be a major priority, and within that improvements at primary and secondary school levels are top priority. Maintaining the excellence and world leading class of universities is essential but new money will be hard to find: so, change is necessary to reap maximum value in fulfilling the university purpose.
It is perhaps a reasonable suggestion that there are a large number of students passing through university for whom academic study is in fact not their strength, or whose course is of no special value. Perhaps another form of higher education, oriented around skills which will engage and benefit them, even in some cases with a paid job at the same time, would serve them and the national interest. Equally reasonable perhaps is the suggestion that universities could raise standards, remove some courses shown not to enhance their students’ abilities. Some propositions follow which may be worthy of debate.
- Reduce the number of usual undergraduate places at university substantially, say by 20 %.
- Reduce the number of the least beneficial degree courses.
- To help skills training in cities, use university facilities in some bigger cities for certain practical courses, reserving a large number of places for inhabitants of the relevant city.
- Increase tuition fees but classify most or all of the cost as a grant, not a loan. Perhaps consider wealthier applicants paying some fees subject to means testing.
- Adopt a national strategy as to expertise required over a forecast of 5-10 years, such as medical staff, teachers, engineers, etc, and allocate places accordingly.
- Reduce some courses to 2 years not 3.
- Enforce across the board stringent standards of quality of teaching and environment, such as through a university Ofsted equivalent. National standards and national policies could ensure universities are operated to maximise their agreed objectives, always putting students first.
Universities in the UK are a major strategic asset. The system seems shambolic and without consistency and its reputation is suffering. The youth of the UK are the greatest asset the country has for its long-term future. They deserve not just a first-class primary and secondary education, but also a university and other higher education system which in each case maximises their potentialand ability to contribute to society as a whole. The result of any system must surely be the release into society of highly competent people who can do productive quality work for ample reward.
