Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest updates on UK universities. We’ll send you a daily email digest, called “myFT Daily Digest,” that covers the most recent news in the UK universities every morning.
There is an ongoing debate between the UK’s two major political parties regarding university courses, where surprisingly, both parties have valid points. Rishi Sunak is right in pointing out that certain courses provide poor value for money and offer limited prospects for students. However, his Labour critics also make a valid argument that Sunak’s proposed solutions seem to attack ambition rather than effectively tackle the problem.
Nevertheless, much of the discussion surrounding this higher education debate is problematic. After the prime minister’s announcement about cracking down on rip-off courses that don’t improve graduates’ earnings, numerous successful artists and authors took to social media to share their experiences of earning little after completing their degrees. While this may be true for subjects like art history or music, it’s hard to believe for fields like accountancy and finance. Additionally, the outcomes of different accountancy and finance courses, even at similar universities, can vary significantly.
Moreover, limiting the number of student places will disproportionately affect underprivileged students, and the majority of courses meet the Office for Students’ quality benchmarks. Only a very small proportion of courses, around 11,000 out of 2.86 million students in the UK, do not meet the 60% threshold for positive outcomes. However, it is indeed concerning that these 11,000 students are more likely to face disadvantages compared to those in good courses, especially for those who prioritize social mobility and fighting poverty.
Unfortunately, Sunak’s proposed solutions to address these problems are both inadequate and needlessly destructive. Limiting the number of courses is akin to closing a school with a bad Ofsted report—it does nothing to raise standards. Furthermore, it is ironic for him to suggest that students in low-value courses would benefit from accessing services that his own policies have cut and starved.
In many ways, it seems as if Sunak’s response is a mere attempt to put a positive spin on the numerous crises faced by British universities. By framing bankrupt universities as part of a crackdown on low-quality courses, it creates an illusion of a well-thought-out plan rather than acknowledging the chaos unfolding. On the other hand, Labour’s response is reminiscent of the party’s tendency to dismiss the existence of bad schools as an offensive notion.
So, what can Sunak do instead? One part of the solution is to provide prospective students with better information about the courses they apply to. In the US, students have access to a wealth of data on the quality of subjects and courses available to them. In the UK, applicants may have an idea about the overall standing of universities, but they lack clear guidance on the quality of individual courses. For example, some British universities with lower entry requirements or less prestige produce skilled and successful accountants, but prospective students have no means to identify such programs.
Another issue lies in the tuition fee system in England and Wales. The government’s planned lifelong loan entitlement in 2025 should provide further education and retraining with reliable funding and prestige. However, currently, if a student chooses the wrong course, receives inadequate teaching, or faces other setbacks, they are left with unpaid tuition fees and limited opportunities to start afresh at another institution.
Furthermore, freeing the university sector from the bureaucratic burdens and additional costs imposed by the UK’s immigration system would improve outcomes. Overseas students and foreign lecturers, who contribute to subsidizing costs for domestic students, face various hurdles and charges, such as the NHS surcharge, when coming to the UK. Currently, British universities prioritize recruiting overseas students solely to maintain their financial stability.
In summary, the higher education sector lacks many essential factors that could drive up standards. It is impressive how many good courses still exist despite these limitations. However, the Conservative and Labour parties seem uncertain about their expectations of a “good university.” For some, it’s their alma mater, while for others, it’s the local institution in their constituency. As long as politicians remain confused about their vision for universities, they will either propose ineffective solutions like the prime minister’s or deny the existence of any problem, as Labour seems to do.
Contact: [email protected]
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
