Today's UCAS figures confirm that thousands of students - one in three - will have their dreams of a university education shattered by government funding cuts.
Sally Hunt is the general secretary of the University and College Union
Today’s UCAS figures show record levels of people applying to university, which should not come as too much of a surprise. The current generation of 18-year-olds have been encouraged to apply to university for the whole of their school careers and in tough economic times, people look to boost their skills if they find themselves out of work.
The figures should be an opportunity for us to praise a job well done by the government in promoting the value of education, and a degree, and recognising the power of education to transform lives and act as a catalyst for social mobility.
Unfortunately, today’s figures just confirm that thousands of students will have their dreams of a university education shattered by government funding cuts. The combination of record numbers wanting to go to university and such savage cuts in funding is producing a crisis.
With courses already closing and teaching staff losing their jobs, Peter Mandelson risks becoming known as the Doctor Beeching of higher education. Those students who are fortunate enough to secure a place will face increased class sizes, less contact with lecturers and will still leave university with record levels of debt.
Not funding higher education places makes even less sense when one considers the alternative of pumping extra cash into the benefits system to prop up record levels of youth unemployment. Other leading economies are investing money in universities in order to help economic growth and widen participation, yet our government is intent on doing the opposite.
This approach is an insult and a snub to the thousands of students the government has been encouraging to reach for university for the entirety of their educational career.
As I have said before on Left Foot Forward, the government has been so close to getting it right when it comes to opening up university education, but it has always failed to be bold enough. It has got more people to work hard towards a university place, but has now restricted places so many talented and qualified people will miss out.
The bottom line is that you cannot make savage funding cuts without serious consequences, despite Lord Mandelson’s insulting efforts to sell the cuts as an opportunity. The government is abandoning a generation who, instead of benefiting from education, will find themselves on the dole queue alongside sacked teaching staff.
The government can come out with as many statements as it likes about the importance of education, how it will be protected from the recession and its own commitments to social mobility, but the hard facts and punitive cuts tell a much harsher and sadly more accurate story.
24 Responses to “Thousands of students’ dreams of a university education shattered by government funding cuts”
Ben Little
Surely we should all be campaigning for a different model for higher education funding. It’s not perfect, but the NUS did come up with this: http://nus.org.uk/PageFiles/5816/NUS_Blueprint_Summary_report_final.pdf
Giles
Sorry to be a dumb economist, but isn’t the answer to increase tuition fees? When things get really popular in other similar fields – say, Chinese lessons – that is what happens – and the marginally interested drop out, while funding increases for the convinced.
University funding under Labour has increased more than any other area, and they were brave enough to introduce a sensible system like tuition fees. They don’t deserve to get a knocking for this.
Wit Ackman
Giles, for a “freethinking economist” it’s surprising that you have so thoroughly and unquestioningly absorbed neo-liberal orthodoxy.
The answer is that education should not be (further) reduced to the same logic as that which currently operations in the free market economy, because this logic is extremely detrimental to society. Likewise, the economy should not be run in this manner, but… I won’t push the point.
Besides this “overarching” point, your strange idea that “the marginally interested drop out, while funding increases for the convinced” operates on a very faulty logic, which, though I’m sure it quite probably involves advanced and complex economics, seems to presume that these operations will take place in a total vacuum.
1) Your “marginally interested” should read instead “those from poorer families”, since this is the reality this epithet disguises.
2) “Convinced”, even should we read with you and take it in the best sense, here means those who have been educated to believe in the worth and necessity of Higher Education – and it will not be the case that all those who are “convinced” will actually be able to afford attending (in otherwords, Labour have broken their promise as Sally correctly points out).
3) Funding won’t actually increase since tuition fee increases are balanced against and acting as substitutes for massive cuts across the board.
4) Beyond this the whole structure and qualitative character of HE will change, will be forced to change: this will not simply be a like for like swap of government cash for private cash.
5) The way earnt money is spent will change: more will be spent on attracting students to lucrative courses, and less will be spent on research, especially in the Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences, since this is not considered to create short-term profits. Money currently passed over is tightly earmarked: e.g. for research, or for a particular construction project (this system is highly faulty, but…); when money comes from tuition fees, it will not have these controls – who knows how Universities managers will choose to spend it? One thing for sure, research is definately going to lose out big-time.
In otherwords, I completely agree with your assessment: you are a dumb economist.
All best,
Wit
Sixth Sun Multimedia
RT @MediaActivist: RT @leftfootfwd: Thousands of students’ dreams of university educations shattered by gov funding cuts http://is.gd/7W75y
Giles
Hi Wit
No I don’t mean poorer families, and the evidence from Hfece is that the introduction of tuition fees has not turned this into MORE of a middle class enclave, but less – perhaps because of the grants that cover the bottom 25%. A well designed system that Labour should be proud of …
All other things being equal, a greater contribution from graduates earning enough will increase university funding. It would also target the burden more accurately on those who benefit most directly.
Some would say that HE ought to change – why should it be immune to institutional change? Do students always think they are getting what they want? Are professors always responsive to them? I think tuition fees make them more demanding – is that terrible? Was it better when it served just 5% of the population?
It’s good to hear the statist view. DOn’t trust universities to make their own decisions. I get it.