20,000 extra uni places encouraging but more needed

For those of us in education, today’s budget makes for pleasant reading at first glance, welcome news that the government will fund 20,000 extra uni places.

Sally Hunt is the general secretary of the University and College Union

For those of us in education, today’s budget makes for pleasant reading at first glance. There is the welcome news that the government will fund 20,000 extra university places and that it will extend the job or training guarantee for 18-24-year-olds to March 2012.

While it may have been naive to expect another round of punishing cuts in the last budget before the election, it was still encouraging that the government made some effort to keep people off the dole queue. Additional places at universities and colleges are both positive developments, but they do need to be put in context.

£270m additional funding for higher education looks like good news, but the truth is that it won’t be able to repair the damage that will be done by the £900m cuts previously announced. Colleges and universities don’t operate in separate silos so, while finding money to fund extra places as a one-off or for an extra year should be congratulated, the damage will still be done as, overall, money leaves both sectors.

Job losses will be a casualty of the cuts so the additional 20,000 students should expect larger class sizes and less one-to-one time with lecturers than current students. What we really need are consistent long-term plans from both the government and the opposition. We have no faith in the Tories’ muddled plans to fund additional student places through bonuses for students or families rich enough to pay their loan debt off quickly.

We need to look beyond state funding or higher fees for higher education. The three beneficiaries are the state, the student and the employer so perhaps it is time business made a contribution. We recommend raising the level of corporation tax in the UK to the G7 countries’ average and ringfencing the cash for higher education. It would leave our main corporation tax below that of France, Japan and the United States, and 96 per cent of companies in the UK would be unaffected by the change.

The move would be similar to Boris Johnson’s 2p in the pound tax on central London businesses to specifically fund the Crossrail project, which the businesses will benefit from. The growing consensus, bizarrely championed by the Mayor of London, is that the time has come for business to put its hand in its pocket to pay for the benefits it gets from public services.

In further education, the government was right to find the funds to extend the job or training guarantee for 18-24-year-olds to March 2012. There is little point, economically or socially, in consigning young people to the scrapheap. The issue we have, like in higher education, is that colleges are properly supported to deliver the training the youngsters should expect.

The promise of a 2.2 per cent increase above inflation in spending from the government meant little to the education sector. There is already a squeeze on adult education and last week universities were told they faced a real terms funding cut of, on average, 1.8% per cent.

The bottom line is that extra places for students should be a cause for celebration, but with jobs at risk in both universities and colleges we will inevitably see larger class sizes and increased workloads for staff who survive the cull. Anyone who doesn’t think this will lead to a drop in the quality of education is sadly misguided.

Let’s not forget that other leading economies, such as France, Germany and America, are investing money in education. It is a shame that, despite taking a step in the right direction today, overall our government seems intent on doing the opposite.

Like this article? Left Foot Forward relies on support from readers to sustain our progressive journalism. Can you become a supporter for £5 a month?

18 Responses to “20,000 extra uni places encouraging but more needed”

  1. James Morgan

    @ByrneTofferings re: your earlier Q about uni places: http://bit.ly/b1S3Ss

  2. Thomas Byrne

    Can you provide a source to show that 96 per cent of British businesses wouldn’t be hit by a corporation tax hike?

  3. Thomas Byrne

    Also, the Tory proposal was welcomed by the NUS as a short term solution to solving the crisis in places last summer, it still hasnt been implemented now and we have an even more dire situation. Rather than put ideology first, you’d be better off accepting the measure then awaiting the actual review on universities.

  4. Ian

    When I was leaving school less than 10% went to university. I look at what now comes out of university and ask why did they bother to get themselves into such debt. When I worked for my PhD most of my peer group were locals returning to my University now I see most of those working for a PhD as Educational Tourists these people are of no benefit to UK PLC as when they finish they have to return rather than stay.

    Rather than offer more capacity why not ration places to those that are capable? What is need is for the mass education establishments to return to providing FE type courses such has HND/C and City & Guilds qualification alongside a scheme that rewards business to take on A-Level school leavers and train them. I don’t see why a nurse needs a degree for example and don’t get me started on Hospitality Services.

    We need the focus of the funding for Universities to be directed towards the Russell Group end of the spectrum and allow these establishments to focus on Blue Sky research and developing post graduate students that will lift the quality of the work force. The type of student that comes out of the likes of Buckingham, Thames Valley et al are not fit for purpose. What is needed is common sense to prevail and the Government acknowledge that the experiment of mass university education has failed to achieve suitable levels of attainment.

    If the next government is to focus on education, education, education then having lifted foundation skills up following the neglect of Thatcher’s Britain can the change be that we fix secondary education. Nothing was wrong with the old technical high schools alongside grammar schools. In Germany they still provide very capable people able to meet the needs of the economy. The issue with a comprehensive education system is that to work setting is required and focus on exam results means that teachers encourage students to specialise too soon.

    A government that focuses on the groups that shout the loudest rather than invests in what is best for the long term future of the country is one that sets itself for failure. The country does need more University places rather it needs an alternative scheme that develops people fit to work for a living wage. The current focus risks Higher Education falling to the levels seen in America.

  5. UCU

    RT @danashley: Sally Hunt on @leftfootforward on the budget http://bit.ly/bKmamJ

  6. Alison Price

    RT @leftfootfwd: 20,000 extra uni places encouraging but more needed: http://bit.ly/b1S3Ss

  7. ebony baker

    20000 extra uni places encouraging but more needed | Left Foot Forward: Let's not forget that other leading econom… http://bit.ly/c7tFiG

  8. Sally Hunt

    @Thomes Byrne. 96% (39,000) of companies in the UK will not be affected by UCU’s proposals. Main Rate Corporation Tax only applies to profits greater than £1.5m. Companies earning lower profits than this pay the small companies’ rate of 21%. UCU’s proposals leave this unchanged. This means it is the likes of Tesco, the banks and KPMG who are paying, not small businesses.

    With regards to non-implementation of Tory policies, one could argue this is because they are not in power. Even if they were I do not think that policy would provide the funds required or be a fair solution.

    @Ian. I am afraid that I do not just buy the idea that we need fewer graduates. Establishing a plentiful supply of high quality graduates is key to the UK’s economic prosperity. I quote from the CBI: ‘demand for graduates has grown and will continue to do so, over the last 15 years the proportion of jobs requiring a degree-level qualification has risen from 23 to over 30%, with the number of jobs requiring few or no qualifications falling from 60 to under 40%’.

    We need more, not fewer, graduates if we are to compete in the high-skill world of tomorrow. The likes of India and China are producing more and more graduates as their economies emerge. We must do the same. As we expand higher education we must ensure it is properly resourced. We cannot keep cramming more students into our universities and expect them to receive the education they deserve and now have to pay for.

    Thanks both for taking the time to comment.


  9. Mr. Sensible

    Ian what I do not think we should do is go back to the bad old days of an elitist system.

    What I find ironic, though, is how the Universities say they need to increase fees ETC yet their Vice Chancellors can be paid more than the Prime Minister…

  10. Ian

    Sally the need is for Quality graduates and what I see coming out of too many new universities are young people without the right skills or education. I feel that we need more on the job training and training posts. When I left school in the mid 1980s school leavers were offered training posts by Banks, High Street Retailers and others that via day release offered entry into Chartered Institutes.

    This route matched skills with requirements. Too many attend University today because they have no understanding of what they wish to do and feel that they need a Graduate Education. These people are poorly served and under skilled when compared with the standards seen in Europe. Rather than attempt to match the process factories seen in India and China are Universities need to provide new workers able to function in a Service Economy rather than a Manufacturing one.

    I am not against education, I have invested in both professional qualifications and a PhD in Economics. I fear that a focus on numbers rather than quality is the issue. Standards could rise over time in the University sector but the race for growth has seen them fall. When I was a University a tutorial was 2-5 students, the tenured lecturer would push our boundaries and we were encouraged to think. None of which seems to be the case in the factories that have developed to meet “demand”.

    I don’t seek an elitist system but rather one that is fit for purpose.

  11. The FactCheck Blog - More uni places than ever?

    […] Labour had planned to create an extra 20,000 places this year. But when the coalition was formed, it announced it was cutting 10,000 of […]

  12. Paul Coxon

    RT @unisontweets: RT @leftfootfwd: Pickles's prescription is a recipe for exploitation | Dave Prentis: http://www.leftfootforward.org/20

  13. Tower Hamlets Unison

    RT @unisontweets: RT @leftfootfwd: Pickles's prescription is a recipe for exploitation | Dave Prentis: http://www.leftfootforward.org/20

  14. Tower Hamlets Unison

    RT @unisontweets: RT @leftfootfwd: Pickles's prescription is a recipe for exploitation | Dave Prentis: http://www.leftfootforward.org/20

  15. winston smith

    RT @unisontweets: RT @leftfootfwd: Pickles's prescription is a recipe for exploitation | Dave Prentis: http://www.leftfootforward.org/20

  16. Staffordshire UNISON

    RT @unisontweets: RT @leftfootfwd: Pickles's prescription is a recipe for exploitation | Dave Prentis: http://www.leftfootforward.org/20

  17. Roger Irvine

    RT @unisontweets: RT @leftfootfwd: Pickles's prescription is a recipe for exploitation | Dave Prentis: http://www.leftfootforward.org/20

Leave a Reply