Tag: David Willetts

The speech made by David Willetts at the HEFCE Annual Conference at the Royal College of Physicians in London on 21 October 2010.

Good afternoon.

It has been a crucial ten days for the development of higher education in our country. I am very grateful to HEFCE for this opportunity to set out how the Coalition Government sees things now. But my debt – our debt – to HEFCE goes much further than that. Alan Langlands brings sagacity and stability – qualities we need in such a turbulent world. Tim Melville-Ross makes an excellent contribution as chairman and I am delighted to announce that Tim has agreed to serve as Chair of the Board of HEFCE for a further three years.

The Browne Report is up there with Lionel Robbins’ report of 1963 and Ron Dearing’s report of 1997 as a serious, paradigm-shifting publication. We will not necessarily accept all of it, but many experts have already recognised its quality – with praise coming, among others, from the vice-chancellors of Leicester, Imperial and the Open University. It has also been praised by our leading papers. Perhaps I can quote their words as if on a billboard outside a West End theatre: “genuinely radical”, the Financial Times; “sophisticated” and “persuasive”, Daily Telegraph; “attempting to uphold a core set of policy principles that should be broadly supported”, the Guardian.

There are lessons we can take from those two great reports which preceded Browne. Robbins has gone down in the history books as the report which drove university expansion. But the key driver of that expansion was decisions already taken on student finance following the Anderson Report of 1960. It is right that we should look at university reform and finance together, rather than separately – while of course recognising that finance is only one aspect of a university’s mission, and that the social and moral purposes of higher education are its bedrock.

I was actually my Party’s higher education spokesman when Dearing came out. And I remember the shock we all felt when David Blunkett effectively tore up Ron’s report the day before it was released; instead of considering Ron’s proposals, he announced an alternative package. That crucial mistake is one reason for the turbulent and messy history of university policy ever since.

We are not going to repeat that mistake. There will be a very careful process of deliberation in light of the Browne Report. So my reactions today on some of the broad outlines of John Browne’s report are necessarily provisional, as we consult in the weeks and months ahead.

There are some decisions, however, that can’t wait. We do need to set out in the next few weeks the way forward for graduate contributions and student support if we are going to have any chance of implementing changes for the Autumn of 2012. Many prospective students will visit universities and decide on their applications in the Summer of 2011, and so they need to know the likely costs by then, and how the Government will help them to meet those costs. In turn, universities have explained to me that their prospectuses – with information on graduate contributions – will go to print in April 2011. It is rather like A. J. P. Taylor’s thesis that train timetables determined the outbreak of the First World War: once the presses begin rolling, everything is fixed.

This means that amendments to regulations governing the current fees structure and student support need to happen sooner rather than later. Prompt decisions will mean we can then implement in regulations the commitments we make. We hope to bring proposals on regulation of graduate contribution levels to Parliament before Christmas. Following Lord Browne’s proposal to introduce a real rate of interest on contributions, we will also need to seek an early opportunity to make the limited changes to primary legislation on that specific issue, and also update repayment regulations to enable a more progressive system.

We are keen to hear the views of the sector on the wider issues that Browne considered, such as governance and regulation, private providers, and student number controls. In fact, we are already listening, and more lengthy consultation here will tease out the ramifications. We aim to publish a White Paper in the Winter and then – Parliamentary time permitting – hope to introduce a broader higher education bill perhaps later on in this current, extended session.

The central proposition in Browne is this – that the bulk of the teaching grant which is currently distributed to universities via HEFCE should be replaced by spending power placed directly in the hands of students, who will be lent money to pay for their university education. Students will not, of course, have to find any money of their own for tuition during their time at university, but they will make contributions subsequently as graduates. That is the big shift in the funding of higher education put forward by the Browne report and endorsed by the Coalition. Vince and I both believe it is the right way forward. It both delivers a big saving in public spending – reflected in yesterday’s spending review – and reforms the financing system so that it is shaped by the preferences of students. This new model is what lies behind the Chancellor’s statement yesterday.

We have said in the spending review that the overall resource budget for HE, excluding research funding, will reduce from £7.1 billion to £4.2 billion – a 40 per cent, or £2.9 billion, reduction – by 2014-15. By far the greatest part of that reduction flows from our acceptance of the approach presented by Lord Browne – that, starting from the 2012/13 academic year, we will start to reduce HEFCE teaching funding, and institutions will be able to replace it, if they can attract students to their courses, with funding flowing via the graduate contribution scheme. Obviously, the details of this will vary between different institutions, and will be affected by the decisions we quickly need to make about the fee regime.

The spending review also contained several assumptions about efficiency, both within the public sector, and for bodies to which the public sector contributes significant funding. My own department is facing a 40 per cent headline cut in its administration costs. It is not for us to say precisely what efficiency savings a university should make, but crucial areas to look at will be pay and pensions, procurement and shared services. I know most of you already have plans in train here.

I know that you will have many detailed questions about higher education funding for 2011-12 and beyond, which, you will understand, we are not yet in a position to answer. As usual, we will send a grant letter to HEFCE, with more details, around the turn of the year.

I know too that people in this room will have anxieties about the shift in spending, but I have to ask what the alternative is. Given the fiscal crisis and the pressure that we are under, there is no option of carrying on as we are. We would have had to do something – even the previous Labour Government had set out £600 million of cuts over a shorter time scale, albeit with no indication of how they were to be delivered. One possibility would have been a big reduction in the unit of resource per student, threatening the quality of the student experience. Alternatively there could have been a big reduction in student numbers, depriving thousands of young people of a crucial step on the ladder of opportunity. A third option was a pure graduate tax, which would risk a brain drain with its incentives for people to study or work abroad. The graduate tax also breaks the link between student and university. There is an excellent guide to these problems and more: a report from December 2003 called “Why not a pure graduate tax?”, published by the last Labour Government.

These options, therefore, all have enormous disadvantages. Lord Browne’s considered approach, which we endorse, actually shows a pathway towards a positive and viable future for higher education – a way through the “valley of death” to which Steve Smith has often referred.

The HE system that we develop between us must be as fair and as progressive as possible. In the current economic climate, therefore, we simply cannot afford a fiscal subsidy to the wealthiest families. Looking at the Browne proposals, the Institute for Fiscal Studies found that the poorest 30 per cent of graduates would be better off than now, while only the richest 30 per cent of graduates would have to pay off their loans in full.

The figures we end up with may not be quite those. But broadly, that is the right approach. In fact, we in the Coalition have set ourselves the task of improving on Browne and coming up with proposals that offer even more help for students from the poorest backgrounds but without unfair penalties on success. I have to say to the strongest universities that they have not been successful enough in improving access to young people from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Back in April, Sir Martin Harris duly noted that, collectively, universities have made clear progress on widening participation. But he concluded that the participation rate among the least advantaged 40 per cent of young people at the top third of most selective universities “has remained almost flat” since the mid-1990s. The Government is committed to good universities, but it is equally serious about social mobility. The two must go hand in hand. And I hope you will recognise the strength of feeling within the Coalition that one of the non-negotiables in all this is that universities must deliver on broadening access. The challenge is to achieve this with imaginative and equitable policy – not with clunky quotas or crude social engineering. I believe we can do it.

We can do it by focussing on three key groups: young people at school and college, students with modest incomes at university, and graduates with low earnings. We will offer them a fairer deal which applies at all three stages: routes for people to get into university, from school, college and through other avenues; increased support for students from poorer backgrounds while they’re at university; and better support for people on low incomes once they have graduated.

In his important speech last Friday, Nick Clegg pledged £150 million of government money for a national scholarship scheme to improve access for students from families of modest means. It will be fair, affordable, and make a real difference to some of the poorest students. At the same time, it will not add to the burden of regulation on institutions or duplicate arrangements under the more generous and coherent student support system that’s being developed as Browne recommended. I will be inviting the National Union of Students, Universities UK, the Office for Fair Access, the Sutton Trust and other interested parties to help us design a scheme for both young and mature students.

The second stage involves a more generous maintenance package for students from poorer backgrounds, details of which we hope to announce shortly. We are looking closely at the Browne recommendations for a more generous maintenance grant, supplemented by a more generous loans package. It would be a great achievement to increase maintenance levels on a progressive basis, with more generous grant than now, even in these austere times. If the Coalition Government can deliver this as proposed by Browne, then the obligation on universities to deliver their side of the bargain on access will be even greater.

Improving the deal for part-timers is a key part of broadening access. For the first time, part-time students will – as Browne proposes – be eligible for loans to cover the full cost of their tuition, on the same basis as full timers. I see this as a genuine milestone – something that neither Robbins nor Dearing tackled. It is a vital part of creating a more responsive and diverse HE sector.

The third stage is fairness for graduates. We will reform graduate contributions, by increasing the threshold at which people begin to repay loans, and by introducing a positive interest rate. It is crucial for the Coalition that contributions should be related to ability to pay without making the mistake of the pure graduate tax and losing the link with the actual cost of a university education. We specifically asked Lord Browne to address the issue of progressivity and he has come up with ingenious and practical proposals which we intend to work with. We can see the case for setting the income threshold for repayments at £21,000, as Browne suggests – way above the present £15,000 – with nine per cent of salary payable above that threshold.

As for terms on early repayment, the arguments have become rather muddled thanks to a misleading report in the Guardian and some rather sloppy work by the Social Market Foundation which does not appear to understand that money in the future is worth less than money now. We are examining this issue carefully. There is a feeling that it would be unfair if the better-off could reduce their payments by paying early. But for many people with modest earnings, the delay in repayments at a less than commercial interest rate is an advantage, not a disadvantage.

This, then, is the direction in which the Coalition Government is heading. Even while public spending is being reduced, we are seeking more progressive outcomes than at present. As the Institute of Fiscal Studies commented, “The proposed reforms to student support and graduate repayments would be a welcome development if they were to be adopted. By continuing to provide up-front cash support for the full amount of fees and for living costs, the system should preserve access to higher education regardless of family background.”

There are, of course, some very difficult issues around fee caps and the levy. For Lord Browne, there is – in theory – no upper limit to fees. He would argue that, provided admissions are needs blind and provided that the Exchequer doesn’t take on any of the risk of high loans, the problem is resolved. But we understand the very strong concern about the level of graduate contributions.

Lord Browne’s proposed levy to avoid any Exchequer subsidy for loans has also aroused quite a lot of concern across the sector. It means that as soon as universities raise their fee above the threshold level, they face a rapidly rising levy which can drive their fees up even higher in order to reach a given level of income. Another objection, for example, is that a levy could become an obstacle to philanthropy if the upfront payment of fees via donors were to attract it. If you didn’t have a levy, however, there would be a need for some sort of upper cap. We recognise there are arguments for a lower rate for the levy, or for not having a levy at all and sticking with a fee cap instead.

We have not reached a final decision on the levy and the fee cap, but there is an interesting feature within the current arrangements for higher education funding, which consist of a basic cap of £1,310 and a higher rate cap of £3,290. It would be possible to set new levels for each, with stringent conditions on access which any institution would have to meet before setting a graduate contribution at the higher rate.

The key legal condition, of course, is access and progression – enforceable by OFFA. There is still a dangerous temptation for universities to blame failings in the widening participation and fair access agendas on schools – instead of dealing with the world as it is. We can’t just sit on our hands and wait for schools to be reformed – although that must happen. Universities must act now, and we would look carefully at the conditions that OFFA demands.

There is also an important question around teaching quality. This is where I think the sector is most in danger of losing contact with its supporters. On the one hand, we should naturally expect high standards of teaching in all publicly-funded institutions. On the other, universities who wish to charge more for undergraduate courses need to produce compelling evidence as to what the extra money would buy in terms of better teaching, contact time and services for students. And it is legitimate for students to ask why the finance reforms introduced under the previous government failed – in some cases – to deliver improvements to their educational experience.

In a reformed system, students will expect a better experience in return for higher contributions as graduates. If we are to win the argument for reform, universities must demonstrably respond to the perception that some students are being short-changed. We must do better and we will. This is one of the reasons why I attach so much importance to supply side reform. Competition is a great driver of improvement. We want to see innovation and a diverse range of choices for students – two-year courses, for instance, and more vocational degrees. In speeches we have made in recent months, both Vince Cable and I have challenged the traditional model of three-year degree courses for 18-year-olds away at college, and especially championed part-time learning. It is for you rather than us to carry through reform, but now is the time to identify anything in the arrangements for public financing or regulations which would stifle these options.

I am also aware of substantial concerns within the sector about Lord Browne’s proposal on controlling student numbers via UCAS tariff points. This is an especially thorny problem: maintaining macro control over student numbers while leaving micro freedom to individual institutions. John Browne’s is an imaginative solution, but has raised questions about practicalities. And it is important that we do not deter mature students, for example, who may have not achieved academic success at school – which is why he suggests a second admissions route separate from UCAS points. But running two separate systems creates a new set of problems. Meanwhile UCAS is doing important work looking at how their points system could be reformed. There is a lot more work to do in this whole area before any changes are implemented.

Some people have also raised doubts about the idea of a single council which incorporates HEFCE, OFFA, the QAA and the OIA. The Coalition is instinctively attracted to any proposals which reduce the number of such bodies, but we need to tread carefully. The OIA’s special role as an alternative way of resolving disputes without going through the courts does require independence. The QAA, of course, is not a Government quango – it is jointly owned and sponsored by the HE sector with HEFCE, and any changes need to be discussed with the sector. Clearly, we need to think through all this carefully. We won’t rush into any decisions. But Lord Browne, as so often, does have a powerful logic behind his central argument. HEFCE has, in effect, operated as the regulator of the sector through its power to make grants. As the relative size of these grants falls, so the regulatory role comes out into the open more. This must be must be used with care and discretion. But clearly, a key role is going to be in broadening access. What we’re also seeking to do, of course, is reduce regulation and external intrusion into higher education, in favour of greater freedom and autonomy.

My own current thinking is that merging HEFCE and OFFA would be sensible once funding to universities is channelled through students rather than through HEFCE. I assure you, though, that the institutional landscape will not change before the academic year 2012/13; it would require legislation, and therefore Parliamentary approval. In the meantime, I can announce that I have reappointed Sir Martin Harris as Director of the Office for Fair Access for a further 12 months. His experience will be invaluable as we work more on improving access.

I can also announce the appointment of Ed Smith – a HEFCE board member – as the new Chair of the Student Loans Company. The processing of student loan applications has gone well this year. Figures published today show that 94 per cent of approved applicants had their full entitlement available to them when they arrived on campus. We owe Deian Hopkin, Ed Lester and their team a substantial vote of thanks. This is a transformation, compared with last year’s appalling performance.

I also want to take this opportunity to thank the National Student Forum – and its chair, Maeve Sherlock – for its contribution to improving the student experience over the past three years. The Forum has published its final report today, which again provides some excellent material for universities to consider together with their student bodies. It is this active partnership, often at a detailed course level, which can vastly improve the knowledge and skills of undergraduates, as well as helping institutions to fulfil their missions. We will continue to listen to students and make sure that we understand their varied concerns and priorities.

The other main news from the Chancellor yesterday concerned funding for science and research. It is good news for HEFCE’s QR funding and Higher Education Innovation Fund, and good news for the Research Councils and National Academies.

It is proof that this Government recognises the fundamental role of science and research in rebalancing the economy and restoring economic growth. Despite enormous pressure on public spending, the overall level of funding for science and research programmes has been protected in cash terms. And as we implement the efficiency savings identified by Bill Wakeham, we should be able to offset the effects of inflation – thus maintaining research funding in real terms.

There has also been a great deal of pressure to maintain flexibility in government spending. A stable investment climate for science and research – as we all know – allows universities and research institutes to plan strategically, and gives businesses, public services and charities the confidence to invest in the research base. I am delighted to confirm, therefore, that the ring-fence for science and research programmes has therefore been maintained.

Across the country, we have excellent departments with the critical mass to compete globally and the expertise to work closely with business, charities and public services. This £4.6 billion settlement for science and research should mean that we can continue to support them.

We must, though, continue to develop an assessment framework that combines recognition of the highest levels of research excellence with reward for the impact it has on the economy and society. HEFCE is making good progress with the Research Excellence Framework, in partnership with many academics from across the spectrum of disciplines. I too have had lively discussions with academics on this, and look forward to seeing the results of the pilot exercise later this year.

We are also continuing to support capital investment where it is a high priority. We have allocated £69 million over the spending review period, in partnership with the Wellcome Trust, to the next phase of the Diamond synchrotron in Oxfordshire to support ground-breaking research in the life, physical and environmental sciences. And the Department of Health is joining my department, University College London and medical charities to fund the UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation. The Department of Health will put £220m into this important venture that will accelerate the translation of basic research into care for patients.

The Government is committed to getting business and universities working more closely together. I am therefore working with HEFCE to reform Higher Education Innovation Funding (HEIF) to increase the rewards for universities that are most effective in business engagement. Some exciting ideas have emerged from the community about how to improve the effectiveness of university IP management. We will explore with HEFCE the opportunities to release this potential.

To conclude, let me make three final points.

The first is to repeat that we are determined to manage the process of transition carefully – avoiding disruption unless it is a necessary aspect of reform. That is why the spending review savings will be focused towards the second half of the spending period. Indeed, I believe that higher education, as well as research, should be able to maintain overall levels of activity throughout this time of austerity.

The more important point, though, is that, despite the risks associated with any change, the reforms we undertake will improve higher education in the long run. Those institutions which attract more students and pull in businesses seeking to boost the skills of their employees will be able to grow. They will reap the rewards of good teaching that students and employers recognise and value. They will be able to innovate, to make the most of greater autonomy, to pursue their institutional missions, including research.

And thirdly, although this speech has inevitably had to focus on finance and organisation, Vince and I never lose sight of the sheer inherent value of the intellectual activity that happens within our universities. Any structure and any government department is just there to serve this greater good. Our changes have to fit with and reinforce the core values of higher education, that motivate those who devote their lives to it.

The speech made by David Willetts, the then Shadow Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills, on 31 October 2007.

The decision to go to university is one of the most important that a young – or older – person will make in their lives. Having a degree means considerably enhanced earning power. But it also means much more. A university education should be an intellectual, cultural and social experience. It is about learning to question and to think independently. It is about meeting people from all over the world, and from different cultural and social backgrounds. Increasingly it is also about learning to juggle the conflicting demands of study, a part-time job, and a personal life.

In recent decades the higher education system has seen rapid expansion and great change. This has been a good thing. More young people have enjoyed the benefits of higher education. And despite the large increase in the number of people studying at UK universities, the OECD revealed last month that the graduate premium has not declined. A degree is worth as much today as it was ten years ago.

Yet we need to be clear about the direction in which we are heading, and about the impact of this rapid change upon students and upon institutions. It is not enough to simply propel more and more students into universities, with little regard for the experience they have, or for whether they complete the course. Today’s students are savvy consumers, and we need to make sure that we are giving them the quality of experience that they expect and deserve.

Frequently British universities are talked about in terms of their research, or their value to business and to the economy. These missions are clearly vital. But somewhere along the way we seem to have lost sight of one of the most important functions of a university. Gordon Brown can only see universities as factories, churning out research papers and the practical skills that will aid economic growth. That is indeed very important, but it does not fully capture the real value of education. It is almost as if people are afraid of just saying education is a good thing in itself. That comes from a loss of confidence in the fundamental importance of transmitting a body of knowledge, a culture, and ways of thinking from one generation to the next. It is one of the most important obligations we have to the next generation and we are failing to discharge it.

Not only is that utilitarian view of higher education a bleak one, it is also counter-productive. People do not become lecturers or teachers because they want to help maintain the national stock of human capital; they wish to pass on a love of their subjects. Equally, students will not engage with subjects out of a desire to improve the trend rate of growth. It is only by making sure that tutors are allowed to teach their subjects and students are allowed to be inspired that we can achieve these goals. The route to creating a well-educated workforce is a good student experience.

Crucial to this debate, of course, is the issue of how we fund our universities.

Tuition Fees

We support the idea that those who benefit from higher education should meet some of the cost of their degree. This is achieved through the introduction of a variable fee of up to a maximum of £3,000. There have been serious teething problems with top-up fees. There is a general air of mystery and confusion surrounding bursaries. Lots of people do not understand that the fees do not need to be paid up-front.

This system of fees, loans and top-up fees has been fixed until 2010, but it may well continue afterwards. What happens afterwards will be dependent upon the result of a major review into the success of the current regime which will examine the results of the first three years of variable fees. This Government review will examine the impact of the arrangements on higher education institutions; the impact on students and prospective students; and will make recommendations on the future direction of the policy.

We are not calling for the cap to be lifted and we are not calling for it to be lowered. Nobody knows enough about tuition fees and their impact to make any decisions at all on this issue. Especially not the Government. Rather than waiting until 2009 to call this review, why does the Government not start now? A proper review takes time. We do not need to make a decision any sooner than the Government suggests, but why waste this two years which could be spent collecting data, talking to people or analyzing what is happening?

We would urge the government to set up the independent review group to look at the situation now.

There is enough data on admissions and drop-out rates which they can start working on as it is.

And if the review is to be successful, they will need to talk to students. They need to look at the financial support mechanisms that are in place. Why isn’t the bursary system that was set up to help those most in need working? Where has the money from fees gone and how much of a difference has it made to the quality of teaching? Steadily increasing application figures suggest that contrary to many fears, the £3,000 fees have not deterred students from applying to university. The latest figures released by UCAS this month show that record numbers of students applied to UK universities this year. The total number of people applying for full-time undergraduate courses at universities and colleges in 2007 was 532,000 – a rise of 5.4% on 2006. Moreover, the number of students from England accepted into the system this year has risen by more than the average – up 6.4 per cent on last year, compared with an increase of just 0.5 per cent in Scotland where fees have not been introduced.

They will need to look at whether the prospect of increased debt is putting poorer people off the idea of a university education, and whether this can be overcome. Despite constant talk of widening access to universities, the Government has failed in its mission to encourage more young people from disadvantaged backgrounds to go to university. The proportions of students from different social groups remain depressingly static. In 1990 77 per cent of children from socio-economic group A made it to tertiary education, and 14 per cent from socio-economic group D.

If the review is to be successful, they will need to talk to Vice-Chancellors. Where will UK institutions be financially by 2010 and how will this compare with universities in the US, Europe or Asia?

Leitch was absolutely right when he highlighted the need to “embed a culture of learning” into our society and our workforce. Yet how can we foster a system of lifelong education if we are not thinking hard about creating the right experience for part-time and mature students?

If we are going to understand fully what is happening in higher education, we also need to wake up to the fact that the university environment is changing. Brideshead won’t be revisited. One in five students live at home while studying. One third of students now juggle a part-time job alongside their studies during term-time. Over the past five years numbers of mature students have risen by 18%: in 2006, nearly 70,000 over-21s were accepted on to higher education courses. And the Higher Education Funding Council for England is keen to stress that with an ageing population, in the decade following 2010 institutions will be under serious pressure to recruit more mature students in order to fill their places and balance their books.

They will need to look into the arrangements for part-time and mature students. One of the best ways of widening access is not just to get people to take full-time courses at universities, but to encourage part-time learning. There are good reasons for people not to take three or four years out of their working lives. We should not dismiss them. Currently there are 840,000 part-time students in the system, representing 40 per cent of the total UK student cohort. Yet HE institutions describe part-time students as the Cinderella sector of HE, overlooked and under-funded. The independent review must look carefully at part-time students. Who are they and how is the current funding regime impacting upon them? How do we continue to attract part time students into the system?

The government has paid lip service to part- time students. In the summer the new Secretary of State for DIUS, John Denham, announced that he wanted to see an expansion in the number of part-time students, with more evening and weekend courses, in order to widen participation in higher education.

But just weeks later, his first big move in his new position was to announce a £100 million cut in HE funding for people taking a second qualification at the same level or below their first. This is a retrograde move that will harm part-time students more than anyone else. The Open University, which came joint top for student satisfaction in the National Student Survey again this year, has one third of students taking a second qualification and stands to lose more than £30 million of its funding. The Government is already in retreat and keeps on adding to the list of exempted subjects. It now remains to be seen whether their £100m figure will even add up.

Helmut Kohl used to fret that Germany found itself with the oldest students and the youngest pensioners in the world. No one wants to foster a higher education system filled with eternal students using university as a means of avoiding the wider world. However, by cutting second degrees the government has removed people’s right to change direction, and trampled upon their desire to broaden their skills. They are saying ‘no’ to the doctor who wants to study philosophy in order to work in the increasingly important field of medical ethics. They are saying ‘no’ to the history graduate who has thought long and hard and wants to retrain in IT. They are saying ‘no’ to anyone who needs to change direction. The message seems to be, if at first you don’t succeed, you don’t succeed.

In an ideal world, employers might step in and provide the funding for their employees. But what if the employee’s new direction does not fit with their agenda? And, as a recent report by UUK on part-time students showed, the reality is that the part-time students who get support from employers tend to be men in full-time employment from the wealthiest households. This policy penalises those trying to climb back onto the learning ladder most in need of public support.

We need to have a high-skilled workforce and we need an open education system to encourage an open society and social mobility. The debate on fees cuts straight to the heart of both of these issues. It is simply too important an issue for us to fly blind. A review of where we are now, focusing on the impact of the new fees on the mission to widen access to universities, on part-time and mature students, and on the financial health of our institutions, will set the stage for much clearer decision-making when the issue becomes live again in 2010.

The Student Experience

Yet students and their parents are not simply concerned about the cost of higher education. They care about quality. Students now regard themselves as customers, and they want to know that they are investing in the right student experience. If we are going to maintain that students should pay top-up fees – either at today’s level or a different one – then parents and students will have the right to demand that their fees are contributing to the delivery of a higher quality higher education experience. Rather than relying on clumsy monitoring institutions like the QAA, we can hold universities to account by empowering students with information about their courses.

Already we are seeing a rash of student websites springing up monitoring the ‘real’ experience at their university. RateMyProf.com, the anonymous ratings website that has been unsettling academics in the US since 1999, has now launched a UK version. It has been joined by others that strike equal fear into university administrations, including, “WillISeeMyTutor.com’. Increasingly students are picking up their placards and raising their voices in defence of their teaching provision. Parents and students at Exeter University set up a vociferous campaign about the axeing of the chemistry department, and history students at Bristol went railing to the press last year about when their contact time was cut to two hours a week. Angry students told the media that they thought they were paying fees to be educated by renowned academics, not to receive “library membership and a reading list”.

Whatever their content, these campaigns underline a demand for new information about universities, beyond what is available in the standard glossy marketing prospectuses. We need more transparency about what is really on offer to students.

The introduction of the National Student Survey, which surveys the quality of teaching, assessment and management of different courses across institutions, was a step in the right direction. There are already signs that vice chancellors are reacting to poor scores in areas such as feedback and assessment and striving to drive up their standards in a competitive market. However, there are also strong signs that this is yet another Gordon Brown target that can be gamed.

Do you want to make sure the students at your university sound satisfied? As one vice chancellor told me recently, there are ways and means. Do not go too hard on your students or organise early morning starts too close to survey time. Certainly never send out bills or reminder letters before you send out the survey form. If a lecturer has something terse to say to a student, he must never say it when the student is about to focus on filling in the survey – bide your time for the best results!

The National Student Survey has its uses, but it should not be the last word on the student experience. Clearly we need new methods of monitoring and maintaining quality. We should ensure that there is much more data in the public domain. We will put pressure upon universities to provide information that is currently kept hidden – but which the public would like to see.

I believe there is a strong argument for an official website which students and parents can search for much more detailed information about universities and courses. Such a site would empower students and their parents, giving them a much clearer picture of what different institutions offer and what they can expect from their time at university. It would also provide an important benchmarking system for universities and colleges, highlighting areas they could build on in order to improve the quality of their student experience.

The government has set up a number of little-known sites along these lines – the latest of which has yet to launch despite promises it would be up in September – seems to offer no big step forward in terms of useful new data.

It is becoming more and more common for parents to bemoan the fact that they are paying thousands of pounds for their children to go to university, despite the fact that they only shows their face in the faculty building for a few hours each week. To some extent it has always been thus. A university experience is about independent learning, and a move away from the comfortable spoon-fed environment of school, with plenty of time to think and research.

However, there needs to be a national student experience website would pull together searchable information on research ratings, drop-out rates, library facilities and university estates. This is all in the public domain already, but hard to find unless you are an expert on HE statistics.

But more importantly, universities must be urged to provide some data that is not in the public domain.

In particular students and parents want information on contact hours, class sizes and employability. Universities have resisted making such information available, but as a market emerges in higher education and as students become increasingly savvy about the investment they are making, we will need more transparency.

The institutions rightly point out that any such information is imperfect. It focuses on inputs, not outputs. A powerful lecturer may be able to teach 200 students as easily as 50. And universities are not the same as schools. However, I do not think we should not be using it as an excuse not to collect or release. A survey of first-year students by the Higher Education Academy found that 41% of students who knew nothing about their course before they enrolled had considered dropping out, compared with only 25% of students who knew a moderate amount or a lot about what to expect from their course. Transparency will not only drive up quality, it will help with the management of expectations.

Similarly information about class sizes is kept very quiet. We want to bring it out into the open, searchable on the national student experience website by course and institution. Worryingly, academics from all sorts of universities (including the Russell group) report that as institutions expand, their class sizes are spiralling. A frustrated psychology professor at a leading research university told me recently that his final year classes had ballooned from 16 students to around 200. He felt that his students were getting a raw deal at the very time when their study should be reaching its peak.

Such big increases can be explained by two factors. First, the major expansion of student numbers, which has been an overwhelmingly good thing, has nonetheless stretched university resources to the limits. Secondly, the emphasis on securing research grants above all else has resulted in an inevitable pull away from teaching, with professors filling in grant applications while PhD students stand in front of lecterns. These are complicated long-term issues upon which I want to reflect with the sector. However, in our rush to grow our higher education system, and to develop our universities, we must not lose sight of what it is we are trying to deliver with a university education. The old question, “What is a university for?” has perhaps never been more relevant.

The national student experience website would bring together new information on employability. There is clear evidence that having a degree enhances both one’s earning potential and one’s ability to secure a job. Yet it is much trickier to find data on job prospects for graduates from individual institutions. This matters. Students are more focused on the job market than ever before. Gone are the days when they went away to university primarily to boost their social lives, or even to continue acquiring knowledge for its own sake. More than 7 in 10 students go to university in order to improve their job prospects, and 60% want to boost their earning potential. Students may want to know how their subject will be taught, but ultimately they want to know whether it will hoist them onto the career ladder.

That said we must not forget that university should be about much more than simply securing a qualification that will lead to a job. University should be an enriching life experience, and institutions should fit students not just for the workplace but also for society.

Student Unions

The student is not just a free-floating consumer. He is a member of a community. To this end, we should strive to foster the idea of the university community. Each and every university is its own community – its own society. Whether it be a leafy out-of-town campus, or spread across the centre of London, every university, and every student body, has its own collective feel, challenges, successes, character.

But the hub of these university communities is not the university itself. It is not the Vice Chancellor, the central administration or the quadrangle. It is the students’ union.

Many of these determined and commercially attractive institutions form such a successful hub that they have been the envy of their respective university administrations. Recognising their potential some universities have made advances on the services their students’ union provides.

Universities – and, for that matter, FE colleges too – should not just be places where you drive in, turn up for a lesson and then drive off at the end of class. They should be open communities which welcome and encourage learners. I think it is sad that almost half of students now do most or all of their socialising outside the university.

This is not the way forward. In an age where the voluntary sector helps to run the New Deal, it cannot be progressive to let universities encroach upon their own voluntary sector. If we take a closer look at today’s students’ unions, it becomes fundamentally apparent that the student experience and wider society can only benefit from their continued independence from university and state control.

Student unions are often viewed by wider society as the place where Marxist-Leninists have hard-fought ideological battles with Leninist-Marxists. There are still some union members who use them as an opportunity to posture. There are new threats as well; radical Islam has emerged on some of our campuses – and student unions cannot be expected to deal with it on their own. However, this is not typical. These days, students are more likely to have posters of Boris Johnson than Che Guevara. The social interaction and fiery political debate that went on when I was an undergraduate was – and still is – important. But students’ unions offer so much more to students and to the communities they live in.

Welfare and advice services provided by students, for students, are at the heart of what student unions have to offer. And whilst many of these services, such as Nottingham’s sexual health or Reading’s immigration advice, are provided by government or university departments, students would often prefer to approach their peers about their problems rather than the sate or other authority.

Should these services not have been there, who knows how many students would have kept their problems to themselves, having been too mistrustful of university or state authority. For example, international students from countries with far more intrusive states than our own have been know to be too scared to approach a university-run welfare service or their personal tutor. But they would not fear a fellow student who they could speak to in confidence.

Participation in student societies is, nowadays, a feature of the ambitious graduate’s CV. Students’ unions nurture these societies, which, regardless of whether they seek to promote the Conservative Party (or to destroy it) all help students to learn vital skills for the workplace. These might include event organisation, financial management, public speaking, marketing, fundraising and even sales.

Furthermore, there are some careers where no involvement in students’ unions and their societies is a distinct disadvantage. The humble student newspaper, for example, has been a fertile breeding ground for Fleet Street and broadcast media for many years.

Out in the communities that surround our universities, student community action groups are bringing real benefit to the lives of others. Students’ unions are playing their part in their local communities: Charitable fundraising; university governance; sports and fitness training; examination guidance; job centres; equality campaigning. I could go on. The Party has recently rediscovered its commitment to social responsibility – or what I have called ‘Civic Conservatism’. It is an interest in institutions which help build a strong society. To local schools, hospitals, charities, friendly societies, I would add student unions.

We value student unions. We salute them and what they achieve for and on behalf of students. Without them, universities would be much poorer institutions, as would the employers, causes and political parties who take on their alumni.

Conclusion

We have a great tradition of higher education in the UK. As British universities expand, so they must become the gold standard for other universities to follow across the globe. As well as leading the world with our research we must continue to strive to offer the best and most rewarding experience for our students.

Higher education may have slipped down the political agenda since the tumultuous debate over top-up fees in 2004, with the government insisting this is a “bedding-in period” and no further discussion is needed. But higher education – for all who can benefit from it, regardless of social status, age or career – is a serious and pressing priority. We should not be wasting time now.