The commodification of higher education has arrived

Data last week revealed that applications to university have, thus far, decreased this year following the introduction of £9000 fees.  Though any conclusion drawn at this stage should consider that the application cycle is far from closing, the figures are none the less damning.

The figures reveal that applications are down 9% overall.  But for medicine, dentistry and top universities such as Oxford and Cambridge, only 0.8%.  Two things could be at work to explain this uneven drop; the deadline for medicine, dentistry and Oxbridge passed on 15^th  A similar drop will eventually be revealed in applications to other courses, it’s simply a case that people are holding back in submitting applications. October and a very similar number of people chose to apply this year.  The variance is, perhaps, negligible.

This makes little sense for two reasons; for all course and especially the highly competitive medicine and dentistry, there is a backlog of those that did not succeed in getting on their chosen course in the last few years.  That culminates in a backlog of applicants, plus the latest round of new applicants, in a position to apply for courses this year.  That the figures have dropped at all, when the backlog has aggregated to its largest for many years, would suggest that demand has dropped more than the figures suggest. 

Second, in the extremely competitive environment as suggested above, early applications become increasingly important.  for the top universities, those that apply early have a greater chance of being offered a place.  Perhaps many are toying with the idea of committing to such a vast expense explains the delay, however they are actually devaluing that commitment by leaving it later to apply and probably not getting a place at their preferred, and perhaps, better choice of university.

My own view is that figures will have dropped significantly this year and that medicine and dentistry have sucked in a greater proportion of those applying overall.  Therefore the drop for all other courses will be significantly more than that for medicine and dentistry – as figures already suggest - as applicants migrate toward the more lucrative degrees.  

The figures so far bear this out; behind the 9% overall drop the so called ‘soft subjects’, such as communication studies and PR, have seen their applications fall by up to 40%.  Others, such as Education and Business studies have seen falls of around 30%.  Maths and engineering have seen an overall fall around 3%.  The figures are not the same at all universities, with some such as those in the Russell Group faring better.

This is the first evidence of the commodification of higher education; those degrees that deliver more financial benefit are becoming more popular.  Thos with a less tangible, or more specifically, financial value are being avoided.  To many this may seem obvious; aren’t all our decisions about maximising our financial gain?  The simple answer is no, or at the very least, it didn’t used to be; the sudden drop in applications to the subjects perceived as less lucrative makes that self evident.

It certainly is a tragic subversion of the traditional role of education as learning for the sake of learning.  It has been a long time coming, a fait accompli once the concept of charging for higher education was introduced, once the customer/service provider relationship was established.  As I have noted before, the Coalition is following Labours initial germ of a policy through to its logical conclusion.

It may well be courses such as English Literature and fine art, vital to our cultural and artistic development, an unquantifiable but valuable element of our society, that suffers most.  Art, literature and cultural expression all have a value in our society, one that is not simply expressed by the highest bid made at auction.  By eroding the role of our education institutions as existing for the sake of knowledge, we are eroding our cultural growth and understanding one step at a time.  Universities are one of the few places that have existed outside of the need for profit, where young people have been able to develop and knowledge created.  Tearing them down, is not the way forward.

Not worth the paper on which it is written?

There are some post-16 qualifications that are simply worth more when applying to university

It’s an argument that most students will have heard at some point, usually in conjunction with the claim that A levels are getting easier and that standards have fallen.  According to the popular trope there are proper, traditional subjects such as history, maths and English; then there are their ‘Mickey Mouse’ equivalents such as media studies, communication studies and performance studies.

For a long time the argument deployed to defend these ‘softer’ subjects has focussed on the different method of assessment employed, noting that the key skills developed are equally transferrable as those earned studying traditional subjects. 

Whether or not these ‘soft’ subjects are actually any easier than their ‘traditional’ counterparts is irrelevant; if they are perceived to be easier by those that matter – universities and their admissions teams – worth diminishes.

The recent publication of Informed Choices, an admissions guide supported by the Russell Group universities is designed to increase transparency and fairness in the application process.  Many applicants will find themselves at a disadvantage if at 16, following their GCSEs, their school or college is unable to provide crucial advice on which subjects grant access to the most competitive courses at the best universities.  

Research suggests this is one reason why applicants from private schools have traditionally been more successful at gaining places at the top universities; their tutors simply know how to play the system.  This guide is a welcome step toward greater equity in the admissions process.

But the guide is not all good news; it spells out in no uncertain terms that admissions tutors at top universities believe that some subjects simply do not prepare applicants with the skills necessary  for university study.  In laymen’s terms, soft subjects do exist and they are the more or less those subjects that have been maligned all along.

In order to gain a place at a top university applicants will ideally be studying at least two traditional subjects, with one A level in a softer subject permissible, but not preferable.  There is also some suggestion that universities prefer A levels over other qualifications such as the BTEC, applied A levels and the Extended Project.  It goes without saying that most top universities will not accept general studies or critical thinking A levels.

This begs the obvious questions, why have schools and colleges offered these courses for study?  Why has it taken a decade of promoting participation in higher education for this crucial information to emerge?  What now for those young people studying these soft subjects and their ambitions of gaining a place at a top university? 

A lot of this information has long been in the public domain; the University of Sheffield publish a list of preferred A levels on their website.  Admissions tutors may prefer those subjects with which they have greater experience, or it may have taken a decade for the truth to emerge; the softer subjects simply do not prepare students for university.

Perhaps the biggest barrier to this information emerging is the sharp reality of inequality that it illustrates.  Universities are likely to be aware that some schools and colleges don’t offer traditional subjects - such as history and philosophy - because they simply cannot attract the necessary teachers.  Instead they offer the soft subjects for which they can attract sufficient staff.  

There is also a suspicion that schools are implicitly encouraged to promote the easiest qualifications to their students in order to boost their league table standing.  Either way, making this information public would have confirmed that those attending poor performing schools do not have a fair chance of accessing the best universities. 

The election of the Coalition government has also been an important factor.  The insights from Informed Choices explicitly support the government’s shift in education policy toward a greater focus on traditional subjects.   Had these insights emerged during the more inclusive reign of the previous government - who encouraged the proliferation of softer subjects in the first place - universities may have found their admissions procedures subject to further criticism and scrutiny, rather than a knowing sense of acceptance.

How much will it cost to go to university?

Anyone planning to invest in a university degree must first ask what is the value of higher education?  Its value is relatively subjective and therefore difficult to answer, but it is directly related to cost.

There are several factors that shape price, primarily supply and demand.  Ifdemand increases and there is a shortage of supply, price increase.  Higher education has been significantly oversubscribed in recent years, but that reveals nothing about the quality of the applicants.  Universities are in fierce competition to attract the most talented students, of which there is a shortage.

Another consideration is that of Veblen goods; commodities whose demand increases as the price rises.  For example a designer sweater may essentially identical to a high street equivalent, but its inflated price increases its desirability by inferring status.

Universities will also be incentivised to charge more by the government.  Leading universities have arbitrary Widening Participation (WP) targets upon which some of their funding is contingent.  In its simplest terms, Widening Participation is attracting high achieving students from less advantaged backgrounds.
Any university that charges above the minimum has to commit to spend a proportion of this additional fee income on WP activities.  Charging higher fees will not only bring in more money directly but potentially unlock the additional funding that is linked to WP.

How much will it cost to go to university?  The short answer is more than £6,000.  The University and College Union predicts that every university will have to charge at least £6,863 per year to maintain funding levels.

This suggest that most the Million+ universities will charge somewhere between six and seven thousand, depending on how difficult they are finding it to attract quality applicants.  These universities rarely struggle to meet WP targets, so that consideration is unlikely to shape their price.  But they will have to charge less than the Russell and 1994 Groups to remain competitive.

Oxford and Cambridge have already set their fees at the maximum £9,000.  The rationale for this is simple.  By charging the full fee Oxbridge is inferring that their ‘product’ is of the highest quality.  Oxbridge rarely struggles to attract high quality applicants, so there is a clear lack of supply that is driving demand which is in turn driving price.

The Russell Group has suggested that they will have to charge at least £7000 to maintain current funding levels.  My prediction is that both the Russell and 1994 Groups of universities will charge approximately £8,000, moving all of the top universities towards the higher end of the fee bracket.  These universities will price themselves relative to Oxbridge; charging significantly less could suggest a lack of quality.

Universities can’t discuss prices with each other, this is anti-competitive.  If direct competitors charge less than their rivals it could affect the perceived value of their degrees; erring on the side of caution may inflate the price.  Under the current funding arrangement every single university charges the highest fee possible, the one university that bucked this trend found itself in financial difficulty.

The coalition government expects most universities to charge £6,000 per year.  Sadly all the evidence suggests that, despite the rhetoric, this is highly unlikely.  One suspects the fee debate has a long way to run yet.

The hidden consequences of the Browne Review

Thus far reactions to the Browne Review of the funding of higher education have tended to focus on the headline figure of student fees potentially rising to £9000 per year.  The more nuanced analysis has widened its focus to consider the obvious benefits of the review; a higher earnings repayment threshold (from 16k to 21k per annum) and more generous student loan arrangements for students with less privileged backgrounds, both of which should be welcomed.  Some elements of the review have slipped under the radar, both ostensibly concerned with raising standards.

The Browne Review suggests that along with an increase in the number of places in higher education a minimum qualification cap should be imposed on institutions by the proposed Higher Education Council (this will replace a number of existing bodies such as HEFCE).  Put simply a national minimum entry grade would be imposed that all institutions would have to adhere to.  At first glance the benefits of this seem obvious; those applicants with lower grades will not be allowed into university thus ensuring a higher calibre of student and as a result a higher standard of education.  What this approach does not allow for is the Widening Participation element of regional universities, such as those in the Million+ group.  Much of the intake of these institutions is local, part-time and or mature students who have been in work (and out of education) for a number of years.  As such many of these individuals may not have the traditionally required grades to enter higher education but instead possess years of relevant work experience.  Until further details are published on this minimum tariff it is impossible to estimate the full extent this policy could have on regional universities and retraining for those outside of the traditional 18 to 21 age range.

It should also be noted that the minimum tariff could also have a detrimental impact on Widening Participation as a whole as those unfortunate enough to attend less successful and failing schools may find their A level achievements - fantastic though they may be placed into the context in which they were achieved - not up to the new minimum standard.  The Browne Report suggests an increased emphasis on Widening Participation, though this could leave some universities working at cross purposes – raising entry grades which will slash the number of applicants from non-traditional backgrounds.

The second potential development concerns the funding of arts courses and the willingness of universities to 'expel' students.  Under the current system once a student leaves or is kicked off of their course the university loses funding for that student for every year of study.  Therefore if a student, three years in, chooses to leave their course the university loses the funding for that student for all three years.  Therefore the onus is on universities to keep hold of students, with this imperative increasing with the length of their study.  The changes suggested in the Browne Review would remove government funding for most arts courses (classics, history, sociology, etc) with the costs being met fully by the student.  This removes the risk to the university with regards to potential loss of funding; there will be no government funding to be taken away.

It’s unlikely that universities will suddenly become trigger happy and start removing students from their courses with increased profligacy.  However these changes represent another subtle change in the relation between university and student, with a more business orientated model firmly taking hold.  The proposals also risk a ‘one size fits all’ approach to universities with an out-of-touch, typically ‘traditional’ view that only the brightest, best and more privileged deserve a university education.

Student protests: The challenges ahead

The recent student protests have provided positive evidence that political apathy in the young people is not as prevalent as many assumed, though it remains to be seen if this political awareness stretches beyond mere self interest.  If recent British history teaches us anything it is that peaceful protest does not work; Gleneagles, the Stop the War Coalition and previous marches against fees have left little or no legacy.  The poll tax riots were the last protests to get violent; not only were they successful but they proved the straw that broke the camels back for the Conservative cabinet who promptly consigned Margaret Thatcher’s premiership to the history books.  Other recent protests taking direct action such as those at Kingsnorth provide an indication on the most effective form of action.

Although participating in vandalism and or violence during a protest is neither a guarantee that your aims will be met or the best course of action, it does at least garner you much public attention.  The vandalism at the recent student protests in London and around the UK hint at a wider disenchantment; if these protests are leave any lasting impression this wider disillusionment must be harnessed. To do this, three challenges need to be addressed.

The first obstacle is the National Union of Students itself; an organisation dominated by Labour party supporters and members has predictably positioned itself in direct opposition to the coalition, opposition for the sake of opposition and its protests are also woefully late, by more than ten years.  The introduction of fees by the Labour party in 1999 established the principle that those that benefit directly from their education should pay for (at least, some of) it.  The Browne review was commissioned by Labour who were committed to carrying out its recommendations; by doing the same the coalition is following Labours policies through to their logical conclusion.  Though they have ignored some of Browne’s recommendations and the financial crisis has probably accelerated the timetable, it’s still essentially Labour party policy; hence the voice of Labour is conspicuous by its absence in the fees debate.  By placing the blame solely on the coalition the NUS leaves itself open to accusations of partisanship and lacking credibility, protesting because it suits the partisan agenda of its executive rather than the interests of members.  To this end the NUS has already been circumvented by the ‘grass roots’ protesters, forcing its president into a public apology in an attempt to save his own skin and remain relevant.   The ‘demolition coalition’ strategy is also a non-starter; it intends to bring down the Liberal Democrats with a policy that they have yet to introduce into parliament and probably won’t do for two years at least.  The ‘demolition’ message is likely to have little resonance by then.

Secondly, the NUS and fellow protest groups need a credible and coherent message.  When the coalition claims the new system will be more progressive, that’s because it is more progressive than the previous system introduced by Labour.  It’s not as progressive as abolishing fees altogether, but it’s far too late for that.  uts to the Educational Maintenance Allowance are regressive and they are recent; this should form a more significant focus of their message.  Ideally protest should also be directed at the commodification of higher education, the belief that its sole purpose is to generate a greater GDP, but the risk is that it would ring hollow.  Tens of thousands of students embrace the cheap credit and commodities that the globalised, modern capitalist society offers, whether to buy Iphones, Uggs or cheap clothing from Primark.  You can’t argue against the former whilst indulging in the latter, that’s classic double think.  This narrow focus on university fees and false claims that poorer students will be priced out of higher education (they may be put off, but perception is not reality) undermines credibility and leaves them open to accusations of merely protesting against the increased costs for middle class students – mere self interest.

This leads us to the third challenge and an opportunity.  The protests seem to encapsulate anger and frustration at the coalitions cuts programme as a whole, but this is currently only being expressed through immediate student concerns such as EMA and university fees.  The message needs to be explicitly broadened, the trade unions and third sector organisations brought into the fold.  For example, Shelter has highlighted the regressive nature of housing benefit cuts and this ties in to a greater sense of anger that the coalition does not have a mandate to enact sweeping cuts that will leave thousands worse off.  A single unified message from a coalition of unions and charities would be much more persuasive; the Big Society in action, perhaps.  

This is easier said than done, but it looks as though it may be beginning to happen.  If participation becomes more inclusive and a coherent, non-partisan narrative is formed then this nascent movement may begin to resonate with the wider public and actually affect some meaningful change.  Otherwise the protests will be remembered as a rite of passage for the latest generation of students much like the Stop the War was for the previous; I cared, I was there, but nothing really changed.