The keynote at the JISC (Joint Information Systems Committee) Conference 2011 in Liverpool was given by Prof Eric Thomas, Vice Chancellor, University of Bristol, and Universities UK President-Elect.
Prof Thomas gave some sense of the seismic change in higher education in the UK over the last 50 years by pointing out that, in 1961, 4.2% of 18 yr olds went to university. Conversely, in 2011, 44% of 18-30 yr olds will go to university. Continued expansion in student numbers is, however, countered by a climate of cutbacks. Cuts of 1 billion to the H.E. sector were announced in Dec 09, with a further cut of 200 million in Spring 2010.
Prof Thomas reminded the audience of the proposed terms of loan repayment arising from the Browne review of H.E., which will involve students paying 9p in the pound of their earnings, once their earnings exceed 21k. Therefore, the previous State system for H.E. was free at the point of access, with repayments via the taxation system (though spread across the whole working population). Similarly, the new system will mean higher education is still free at the point of access, and still repaid via the tax system, but with more of the repayment falling on the individual. However, while Prof Browne’s analysis tots up, it does gloss over the argument that society as a whole benefits from an educated population. More broadly, the H.E. sector in the UK is shifting from a state run system to a consumer-led, lightly regulated market in which consumers will be seeking value for money.
The social impact of the new, market-based system will be arguably its most significant feature, posing the questions of how lower-income families will respond, and how debt-averse communities will respond. Prof Thomas said he had spoken with Princeton University who, following the imposition of a similar system, found that people from the bottom 10% of incomes stopped applying to come to the university.
Where Prof Thomas’s analysis deviated from most predictions of the post-Browne settlement was in his analysis of the range of fees likely to be charged for H.E.. In the aftermath of the Dearing Review (1997) and the introduction of fees, the maximum fees allowable quickly became the standard fees charged by all H.E.I.s, and institutions charging less than the maximum were perceived as second rate. There is a perception that the same will happen post-Browne, and that all universities will charge 9k per year (Oxford and Cambridge will, predictably, do this, but Exeter, Durham and Surrey have announced that they, too, intend charging the maximum). However, Prof Thomas argued that people won’t necessarily pay the highest fees, and will be more informed consumers. More specifically, he argued that there will be a marked increase in people’s expectations of H.E. (increased fees will further embed the customer metaphor), that more students will study at their local H.E.I. because of cost, and that students will want to know the employability rates of the courses they might attend.
Prof Thomas developed his argument with reference to the expansion of Higher Education provision in the Further Education (F.E.) sector, and to the expansion of private provision in H.E.. He used the analogy of budget airlines, pointing out that they account for only 10-15% of the market, but have fundamentally changed the market itself, with established airlines re-branding themselves as more high-end. Transferring the analogy back to H.E., it seems likely that individuals to whom fees of 9k annually are not a disincentive will opt to attend established universities. However, fees of 9k annually will also create a large area of non-consumption, pricing some sections of the population out of the mainstream sector. Therefore, F.E. colleges and private providers will be in the interesting position of competing against non-consumption, a niche in which the Open University gained success previously, by offering H.E. to sectors of the population to whom it had previously been inaccessible (Archer et al. 1999). Furthermore, there is a similarity between the current position of F.E. colleges and private providers on the one hand, and the position of Polytechnics in the 1970s on the other, with new entrants to the H.E. market expanding their curricula, and offering many of the same qualifications as the mainstream H.E. sector.
Prof Thomas gave the hypothetical example of a private provider offering a law degree in 2 yrs for 5k a year. This will be good value for money for the student, and will enable entry to the law profession, perhaps at the level of local town solicitor rather than London barrister, but an attractive career proposition regardless.
Prof Thomas also pointed out that the sector itself will not necessarily benefit from the post Browne settlement, as student fees will not comprise additional income for the universities, but will supplant the income from the State which is being withdrawn. A further point opened up by Prof Thomas was the likelihood of mergers and acquisitions in the sector. He pointed out that there are currently 44 providers of H.E. in London. He argued that there won’t be less provision, but there will be fewer institutions.
Overall, Prof Thomas offered a persuasive argument concerning likely future developments within the sector. His analysis broadly accords with other prognoses (such as Lord Mandelson at the 2010 Dearing conference, or Stefan Collini in The London Review of Books), but where he deviates is in his predictions concerning the range of fees that will be charged. The upper level of 9k annually will price some individuals and (more worryingly) communities out of Higher Education, but it will also create an opening for local F.E. colleges and specialist H.E.I.s offering degree-level quality at a much lower price, thereby enabling wider access to H.E.. Once that happens, established H.E. brands like Oxford, Cambridge et al. will not have a problem retreating to the high end of the market, but the mid-range H.E.I.s, and especially the post-92 institutions, will need to move rapidly to create distinctive identities for themselves in the squeezed middle.
Reference
Archer, W., Garrison, R. and Anderson, T. (1999) ‘Adopting Disruptive Technologies in Traditional Universities: Continuing Education as an Incubator for Innovation,’ Canadian Journal of University Continuing Education, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 13-30.
