Critical interpretation

February 25, 2010

"How high? 'Reasonable number' would accept fees hike" (11 February) raised valid points about tuition-fee levels. However, there was some debatable interpretation of the survey results featured that could distort a crucial debate.

The biggest issue is that the survey focuses on the price at which students reject paying for degrees. The authors view rejection as a close proxy to demand, but this is not the case. The conclusion that "if tuition fees were increased to £6,000, then approximately 60 per cent of students would reject a course" cannot be interpreted as "because 60 per cent say no, 40 per cent would say yes".

In recent research, we found that where 50 per cent of students indicated that a certain degree price was too expensive, only 10 per cent felt it was acceptable, so there is a significant difference in the price at which people state they definitely will and won't buy something. Just because I definitely would not buy a new television for £3,000 does not mean I definitely would for £2,900.

Also, the survey questions existing students. Thus, it is no surprise that the least-rejected price is the current one of £3,000. This accounts for the strange and counter-intuitive finding that more students would pay £3,000 than £2,900. While price is in some cases an indicator of quality, demand for top-quality degrees wouldn't fall if the price fell.

I believe the survey overinflates students' willingness to pay. My concern is that sound bites such as "more than half of students would pay £5,000" will dominate the debate, and more reliable and important findings regarding differential fees will be lost.

Finally, this should not detract from the fundamental issue - universities are facing tough times and need forward-thinking solutions to raise income.

Mark Billige, Partner, Simon-Kucher & Partners.

You've reached your article limit.

Register to continue

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments
Register

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Most Commented

James Fryer illustration (27 July 2017)

It is not Luddism to be cautious about destroying an academic publishing industry that has served us well, says Marilyn Deegan

Jeffrey Beall, associate professor and librarian at the University of Colorado Denver

Creator of controversial predatory journals blacklist says some peers are failing to warn of dangers of disreputable publishers

Hand squeezing stress ball
Working 55 hours per week, the loss of research periods, slashed pensions, increased bureaucracy, tiny budgets and declining standards have finally forced Michael Edwards out
Kayaker and jet skiiers

Nazima Kadir’s social circle reveals a range of alternative careers for would-be scholars, and often with better rewards than academia

hole in ground

‘Drastic action’ required to fix multibillion-pound shortfall in Universities Superannuation Scheme, expert warns