Cap doesn’t fit: let’s raise it incrementally

1994 Group’s submission to fees review calls for greater competition in the academy to ‘enhance excellence’. John Gill reports

May 15, 2010

The cap on tuition fees should be raised in stages to a level that generates “genuine competition” in the university sector, the 1994 Group has recommended.

The body representing smaller research-intensive universities says in its submission to the second phase of Lord Browne of Madingley’s review of fees and funding that a market of this sort would “enhance excellence in teaching and learning”. It stops short of recommending the precise level at which the cap should stand.

The group also recommends that the government change the system for allocating student numbers to “reward universities that show high retention and completion rates”.

It supports the introduction of a “less regulated environment” in the academy, with institutions allowed to compete against each other for quotas within an overall national cap on numbers.

Arguing that quality “can only be maintained by increasing funding”, the group also sets out principles that it says are essential for a sustainable sector.

It says that while the unit of funding – the amount of money per student – must rise, higher education should be “free at the point of use”, and that the poorest students should have their fees subsidised and receive non-repayable financial support.

Its submission also argues that “the artificial barrier between full-time and part-time students is unacceptable in a modern, diverse and accessible higher education system”, and says that the support available to full-time students should be extended to part-timers and postgraduates.

It adds that two “fundamental guarantees” should be adopted: that no student is unable to attend university because of cost; and that universities remain committed to improving the student experience for all.

Other proposals in the 1994 Group’s submission include plans for a variable system of bursaries funded from sources including private donations, and measures to address the “huge student-loan subsidy” by charging interest above the government’s rate of borrowing.

It also suggests changes to the Quality Assurance Agency and the Higher Education Funding Council for England to “enhance institutional autonomy and remove over-regulation”, and says that the Office for Fair Access should be scrapped.

john.gill@tsleducation.com

Already registered?

Sign in now if you are already registered or a current subscriber. Or subscribe for unrestricted access to our digital editions and iPad and iPhone app.

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Featured Jobs

Board Member BOURNEMOUTH UNIVERSITY (MAIN OFFICE)

Most Commented

Elderly woman looking up at sky

A recent paper claims that the quality of researchers declines with age. Five senior scientists consider the data and how they’ve contributed through the years

Otto illustration (5 May 2016)

Craig Brandist on the proletarianisation of a profession and how it leads to behaviours that could hobble higher education

smiley, laugh, happy, funny, silly, face, faces

Scholars should cheer up and learn to take the rough with the smooth, says John Tregoning

Eleanor Shakespeare illustration 19 May 2016

Tim Blackman’s vision of higher education for the 21st century is one in which students of varying abilities learn successfully together

James Minchall illustration (12 May 2016)

An online experiment proves that part of the bill for complying with the Freedom of Information Act is self-inflicted, says Louis Goddard