Loans and fees do not aid access

February 4, 2000

David Blunkett declares there is a fairer system in place for fees, loans and grants. But students will be disappointed if they believe institutions are themselves fairly funded.

Looking at non-research income of institutions in 1997-98, while Surrey, Warwick, Heriot-Watt, Manchester and Cambridge received more than Pounds 9,000 a student, post-1992 institutions (like my own) fared less well. The worst funded is Luton University with Pounds 3,1 a student, little more than half the national average of Pounds 6,241.

The figures confirm what has long been suspected - that there is a very unbalanced system heavily favouring pre-1992 universities.

The system is unfair for students who receive their higher education on the cheap and it explains large classes, less teaching and high failure rates. Can the Quality Assurance Agency's subject benchmarks have any real meaning with such inequality? Without radical change a level playing field seems a long way off.

Michael Bennett Faculty of law Southampton Institute

Please login or register to read this article.

Register to continue

Get a month's unlimited access to THE content online. Just register and complete your career summary.

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

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments


Featured jobs

Cloud Applications Manager

University Of Greenwich

Lecturer: Adult Nursing

University Of The West Of Scotland

Assistant Principal

Durham University

Content Manager

Cranfield University

Coaching Professional

Bpp University