Oxford University has announced that it is to restrict the number of places available to British students by 1,600 in order to have more places to offer to overseas applicants. The reason is a very simple financial one: fees for British students are paid by the government, at such a low level that the University is left out of pocket, while overseas students can be charged realistic fees which actually make a profit for the university. The overseas students are effectively subsidising the British ones. As there are still large numbers of such students wanting to study at Oxford, it makes financial sense to alter the ratio of imported to home-grown undergraduates.
It would be nice to think that places at Oxford, or any other university, were awarded on grounds of academic merit alone. We like to think of universities as places of higher learning and repositories of the culture. Even people who don’t go there probably feel that their existence adds to the quality of life in the country.
Unfortunately the awarding of places at universities has become so politicised that admissions tutors are complaining that they are not up to it, and would like the decisions to be taken over by committees who have more political awareness. The government wants to increase the size of the university population, but it doesn’t want to pay the costs. Students therefore have to pay part of their fees – unless they qualify for means-tested grants. Access is supposed to be widened, with preference given to students from certain postcodes and underachieving schools, which means that entrance requirements have to be lowered. Universities find that they have to teach students basic skills they should have learned at school. British universities, even those at the top of the tree, are slipping down the international league tables as a result. Meanwhile, middle-class parents who have sent their children to good independent schools, often at great financial sacrifice, find that their offspring are actually discriminated against in the selection procedure, and less likely to get in than applicants from bog-standard state comprehensives. And if they do get in, the parents will be paying extremely high fees to subsidise those who pay nothing at all.
In an excellent article in today’s Times, Simon Jenkins argues that Oxford should stop complaining and take the obvious step – going private. It should stop accepting money from the state and regain control over its own admissions process and academic work.
Simon Jenkins writes, as ever, very persuasively, but why stop at Oxford? Why stop, even, with the Russell Group of elite universities? Surely every university should be independent of state interference? They do, after all, enjoy the legal status of independent charities. If they had to cover their own costs, they would charge whatever fees reflected their academic standing. This does not mean that less well-off students would be excluded. There are ways of running a ‘needs-blind’ admissions policy, that would guarantee a place for every student who would profit by it by combining bursaries with the offer of paid work on campus and generous but realistic loans. This is how the best American universities manage it. Why should it be beyond us to instigate a similar system? It would be worth making the effort to get the politicians out of the ivory towers, and to turn universities back to being institutions of higher learning rather than factories of social engineering.
Comments (9)
Sadly, I have to confess, I found myself last week watching a television programme entitled 'Booze Britain'. It focused primarily on disorderly street behaviour, caused by excessive alcohol consumption, and how the police deal with this. One recorded incident showed a drunk lashing out with his fists and feet at uniformed police officers, the man was eventually arrested and taken to a police station.
My interest lay in viewing the uniformed police at work. The commentator stated that it took NINE police officers to detain this one man, I didn't count the numbers but their were certainly more than six. Presumably the officers all had to write individual notes following the incident leaving that particular town a veritable police free zone.
Several questions came to mind whilst watching the arrest; firstly what happened to him at court, if it went that far, and did the fine reflect the cost of his detention PLUS a punishment tariff? Why do so many traffic vehicles have video equipment on board when the use of such equipment in everyday public order situations like this would be at least as invaluable? Most importantly I would like to know why it took, as reported, nine officers to detain one man. Is it because certain officers are unsuited to carry out this particular aspect of police work. Is it due to some officers being unfit or poorly trained, or was this just an extremely violent individual? A retired senior police officer recently contributing to the blog advocated a return to single man patroling, take my advice, view this footage.The police service encompasses a huge variety of jobs, from child protection officers to firearms officers from teachers to bank fraud investigators and many many more. Certain officers are unsuited to, and have little interest in front-line police work and the converse is true so why don't we find out who's good at what. My question is, could actuaries be employed to prove what kind of officer gives the best value for money in police front-line duties considering criminal and public order arrests and could this information be used to save money in the public sector.
Posted by Gerard Mannion | February 2, 2005 1:28 PM
Posted on February 2, 2005 13:28
The principal cause of our decline into serevitude in the EU and dispossession and deculturalisation at home, is that our perception of reality has been disolving since the French Enlightenment exploded abstractions into our common sense understanding of the world and human nature. These are now empty.
This has come about because academics are the arbiters of public ideas and beliefs. They are naturally timid, find life difficult to cope with and abstractions make like seem safer for them. The problem is the rest of us have been confused by the unreality when applied to real life.
A solution would be to close 90% of universities and train our opinion formers in the armed forces.
Posted by David Hamilton | January 31, 2005 12:37 PM
Posted on January 31, 2005 12:37
How though to acquire the bags?
I am wondering whether an indelible stamp at birth might do the trick. Perhaps "First Class" across the forehead, with the chance of growth over time.
I'm still not sure about the colour.
Posted by Sodem | January 28, 2005 5:29 PM
Posted on January 28, 2005 17:29
Sodem, you got me there. On Tesco's carrier bags? (But not Waitrose's, obviously.)
Posted by dearieme | January 28, 2005 10:08 AM
Posted on January 28, 2005 10:08
Cornflakes or crisp packets?
But why should anyone have to pay for their degree?
Posted by Sodem | January 28, 2005 9:31 AM
Posted on January 28, 2005 09:31
Never thought of that!
I wonder if Nettos would be amenable to the idea?
Or perhaps the manufacturers of those 3 litre bottles of blue pop (39p a bottle from the cash and carry - it is basically E numbers dissolved in a saturated sucrose solution with added blue dye) could be persuaded to include them as a label on their esteemed product.
Or if the regulator insists on SOME effort to gain the new Degrees, perhaps they could save up coupons (printed on whatever wrapping is deemed sufficiently plebian) and send away for them?
And I spelled Hedjumacashun incorrectly - it is of course HedjumaKashun (with a capital K in the middle ...).
Posted by PhilB | January 27, 2005 6:25 PM
Posted on January 27, 2005 18:25
PhilB, you don't think that the Access Regulator might think cornflakes are too bourgeois, and insist the degrees be on crip packets,say,or beer mats?
Posted by dearieme | January 27, 2005 5:53 PM
Posted on January 27, 2005 17:53
Another alternative, if the Government seem determined to lower the standard of Degrees so everyone can gain one (wether needed or desireable), would be to print them on the backs of cornflake packets. I'm serious about this! The "Academic Achievement Bill (Hedjumacashun and Degrees for all) 2005" would be a worthy piece of landmark legislation.
Pupils would not be subject to the stresses of exams, teachers would not have to educate them in the three "R's" (Reading, (w)riting and (A)rithmatic) and suffer the stresses and potential lawsuits associated with marking exam papers and I'm sure Kellogs could print them at nominal cost to the Government in nice colours on decent cardboard. Anyone wanting more than one Degree could collect a set (Engineering, Medicine, philosophy etc.) If anyone couldn't read or write sufficiently well to complete the certificate with their name, then all the redundant teachers could set up little cottage industry businesses completing them for our new Graduates.
It would show the Labour Governments commitment to making Hedjumacashun available to everyone.
Then all they need to do is withdraw funding from the Universities and allow them to wither away (or not as they see fit).
Think of the amount of public money that could be saved from the Hedjumacashun budget and squandered on useless schemes and spin! Think of the burgeoning new businesses started by redundant teachers (contributing to the economy instead of being a drain on the exchequer)and the ENTERPRISE culture that would result.
Surely only the most churlish among you would deny everyone the opportunity to achieve their true potential.
Surely I deserve a prize (a nicely printed certificate perhaps) for cynisism? Answers on the back of a cornflake packet to the usual address .....
Posted by PhilB | January 27, 2005 1:05 PM
Posted on January 27, 2005 13:05
I can hear the university equivalent of Sir Humphrey Appleby: "How very courageous, Vice-Chancellor".
Posted by dearieme | January 26, 2005 4:35 PM
Posted on January 26, 2005 16:35