News

The UK’s Higher Education Policy Institute and Canada’s Higher Education Strategy Associates are jointly publishing a new research paper on charging people from poorer backgrounds less for higher education. Targeted Tuition Fees: Is means-testing the answer? by Alex Usher and Robert Burroughs is being simultaneously published in the UK and Canada.

The report considers the spread of means-tested tuition fees across five continents. It compares the different Targeted Free Tuition programmes in place and analyses the policy decisions behind them. The case studies include Canada, Chile, Italy, Japan, South Africa and the United States, as well as the original UK scheme in place from 1998/99 to 2005/06.

Alex Usher, the President of Higher Education Strategy Associates and the co-author of the report, said:
This is arguably the most important new idea in international higher education finance and it is spreading across the globe.

Free or lower-cost education for those from poorer backgrounds balances the need for well-funded universities against the fact that some people are more debt averse.

Targeted free tuition has some big advantages over both systems with no fees and systems with high fees for all. That is why so many different jurisdictions are independently converging upon it. It is time for a more systematic look at the concept.
The Director of the Higher Education Policy Institute, Nick Hillman, contributed a Foreword to the report. He said:
This idea is very timely for the UK, particularly England, for three reasons. First, the Government is reviewing the funding of all post-18 education while the Opposition wants to row back on the spread of tuition fees. Secondly, everyone wants to see more students from poorer backgrounds. Thirdly, the Office for National Statistics may start counting the part of student loans that are […]

A study by the Higher Education Policy Institute (www.hepi.ac.uk), published on Thursday, 30 August 2018, looks at the new student finance regime being introduced by Labour and the Liberal Democrats in Wales, which remains poorly understood across most of the UK.

From this autumn, undergraduates from Wales will no longer get a tuition fee grant. As a result, tuition fee loans will more than double (to £9,000 for those studying in Wales), embedding high tuition fees and loans across more of the UK. Maintenance support is changing too. Although there is to be a new universal maintenance grant, many will be expected to take on larger maintenance loans.

The new report shows the effects of the changes include:

higher student debts, which will rise by 20% to 85% depending on a student’s background;
a £500 cut to cash-in-hand support for the poorest students; and
a boost for parents, who are no longer expected to contribute towards maintenance support, contrary to concerns about inter-generational fairness.

Nick Hillman, the Director of HEPI and the author of Is ‘progressive universalism’ the answer? The new student funding arrangements in Wales, said:
The UK benefits enormously from having a single higher education system. There has been mutual respect between the different parts of the UK, collaboration between different institutions and a UK-wide research infrastructure. University staff often move from one part of the UK to another. This has helped us punch above our weight globally. Yet, in recent years, deepening devolution has meant the concept of a single higher education system has been stretched close to breaking point.

Nowhere is this clearer than on student finance. The UK now has very different student funding arrangements in Belfast, Cardiff, Edinburgh and London. In many respects, it […]

This blog has been Kindly provided to HEPI by Mary Curnock Cook, Senior Advisor, Cairneagle Associates, as well as a HEPI Advisory Board member and a former CEO of UCAS.

Background

Aggregate data on A level results are released by the Joint Council for Qualifications (JCQ), the umbrella body for the main exam boards in the UK.  In a 49-page pdf file (with no available csv version), results are broken down by subject and by UK country as well as by gender. But like other data sources, such as the excellent data explorer from Education DataLab, https://results.ffteducationdatalab.org.uk/a-level.php, the JCQ data gives us numbers of entries which, without the underlying population data, make it difficult to ascertain the trends in subject preferences.

The JCQ press release mentions a 3.5% fall in the population which is probably an over-estimate.  More carefully curated data to match exactly the school year and month of birth (which is pertinent to the school year of the student) estimate the population drop to be closer to 2.5%.  In this note, we use proportion of total entries to look at trends.  While this won’t account for any increase in the participation rate in A levels, it starts to provide a more useful measure of trends and preferences than simply plotting changes in the numbers of candidates.

Without having the data at individual candidate level, it’s impossible to ascertain the trends in subject combinations which would make interesting reading, especially following the move from AS/A2 to linear structures for many subjects.  The JCQ could and should do much more to analyse the data it hosts from the exam boards – the gruesome pdfs, which have been released in the same prehistoric format for years, are a big frustration for anyone […]

Today’s report from UCAS highlights the stratospheric rise of unconditional (U) offers on the university admissions scene.  Since 2013, when the University of Birmingham made the first controversial move, the practice of confirming places for students before they get their exam results has grown exponentially.  According to UCAS, 2018 saw some 68,000 unconditional offers being made, up from less than 3,000 in 2013.  Nearly a quarter of applicants now get at least one U offer.

An earlier report by UCAS in 2016 showed that students with U offers had a small but measurable drop in expected performance at A-Level.  No doubt the promised UCAS report later this year will provide further evidence.

Undoubtedly, schools and parents thoroughly dislike the practice because it skews students’ decisions and takes the pressure off students to study hard up to the line to get the best grades possible. As Laura McInerney points out, it also undermines the concept of preparing and qualifying for higher education.

In the context of rising worry about young people’s mental health, universities defend the practice as a way to relieve exam stress.  They point out that the performance of pupils at A-Level is squarely the responsibility of schools, not universities, and some put in place scholarships to incentivise their applicants to deliver on their predicted grades in spite of the U offer. Importantly, they also point to the legally enshrined autonomy of universities to set their own admissions criteria.

Some refer to the practices of an earlier era when two E grades at A-Level was a standard offer for many universities, including for Oxford and Cambridge (albeit when there was an additional Oxbridge entrance exam). But replacing U offers with very low grade offers would send a much worse […]

The Higher Education Policy Institute and the University of Buckingham have worked with YouthSight on a survey of attitudes towards drugs among full-time undergraduate students.

The research shows a majority of students think illegal drugs cause problems for individuals and society – 88% think drug usage causes problems ‘for the mental health of the user’ and 68% think it causes problems ‘for society in terms of contributing to criminality’.

A majority of students want their university to take a tougher stance on ‘students who repeatedly use drugs’ (62%) and on ‘drug dealers’ (also 62%).

Nearly three-quarters (71%) of students have not taken illegal drugs during their time in higher education.

The findings contrast with a report from the National Union of Students (NUS) and Release, published in April 2018, that suggested most students (56%) had taken drugs and nearly two-thirds (62%) ‘showed relaxed attitudes towards student drug use’. The two studies have different methodologies: while the NUS survey was targeted at specific groups (such as ‘Students for Sensible Drug Policy UK channels’), the new survey used YouthSight’s large Student Panel, with the results being weighted to reflect the body of full-time undergraduate students.

Nick Hillman, Director of the Higher Education Policy Institute, said:
This survey provides an important corrective to some of the wilder ideas about today’s students. They are more hardworking and less hedonistic than is often supposed. A majority recognise the dangers of taking illegal substances.

Some people blame universities when they become involved in students’ personal lives. Others blame them for not doing enough. Our survey shows most students support their institutions taking a tougher, rather than a more relaxed, line on the use of illegal substances by fellow students.
Anthony Seldon, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Buckingham, who […]