Universities

The coalition’s university challenge

From our UK edition

The contours of an agreement on how to pay for university education are clearer today after Rachel Sylvester’s interview with David Willetts. Up-front fees look to be on the way out.  Willetts tells Sylvester, ‘It’s very important that it’s signaled very clearly that the money that is paid back comes out of your earnings once you have graduated and are in work.’ It also seems that different courses at different institutions will have different prices. Willetts proclaims that he wants something that ‘links you to your university and the course you did at that university.’   So far, this looks like simply collecting variable fees through the tax system.

Gaining work experience

From our UK edition

Twenty years ago, students typically took low skill "summer jobs" simply to earn money.  Now, most offices and organizations feature youngsters putting in unpaid time for work experience.  It might be a week or two, or even half a year. The practice has its critics.  Union leaders are decidedly edgy about free labour competing for jobs with their members.  There are charges of exploitation and bad treatment.  The caricature has unpaid interns working photocopiers or being sent to collect sandwiches or laundry for management, without gaining any useful hands-on experience.

Cable manoeuvring on the road to nowhere

From our UK edition

Vince Cable has floated a solution to university finance, but he’s also politicking and I wonder what David Willetts, the Higher Education Minister, makes of it. The coalition agreement does not mention a graduate tax. The agreement merely states that the government will wait for the Browne Report into university funding. When in opposition, the Liberal Democrats did not support Browne because he was likely to recommend increasing tuition fees. Cable has pre-empted Browne in partisan spirit. If he can convince the government to adopt a graduate tax, he will have abolished tuition fees, which would do him no end of good with Lib Dem voters. It's typical Cable: eye-catching, pithy and hopeless.

Cable’s aspirations

From our UK edition

"Aspiration" tends to be a convenient word for politicians, in the sense that any policy that they can't implement now can be glossed over as something they want to do in future. But, if Vince Cable's interview with the Times is anything to go by, it could become a troublesome word for the coalition. Speaking about the Lib Dem's election promise to scrap university tuition fees, Cable says that: “It is an aspiration, but we’re highly constrained financially and we have got to try to work out ways of doing it. I’m not Father Christmas.” But nowhere does the coalition agreement say that scrapping tuition fees is an "aspiration".

Cable begs for protection

From our UK edition

Vince Cable is announcing to Metro that "We do not want to make such deep cuts to transport, energy, science research and universities." Really? According to whom? The science budget, which has shot from £1.3bn to an indefensible £3.7bn, is a prime example of a cost that should not be borne by the taxpayer. Scientists are best left to get on with this themselves, and companies are more than capable of funding research. On energy, again, there are many expensive vanity projects just begging for the axe. Given that Cable is in charge of the universities brief - the most important part of his otherwise non-job - you can expect him to want to protect it from cuts. But to lobby openly like this is not something that Theresa May or Liam Fox would do.

Hughes pushes Lib Dems into the mix on tuition fees

From our UK edition

The first Sunday of the World Cup is predictably quiet on the political front. But Simon Hughes’ comments this morning about tuition fees are worth noting. Hughes said “So to me the big task is to make sure the moment that Lord Browne publishes his report in the Autumn the Liberal Democrat case is entered into the mix. That we talk to Vince Cable, who’s the minster and my very good friend and colleague, and David Willetts, and we make sure the government understands that there may well be ways of finding the money universities need, and they need it, without penalising students from disadvantaged background. I think that circle can be squared, it will require imagination and ingenuity.

Closing the gap between state and independent education

From our UK edition

I do hope that Oxford will finally be free from government claims of snobbery soon. We learn today that the proportion of state school pupils it admits has fallen from 55.4 percent to 53.9 percent - but, as the university says, this is in line with the (appallingly low) proportion of state school pupils achieving three As. The problem lies with the schools, not the universities, and it helps no one to pretend otherwise. Here's one figure that you won't read in the ongoing "Oxford snobbery" story: in 1969, only 38 per cent of Oxford's places went to privately-educated children. Why? Because the private schools in those days were not places of educational excellence, but of social preference. The decline of state education, relative to private, is the problem here.

Is Edinburgh University Scotland’s latest disgrace?

From our UK edition

Imagine if Durham University were to decide that for courses heavily over-subscribed with qualified applicants it would reserve a small percentage of places for would-be students hailing from within 50 miles* of the university. Would anyone raise an eyebrow? I doubt it. Yet when Edinburgh University adopts precisely this approach - for some of the humanities and, I suspect, medicine - suddenly there are hysterical cries of "racism" and "xenophobia". Tom Harris MP** [see update]  says this is "shameful" and goes so far as to label the university "an embarrassment to Scotland". What piffle.

Recognising the best

From our UK edition

On Thursday night Michael Gove announced that a Conservative government would pay off the student loans of those with good science degrees from quality universities. The move, paid for by cutting out a level of bureaucracy in teacher development, would help address the shortage of science and maths specialist in state schools. It was a smart piece of policy that even Ed Balls didn’t attack. But the Telegraph reports carping amongst various unions that the scheme does not go far enough. The NUT says that, “It is a real mistake to think that they can designate small number of universities as being better than the others.” This quote sums up so much of what is wrong with the British edcucational establisment.