Review confirms drastic cuts to higher education

Universities in the UK will be hit by drastic funding cuts of 40 percent and enormous hikes in tuition fees as part of the government’s Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) released last week.

The announcements, which were made last Wednesday by the Chancellor George Osbourne, include a budget cut for higher education (excluding research funding) from £7.1 billion to £4.2 billion by 2014-15, a forty percent cut.

The review also plans to reform higher education (HE) in line with the Browne Review, which includes recommendations for scrapping government funding for ‘non-priority’ subjects and encourages a free market in higher education, even going so far as to recommend that more universities become private.

The government is expected to bring forward legislation as soon as possible and publish a White Paper report on this during the winter.

Despite cuts throughout HE, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has frozen the teaching budget for science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) subjects. The budget for scientific research will also be maintained in order to ensure the UK remains a world leader in this area, reaching £4.6 billion per year by 2014-15.

Aaron Porter, President of the NUS (National Union of Students), said: “This is a devastating blow to higher education that puts the future of universities at risk. Government ministers keep telling us that the deficit must be reduced to avoid passing a poisoned legacy to the next generation, but now they are proposing to eliminate almost all funding for university education whilst simultaneously transferring the debt onto students.”

Sean Ruston, Warwick SU’s Education Officer said: “The cuts to the teaching budget have not yet been announced, but we do know that funding for the social sciences, arts and humanities subjects will be cut, which will translate into 70-80 percent cuts overall. There is a massive risk with Warwick’s large population of arts and humanities students that we will get hit hard.”

Director General Dr Wendy Piatt of the Russell Group (of which Warwick is a member) said: “If the UK’s world-class universities are to perform their vital role in economic recovery, the government must allow universities to ask for higher graduate contributions as recommended by Lord Browne… there is no conceivable ‘Plan B’. Without a system of higher graduate contributions, we will almost certainly be relegated from the premiership of higher education.”

The University has been cautious in its response to the review. Vice Chancellor Professor Nigel Thrift stated: “We now await more detail on how any cuts and organisational changes following from the CSR will be implemented. [We] will carefully consider the implications of these changes and challenges and what we need to do to meet those challenges.” The University refused to comment on their plans until further details are announced.

Politics and international studies lecturer Ben Rosamond feels that Warwick and select other universities will not suffer as a consequence of Browne and the CSR. “The Browne review was published knowing that the CSR would do what it has done. The proposals on tuition fees are intended to fill the gap which the CSR will leave.”

The reaction to the CSR on campus has been mainly negative. Some arts and humanities students were appalled by the government’s prioritisation of STEM subjects.

“It’s dangerous”, said Sacha, a final year history student. “By stating that these are the only important subjects, people will only want to go and study sciences and maths and it will lead to ignorance.”

She was also concerned about the rise in tuition fees. “They [the politicians] went to university for nothing; I’ve taken out a £21,000 loan for six hours contact time per week.”

The CSR also proposes to help those from disadvantaged backgrounds by establishing a new £150 million National Scholarship fund to help those on low incomes, but Emma, a second year history student, felt that it will not be enough.

“It will only create a hierarchy by marginalising the poor,” she said. “The huge debt along with the cut to unemployment benefits will deter the poorer kids from taking the risk”.

On the other hand, one first year engineering student thinks that the continued funding for STEM is necessary. “I think science has a more direct use in society. I can see why the government do need to make these cuts.”

Until the full extent of the nature of the cuts is known, the outcome for universities is uncertain. The early opinion voiced by the NUS, however, is that “this is a spending review that looks an entire generation in the eye and says ‘you’re on your own.’”