An incompetence that is costing young people dearly

In his recent article for the Guardian, David Willetts’ claim that the tuition fee rise was actually a good deal for students because of the ‘hidden discounts’ of bursaries and fee waivers was a poor attempt at distracting critics from the [ultimate failure of the policy](http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/18/david-willetts-tuition-fees-universities-students).

But what caught my eye was his use of Warwick as an example, Willetts states “Warwick University’s proposal to the Office for Fair Access (Offa) is to charge £9,000 a year to its students, but for those coming from families earning less than £25,000, fee waivers and bursaries will be available, each worth up to a total of £4,500.” implying that students could receive either a fee waiver of £4,500 or a bursary of £4,500. In reality the total support available could add up to £4,500, but only some of this will be a fee waiver.

Such a disingenuous statement is typical of Willetts. Bursaries do not affect the price of a course and are aimed at helping students with living costs not reducing student debt – it is misleading to describe them as a ‘discount’. Willetts long claimed that teenagers would not be put off by fees of £9000, but buying into the rhetoric of ‘discounts’ it’s clear that the government is actually assuming that they will.

Willetts’ vision, which he reiterates in the article, was a market in tuition fees which would empower students to choose a university according to the quality of the education it provides– ensuring that according to the laws of supply and demand, institutions would be forced to improve their quality in order to charge more in fees.

But as nearly three quarters of the Universities that have declared their fees opt for the highest rate, it’s clear that this policy has completely failed. Demand for university places remain much higher than supply (over [200,000 applicants missed out](http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/oct/21/200000-miss-out-on-university) on a university place last year) so the majority of Universities will not be forced to bend to the will of students, but rather will use extra fee income to replace the huge cut in the teaching grant that Willetts boasts about.

What is most outrageous though is the way in which Willetts et al have sought to blame others
for their own mistakes. In February he accused universities of ‘rushing to £9,000 [without thinking about the impact on students](http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=415299)’ while his colleague Vince Cable labelled the sector ‘[irrational](http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=415815)’ for collectively going to the top rate.

However, put simply the failure of this policy is not down to Universities’ greed but ministerial incompetence and it will be the poorest university students who will end up suffering the most.

A average fee level across the sector much higher than the government predicted will leave a gaping hole in budget of the department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) who fit the bill for student loans, a hole which Cable has threatened to fill [by cutting University places](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-13128288).

The reason for this mess? Ministers mistakenly thought that the Office for Fair Access (OFFA) had the [powers to impose particular fee levels](http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=415292) on institutions.

This inexcusable mistake may mean that the chance of a place at University is snatched away for
thousands of young people. With funding concentrated at the most prestigious Universities with the most socially advantaged intake, it will not be Willetts’ children that lose out – but rather students at institutions like London Met which [last week cut two thirds of its courses](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-13098705).

The effect of a cut in student places would be absolutely disastrous at a time of extremely high
youth unemployment, helping to create a generation who will miss out on the opportunities that
should be available them and causing further damage to social mobility.

But Willets claims Universities will ‘remain well funded’, so perhaps this is his policy’s saving grace?

{{ quote Perhaps it’s time David Willetts took responsibility for this failure, instead of letting young people feel the pain}}

In reality most Universities have to charge more than £7000 just to break even after an 80% cut to the teaching grant. Universities are facing [a cut of up to 12%](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-12762556) this year with the newer institutions that concentrate most on teaching and have the most number of [students from disadvantaged backgrounds losing out the most](http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=415728). So, contrary to Willetts simplistic claim that he has put the sector on firm foundations, he has in fact instigated ‘a survival of the fittest’ environment where the institutions that fit best with two of his supposed priorities – widening access and teaching – will be faced with the [deepest cuts](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-13087147).

The injustice of thousands of young people suffering due to the incompetence of David ‘two brains’ Willetts would be shocking if we hadn’t already seen a raft of policies that will do great damage to young people’s life chances. At the same time as pontificating about social mobility the Coalition have scraped EMA and the future jobs fund, and dismantled Aim higher – all schemes that attempted to help young people overcome the obstacles that Cameron and Clegg never had to face.

Perhaps it’s time David Willetts took responsibility for this failure, instead of letting young people feel the pain.