What post-18 education proposals are on offer?

The eagerly awaited Augar review, due to be published in “early 2019”, will attempt to find answers to some of the most pressing issues surrounding higher education. From increasing graduate debt and tuition fees to a lack of university department funding, the entire university sector has faced continuous calls to undergo major reforms.

Theresa May first commissioned a review of post-18 education in February 2018 and enlisted Philip Augar, a former equities broker, as chair. The review was scheduled to last one year, working to ensure that tertiary education is accessible to students from all backgrounds. Additionally, it aims to improve the present funding situation at universities throughout the UK, while providing “value for money for both students and tax payers” and equipping future graduates with the necessary skills workplace, thereby sustaining a healthy UK economy.

Much debate has been made on the inequality in the present university admissions process, where university course offers are heavily based on predicted grades rather than actual exam performance. This system has been described by many as deeply unfair to students, due to effects of under-or overprediction. In particular, students whose predicted grades were far below their actual exam performance may be deprived of the opportunity to attend prestigious universities, as these may have already filled their course quotas with students who received higher predicted grades. Similarly, many of the 60,000 students were accepted through clearing in the 2018 university admissions cycle will have been forced to use clearing after missing out on their conditional offers. As a result, these students will have had little time to decide on a back-up plan and choose a new university, potentially resulting in ill-informed choices, and unhappiness with their course or university.

Students who do not attain at least three D’s at A-Level may no longer be entitled to a student loan in the years come

The UCAS admissions agency revealed in November 2018 that one-third of 18-year-old university applicants get unconditional offers. To address this inequity, one suggested alternative is making students apply for university courses after receiving their A-Level results. Though it would be an enormous shift from the current system, this idea has received credible support, from the University and Colleges Union (UCU) and Labour’s shadow higher education minister, Gordon Marsden. If enforced, the results from the final exams sat at the end of the academic year would completely shape a university course offer. Currently, actual exam performance and predicted grades are two of the most important factors in determining when an applicant is offered a place on their chosen course.

However, some have argued that this may disproportionately affect first-generation students and those from underrepresented groups in higher education, who may not be able to rely on advice from friends and family.

The Augar review has since been under fire for a number of controversial proposals. For instance, a leaked government document from January 2019 suggested that students who do not attain at least three D’s at A-Level may no longer be entitled to a student loan in the years to come. Universities were quick to condemn this idea, arguing this would disproportionately affect students from poorer background, many of whom are already reliant on a combination of loans, maintenance grants and part-time jobs to fund their degrees. Additionally, they point out that these students already face a number of barriers in access to higher education, which include fewer opportunities throughout secondary school; and, as suggested by date from the Department of Education, lower average grades at GCSE’s and A-levels.

Proponents of a grades-based student loans scheme acknowledge that such a system could have a significant effect on universities; however, they point out that the estimated 20,000 students each year with A-level grades below DDD would be eligible for funding for cheaper vocational courses at higher education colleges. Such constraints on the financial support available to students with lower A-level grades, they argue, may encourage these students to opt for pathways more suited to their individual circumstances, including degree apprenticeships, vocational courses and training programmes. On this particular issue, the University stated: “While it would have almost no impact on Warwick it would have a deeply retrograde impact on a great deal of good work to promote access to higher education in many other universities.”

Additionally, supports of the plans contend that a grades-based student loans scheme may act as a ‘filtering mechanism’ that allows universities to uphold their rigorous academic standard, combat rising university attendance, and preserve the value of a degree. As such, they put forward, the proposal could remedy some of the consequences of Tony Blair’s commitment to ensuring that 50% of young people went to university. The ubiquity of undergraduate studies – according to writer Julia Hartley-Brewer – leaves many students “with a worthless piece of paper and thousands of pounds of debt”, working in jobs that do not require a degree in the first place.

Another component of the Augar review that has been heavily debated is that of a tiered tuition fee system. Tuition fees for arts, humanities and social science degrees may be capped at £6,500 per year, while charges for more expensive subjects such as science, engineering and medicine could be increased to £13,500 per year. This would better compensate universities for the costs of running lab-based courses and could also take into account the future earning potential of graduates. When asked whether reducing some tuition fees at the expenses of others, such as STEM subjects, would be the best way of improve post-18 education, the University replied:

“As a broad spectrum university, teaching a wide range of STEM and non-STEM subjects, we believe that all should be supported to provide the best overall higher education experience for our students, and to encourage the full range of talents needed to enhance every aspect of our region, country and world.”

However, those critical of this particular idea argue that adjusting tuition fees to future earning potential is the wrong approach, and that more should be done to reduce the wide disparity between graduate starting salaries across different sectors. For instance, while the average graduate can expect to earn £21,000, if they have studied a Languages degree at the University of Warwick, they can only expect to earn around £18,000, whereas a Mathematics alumni from Warwick could anticipate £29,000 on average. Therefore, with similarity disparities between disciplines at other universities, opponents of a tiered tuition fee system argue that more should be done to narrow the gulf between the highest and lowest paid graduate roles. However, it should also be considered that some sectors may simply over-inflate graduate staring salaries, as data from High Flyers Research shows that aspiring investment bankers receive an average of £47,000 in the first year of work.

Nonetheless, university representatives have voiced concerns that the proposal could have devastating consequences for the graduate employment market. Specifically, they argue that the proposed changes to the tuition fee system may discourage students from pursuing scientific degrees such as Nursing. In this sector, where job seekers are already scarce, this could lead to severe labor shortages, with adverse effects on the entire UK economy.

An alternative proposal to address the funding crisis in higher education is that of a graduate tax for university students. Under this system, graduates would repay the cost of university tuition in the form of a mark-up on their income tax. As a result, graduates earning higher salaries would pay more tax to compensate for the benefits they have obtained from a university education, while those on meagre salaries would not be left thousands of pounds in debt. Whatever emerges from the Augar review, it is clear that while UK universities do have the potential to be among the best in the world, serious reform must come first.