15 March, 2011
Today Oxford came out as another university set to charge the maximum £9,000 fees.
If the Tory-led government’s actions were, as they claimed, a) “progressive” and b) not going to put poorer people off applying to university, why does Oxford have to spend 10% of its fee income “protecting access” for the disadvantaged?
Surely the government’s progressive loan repayment scheme has that covered?
I’m joking of course. There was nothing in the government shake-up that corresponds with any decent-person’s definition of “progressive.” The fact that a few graduates may pay a little less, or more slowly, doesn’t make it progressive. If I say water is now ten pounds a bottle, it is no defence that a few people, in certain constrained circumstances, might get it for a couple of quid. I’ve still made water a luxury item.
~ o ~
As a comprehensive schoolboy at Oxford, I was active in the “target schools” programme, encouraging those from state schools to apply to Oxbridge. In my experience the problem was not institutional bias against the state sector, but simply getting the state-sector applications in the first place. So I’m all for access. But I’m not sure I’d have been so keen to pay for the encouragement of others to apply. I’d have wanted every cent of my education fees spent on my education, thanks.
The truth about the government’s macho stance on access is that it will probably amount to nothing. Offa has a tiny staff and limited powers. If the government, driven by fears of the cost of financing higher-than-anticipated tuition fee loans, did give real teeth to Offa, it would be accused of social engineering in a cack-handed and unfair way. Above all, students would NOT see £2700 over three years spent on “broadening participation” as good value for their money.
So I think this element of the reforms will fizzle out in time. I suspect that’ll be fine by the government, because it will have served its purpose – namely to muddy up the debate on fees and to dress up dramatic cuts as moral righteousness. This “moral ingredient” strategy is successfully deployed by the government in many other areas. Don’t be fooled. If this government really valued access to higher education… well, it wouldn’t start from here.