Esmond Birnie: Vice-chancellors' call for relentless expansion of UK student numbers deserves scrutiny

At the end of September, Universities UK, representing most of the vice-chancellors of UK universities, got in its pitch for a bold expansion in UK student numbers alongside increased charges on taxpayers and households.

Their report, Opportunity, Growth and Partnership, is a weighty document. It has significant political endorsement in the shape of chapters written by two former cabinet ministers - Lords Peter Mandelson and David Willetts. For all that, not all the claims for extra resources are necessarily wisely based.

The document from Universities UK is largely about England. That said, some of the content of the document and indeed the evaluation of that document is relevant to Northern Ireland.

Universities UK argues the UK university sector has become financially fragile. That is certainly true. About two-fifths of universities in England are running at a deficit and a few may be on the brink of collapse.

The amount students pay for each year of teaching, the tuition fee, is £9,250 but that figure has been frozen since 2017. (Tuition fees are usually financed up-front by a loan repaid once in employment).

English universities have not been compensated for impact of inflation since 2017. It should be noted that the NI Assembly has limited tuition fees in Northern Ireland to about half the English level.

Universities were able to use growing numbers of international students as a substitute source of funding. International students pay even higher fees but balance sheets suffered once numbers coming from China declined (geopolitical factors) and then government immigration rules discouraged students from India and Africa.

Universities UK therefore argue that tuition fees in England be uncapped and allowed to rise to partly compensate for recent inflation. This suggestion will not be popular but it has a logic.

The vice-chancellors further argue for increases in the grant aid from government to the sector alongside growth in student numbers. In short, big demands on the taxpayer at a time when public spending is already constrained. As we have just come through one boom and bust cycle in higher education do we really want to ignite a new one?

Currently just under 50% of English school leavers go to university. The document envisages reaching 70% (some students would go through further education). It is argued that the UK economy will fall behind if it does not massively expand higher education.

In fact, according to the document, the percentage of 25-64 year olds who have a degree in the UK is the fourth highest of any OECD (rich economies) countries - only Canada, Irish Republic and South Korea are higher. The OECD data implies the UK’s relative skill weakness may be more in the area of “intermediate/technician” type skills. The same applies to Northern Ireland.

The document’s final chapter does note that we need to improve data and statistics regarding university activity and performance. Hear, hear to that but this document does not deal with some rather important considerations.

What about so-called “grade inflation”? How do we explain the fact that the proportion of students gaining first class degrees in either Northern Ireland or GB is so much higher today than 20-30 years ago? Is this a genuine improvement or something rather artificial?

To what extent have UK universities moved away from traditional assessment methods such as the old three-hour exam? In a world of pervasive Artificial Intelligence can we have confidence in the integrity of coursework completed at home under open book conditions?

Similarly, there is little or no mention in the vice-chancellors’ document of the extent to which graduate underemployment occurs. There is plenty of research produced from various UK university departments which suggests this is an issue.

Rather optimistically, the vice-chancellors’ document implies the so-called “graduate premium”, the extent to which graduates earn more than non-graduates, has remained constant even as the supply of graduates has increased. Other research suggests otherwise.

The Opportunity, Growth and Partnership document also discusses the role of the Office for Students (OfS) as the regulator of the sector. The OfS has various roles: trying to counter cancel culture in the universities ensuring academics and students can enjoy free speech, and upholding the quality of teaching that students receive.

The vice-chancellors’ document implies they find the activities of the OfS rather irksome. Over-regulation is a possibility but there may be a danger here of a sector which would like to have its cake and eat it in the shape of a lot of taxpayer support but not so much responsibility back to the taxpayer and government. In any case, and this may be significant, OfS does not operate here in Northern Ireland so for us the ultimate lines of governance and responsibility become less clear.

In summary, universities do make an immense contribution to UK life whether it be culturally or economically. Nevertheless, as someone who works in this sector I worry that we have lost sight of the core mission to pursue truth through the open debate of evidence-based ideas.

This document represents a big ask in terms of extra resources. There is a case for more resources but it would carry more credibility if universities made better use of the resources they already had.

​

l Esmond Birnie is a senior economist at Ulster University and also a member of the NI Fiscal Council but writing here in a personal capacity