1 / 11

Summer Debate ‘The lifting of the student number cap’ 25 th June 2014 Sue Betts Director

Summer Debate ‘The lifting of the student number cap’ 25 th June 2014 Sue Betts Director. Linking London . What do we know so far … Experiment with no cap on high achieving students 2 years of some additional no's 14 – 15 an extra 30,000 no's will be made available

burt
Download Presentation

Summer Debate ‘The lifting of the student number cap’ 25 th June 2014 Sue Betts Director

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Summer Debate ‘The lifting of the student number cap’ 25th June 2014 Sue Betts Director

  2. Linking London • What do we know so far … • Experiment with no cap on high achieving students • 2 years of some additional no's • 14 – 15 an extra 30,000 no's will be made available • 15 – 16 the cap on student no's will be removed

  3. According to Hefce: ‘HE in England is undergoing significant change’ – some recruitment trends • In the past three years 2010 – 14: 19 universities and 46 colleges have increased UG recruitment by more than 10% • Meanwhile 28 universities and 17 colleges have strunk by 10% • At independent providers in 12 – 13 there were 25,000 UG who could access public backed student support • By 2013 – 14 this had risen to 60,000, ‘mainly enrolled’ on sub-degree level HNDs and HNCs*

  4. Recruitment trend continued … • 2013 – 14 saw a strong recovery in no's entering FT UG courses – 27,000 more students than in 12 – 13 an increase of 8% = 378,000 students • Impact in subject areas variable (modern languages fell by 22% between 10 – 11 and 12 – 13 = 1,200 students) • High achieving A level students tend to progress irrespective of subject studied • Students with lower grades more likely to progress if they have studied ‘facilitating subjects’ * • No. of students on UG courses other than 1st degrees in significant decline (this group make up 60% of the dip in no's of entrants to FT UG courses in 12 – 13)

  5. Recruitment trend continued … • Young people from disadvantaged 9% more likely to be accepted for entry in 13 as were in 12. ‘Fee regime appears not to have had a negative impact on widening participation for young entrants’ • Expansion where students have high average (entry) tariff scores or to specialist institutions. Decline in entrants with low or medium average tariff scores * Recruitment of high tariff students not subject to SNC for two years

  6. Recruitment trends continued … • Between 2010 – 11 and 13 – 14 part-time UG fell by 46% this equates to 93,000 students (91% of decline in non first degrees) • There were 23,000 fewer PT PG entrants in 12 -13 cfed to 10 -11. Of these 84% 18,600 were studying education and related subjects • 12 -13 just 14,000 FT entrants to UG courses other than first degrees in HEIs cfed with 25,000 in FECs. • 18,000 students accessing student support from England and the EU were enrolled on HND courses at alternative providers in 12 – 13. • ‘Higher education in England 2014: Analysis of latest shifts and trends’. (HEFCE 2014/08).

  7. What do we know? • Story so far of the additional nos granted last year was that HE recruited better than FE but neither recruited 100% of the nos given. • Dec 2013 the Chancellor announced that the cap on student numbers would be removed. • HM Treasury estimates there will be an additional 60,000 entrants into HE for 15 – 16. • From 11 – 12 to 14 – 15 the total Student Loan Council funding for students at alternative providers is projected to increase nine-fold (14 – 15 Govt expects to provide 900m in student support to alternative providers) • Is all of this to be welcomed? Who is going to pay? Selling of the loan book etc

  8. Are there any lessons from elsewhere? • In 8 – 14th May edition of the THEBahranBekhradnia president of HEPI advised ‘Be careful what you wish for’. • In an ideal world, he argued, there would be no cap. • Cap is there for a reason – every student costs the govt money and under the new system more than was thought – so where is the money to come from? • Why would the hard headed Treasury agree? Bahran argues you have to see this as an issue to do with ideology – a final and desperate attempt to create a market in HE – ‘drive down prices and increase quality’ – an experiment • Ireland and Australia both allow uncapped recruitment, while Germany experimented with fees and we know about the USA

  9. Any lessons from elsewhere? • In Ireland there has been a 25% worsening of the student to staff ratio in the past 5 – 6 years • The lesson provided by Australian experience is that ‘demand led’ system works well if the govt is willing to provide an open cheque book – however, two researchers appointed by the govt to review the scheme believe it hasn’t gone far enough* • We have been here before 1990s there was a brief period of uncapped numbers and it was abandoned after 2 – 3 years when per capita funding collapsed by 30% • Who might gain? According to Bahran the ‘cash hungry universities’ and those ‘careless of quality’. This is why he argues HEFCE in the 90s put in place a minimum level of funding spend on each student. • Who might lose? Students who might have a worse experience, and the country which will have to pay more.

  10. Thank you for listening • Sue Betts - s.betts@linkinglondon.ac.uk

More Related