Last week the government announced that it’s launching the second instalment of its TEF (Teaching Excellence Framework) rating system, which will rank university courses based on metrics that include quality of teaching, job prospects and potential earnings.
On the face of it, it sounds great. “Prospective students deserve to know which courses deliver great teaching and great outcomes – and which ones are lagging behind,” said universities minister Sam Gyimah in his announcement speech. “It will ensure more students get the value for money they deserve from higher education.” Knowledge is power, and students should be armed with as much of it as possible when facing one of the most important and costly decisions of their lives. Since the increase in fees, student debts are up to £57,000, and since the Conservatives scrapped grants and bursaries, they’ll be highest if you come from a poorer background. I know. That last bit makes no fucking sense.
Inevitably students want a good return on the investment they’re making in their education – and in theory a data-driven rankings system should help. But does it really? Not as I see it. The TEF is a bollocks solution to problems created by a government unwilling to tackle them – indefensibly high fees and chronically underfunded universities. Both issues are part of a highly complex funding system the current government started during the days of the coalition in 2012. By reducing funding and increasing fees, they hoped to encourage universities to deliver the best service at the best price to attract prospective students. However, a competitive market among universities, in which the TEF would be a vital tool, is yet to materialise.
The TEF is a bollocks solution to problems created by a government unwilling to tackle them – indefensibly high fees and chronically underfunded universities.
Instead, we have one of the most expensive HE systems in the world. One in which unis have to make up for lost funding by operating courses that are cheap to run, loaded with consumer-minded students paying top whack. And they’re pissed off. So much so that one student is currently suing Anglia Ruskin, claiming that their fraudulently marketed degree has left her with no job prospects. Higher fees are also having a knock-on effect on grades – it’s no coincidence that since their introduction, the number of first class degrees awarded to students has increased by a massive 44%, seriously undermining their value.
This is just one example of a shift in the public’s perception of education since the monetisation of HE. It is no longer being viewed as a public service, but as a consumable that can be bought and sold like a Nissan Micra. Gimyah actually compared the TEF to MoneySuperMarket, which is, frankly, gross. This isn’t travel insurance or a mortgage (lol, like we could afford one of those). Equally, to judge courses based on metrics like graduate earnings has the potential to undermine certain disciplines (inevitably the arts and humanities) and careers that typically result in lower pay. For instance, nursing and teaching, whose graduates make no less of a contribution to society than their top-earning peers in law and finance.
Despite warnings against it, the Prime Minister is insistent that fees should be charged based on course quality and cost to run. Universities and courses ranking highest in the TEF will be able to increase fees in line with inflation, whilst “cheaper” and low-quality courses will be encouraged or forced to cap fees at lower prices, the former ultimately being associated with the latter. Research shows that prospective students from lower income households are already more likely to be deterred from entering higher education because of debt, and that they are more likely to attend lower-ranking institutions than their more privileged peers. Variable fees risk widening Britain’s class divide even more, further disadvantaging underprivileged students and bringing social mobility to a grinding halt.
Higher education is no longer being viewed as a public service, but as a consumable that can be bought and sold like a Nissan Micra
So, no. Nice try. But before we consider a cost hierarchy for universities and courses, the hierarchies that already exist in class and education need to be tackled. The TEF masquerades as a useful tool for prospective students, but it’s like a sticking plaster for open heart surgery, with the government relinquishing all responsibility for an education system in turmoil.
Until they come up with a better solution to astronomical student debt and a saturated graduate-level job market than a system that uses the same logic as comparethemarket.com, we’re not buying it.
