House of Commons - Education and Skills

Select Committee on Education and Skills Fifth Report

Formal minutes

Monday 23 June 2003

Members present:

Mr Barry Sheerman, in the Chair

Mr David Chaytor	Mr Robert Jackson
Valerie Davey	Ms Meg Munn
Jeff Ennis	Mr Kerry Pollard
Paul Holmes	Jonathan Shaw

The Committee deliberated.

Draft Report (The Future of Higher Education), proposed by the Chairman, brought up and read.

Ordered, That the Chairman's draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.

Paragraphs 1 to 141 read and agreed to.

Paragraphs 142 to 211 read.

Motion made, to leave out paragraphs 142 to 211 and insert the following new paragraphs:

"142. The White Paper recognises that there is a current imbalance in applications to university from different backgrounds.

"The social class gap among those entering higher education is unacceptably wide. Those from the top three social classes are almost three times as likely to enter higher education as those from the bottom three. Figure 2…is even more disturbing because it shows the gap has widened. At the extremes the picture is worse. Young people from professional backgrounds are over five times more likely to enter higher education than those from unskilled backgrounds."[263]

143. Key points of the Government's proposals are:

? The introduction of differential top up fees will see the poorest students paying for their university tuition for the first time.

? Students will be expected to begin repayments on their student loans when they earn £15,000. These repayments commence at a salary level well below average, and leaves students paying a very high rate of marginal tax.

? The reintroduction of grants at a maximum of £1000, is at £20 per week, less than the £30 per week "Education Maintenance Allowance" that eligible sixth form students receive.

? Students could emerge with debts of up to £21,000 as a result of top up fees.

? Endowments are promoted by the white paper as a major source of income for universities in the future.

University Funding

144. The key issue in relation to university funding is clearly the proposal to allow universities to charge their students differential fees ranging from nothing to £3,000. The White Paper also promotes university endowment funds as a major source of funding in the future, but acknowledges that even the best endowed universities do not have anything like the resources of universities in the United States. Furthermore, contributions of this kind make universities more vulnerable to economic turbulence, as can be seen from the significant decrease in private contributions to universities in the United States following the recent economic downturn.

"British Universities have much smaller endowments than their global competitors. Harvard has about $18 billion, Yale $11 billion and Princeton $8 billion. In contrast, Oxford has about £2 billion."[264]

Professor Arthur Lucas of King's College London explained the position for his institution:

"People have mentioned endowments, but it takes a long time to build up that sort of pool and I welcome the recognition of endowment and support of endowment in the White Paper, but it is not going to be a simple, easy and fast solution".[265]

145. Goldsmiths echoed that conclusion, saying that successful endowments would require a cultural shift in charitable giving, and that "this is a very long term aspiration, if indeed it is achievable at all".[266]

Differential Fees

146. A number of those we spoke to were very strongly opposed to students or graduates paying towards the cost of their higher education, Mandy Telford, President of the NUS told use "we think that differential fees are wrong and they will create a two tier, elitist higher education system".[267] Sally Hunt of the AUT said that in a survey undertaken by the union, 88% said that they would prefer higher education to be funded by general taxation:

"They do not believe that it is reasonable to have differential fees because they believe that that will impact on their ability to make the choices and help people on the basis of their academic ability rather than their ability to pay".[268]

NAFTHE said that its members had similar views, being

"overwhelmingly opposed to the introduction of top up fees…. Top up fees destroy funding equality and thus the genuine equality of opportunity."[269]

147. The Secretary of State sought to put the amount to be charged into perspective:

"At the moment, of the approximate £7.5 billion that is provided to universities, £400 million is fee and the rest is State; it is a 1:14 ratio and I do not think that is particularly unreasonable. We will slightly change that ratio by the proposals we are talking about."[270]

148. Liberal Democrat Education spokesman Phil Willis MP in his evidence proposed an alternative means of funding Higher Education, which did not place the greatest burden on graduates at a time when he judged they were least able to afford it:

"…we feel that, in terms of funding of higher education, the principle should be you do it through progressive taxation and you do that because it means that those who have the greatest ability to contribute do so, rather than when they are students who are in that crucial period between leaving university and the next ten years when they are taking on a job, taking on a mortgage payments, perhaps getting married or having a partnership and children where expenses are very tight indeed, which is when they are going to be hammered most".[271]

"Higher education is an entitlement to all students who achieve the necessary standards for access; we believe in principle that tuition should be free at the point of delivery and paid for by the State."[272]

The £3000 cap

149. Will this level of fee create a differentiated market? Will the amount charged across universities be enough so that students from poorer backgrounds will be able to choose more affordable options in terms of their choice of university? Evidence given to us suggests that it is expected that most universities will choose the maximum amount, resulting in an across the board increases in tuition fees. Dr Knight of UCE said he thought the £3,000 figure had been chosen deliberately so that fees would not be differentiated:

"I assume that every university will want to keep its options open, and will plan on the basis that they are going to charge £3,000 because if we do not and the grant is subsequently cut, as we expect it to be from 2006 onwards to take account of the increased fee, then you are in an absolutely no win situation if you have not planned the £3,000 fee".[273]

150. Professor Eileen Baker of Grosseteste College, Lincoln indicated that there would be pressure to conform with other institutions.

"This college is not anxious to charge the full £3,000 fee, but if others do, we will (to avoid relegation to a cheap and cheerful brigade) be expected to plough some of the new income into our bursary scheme designed to encourage those who would otherwise hesitate to take on the financial commitment of studentship".[274]

151. The Secretary of State said on the duration of the cap said that it would be useful to have some flexibility, perhaps by having the figure set in secondary rather than primary legislation.

Different Fees for Different Courses

152. The White Paper raises the issue of differential fees between courses as well as between universities, because "it is absolutely clear that students get different returns from different courses".[275]

153. Sally Hunt from the AUT told us that her members were "absolutely horrified by the idea that an internal market may well develop in terms of some departments, some courses".[276]

154. Professor Eastwood of UEA also expressed concerns about within institution variations:

"I think there are very real difficulties in differentiating the charge within institutions…I think there are real problems, for example, in charging more to read English than to read Chemistry. You turn students into consumers who inhabit rooms adjacent to one another in the same institution and wonder why one is cross subsidising the other."[277]

155. Phil Willis MP also expressed concerns that average premiums for institutions and subjects within those institutions covered a vast spectrum of salaries. Ultimately the graduate premium depended on choices of employment taken up by graduates, rather than the university they graduated from.

"Students who studied a range of arts and social sciences at university, including the Russell Group, did not achieve the sorts of graduate premiums, and even had a less or equal premium to students who left with Level 3 qualifications, so I think we have to be very careful about applying across a whole group of students whether from a particular type of university or, indeed, from universities generally that there is an average premium which can be applied to the norm because clearly it does not. The other groups you have to look at....is people working within the public sector, particularly within the Health Services, where now if you look, for instance, at the group of people who are the laboratory technicians who are doing cervical smears and things of that nature within our hospital service, often are graduates but often are getting derisory low pay so I think we have to be careful about applying those premiums. My argument is, and I think most people accept this, that the more graduates you have, the less you can have as a premium."[278]

156. Baroness Sharp of Guildford, the Liberal Democrat Education Spokesperson in the Lords pointed out the difference between the average and the marginal in these instances:

"there are some graduates such as those from the LSE who go into the city who get an enormous premium, and others at the margin who get almost no premium, or even a negative premium on what they do".[279]

Student Support

157. The Secretary of State made it clear in evidence that, so far as the Government is concerned, there is no prospect of a return to a system whereby all fees are paid for in full from public funds. If, therefore, students are to be charged more for their courses the support they are given to cope with the need to repay fees and maintenance loans becomes an even more critical issue than is the case now, particularly given the Government's commitment to increase participation in higher education from under-represented groups.

158. The move to require payment of fees after completion of a course, rather than during the course has the effect of increasing the level of debt that is paid at the end of the course. The Government has responded to this by increasing the threshold on repayment of student loans from £10,000 to £15,000 with effect from 2005, "to make payments less burdensome for every graduate".[280] The main comment that has been received on this is that the level is still too low and that the threshold should be set to a level which indicates that a graduate is benefiting from having participated in higher education. As Mandy Telford of the NUS said:

"We would like to see student loans being repaid at £25,000 and we also believe that if you are lucky enough to go on and get a job where you earn a lot, and not everybody does.…then you will be paying more through the tax system, and we believe that is the fairer way".[281]

159. It can be argued that the fairest way to recoup money from those students who benefit most was not by charging all graduates a high rate of marginal tax, but by taxing them later in life. Their argument is that if, as the Government claims, graduates have a significant earnings premium, and if the Government's target of 50% participation is reached, then the simplest and fairest way for these graduates to contribute to the cost of their University education is through progressive taxation. Commenting on the Government's proposals to raise the threshold to £15,000, Baroness Sharp said:

"..it is rather tough on the young graduates who are at the lower end of the earning bracket to be charged with what is a very high marginal rate of tax with the repayment system, the 9% marginal rate of extra income tax on those earning £15,000 plus. It is quite tough; you want to catch them when they are earning rather more. There is also the question of why those of us who benefited from a very much more generous regime of free tuition and grants for residential accommodation should pay nothing at all."[282]

Maintenance Grants

160. The Government has also announced its intention to re-introduce maintenance grants. The White Paper says:

"We have listened to those who say that those from the poorest backgrounds need additional incentives and financial help to continue in full-time education. So students with parents on the lowest incomes starting full time higher education courses will be eligible for a new Higher Education Grant of up to £1,00 a year."[283]

161. In evidence, the Secretary of State said:

"The reason why we went down the course of the £1,000 grants, is that if you have no access to any other resource at all, if you are from a particularly poor background or even because your parents refuse to support you in any way, then you actually have great difficulty surviving at university on the current level of maintenance loan".[284]

162. The general view of our witnesses was that the amount was too low to have any significant impact on students or potential students worried about their level of debt. Professor Trainor, for example, told us:

"I think it is a good thing that a single maintenance grant is being brought in—in place of this very confusing patchwork of hardship funds that we have had over the last five or six years in particular. But I think that the amount of this maintenance grant is very low…. and the levels of income below which the individual family must fall are pretty modest. So I do not think it is going to make a huge difference."[285]

Sir Howard Newby agreed with this view, saying, "I think £1,000 per year for maintenance is frankly too low and I hope the Government will in time, when resources become available, have another look at that."

163. The Liberal Democrat Education Spokespersons presented a case for raising the grant to £2,000 per year for the poorest student. This was costed at an additional £300 million to the Government's existing proposal, to be funded from a 50% rate on incomes over £100,000.[286]

Education Maintenance Allowance

164. Another slightly different point was that the grant should have been linked with the EMA to provide continuity for those students from non-traditional backgrounds. NATFHE told us that:

"It is particularly disappointing that the grant levels are not linked, in amount and thresholds for payment, with the £1,500 Education Maintenance Allowance so that—if set at a realistic level—this would provide seamless transition in support terms from FE to HE".[287]

Professor Claire Callender of South Bank University argued along the same lines:

"The White Paper missed the opportunity of linking the receipt of the new student grants more directly with existing means-tested Educational Maintenance Allowances (EMAs) for 16-19 year olds, which are to be rolled out in 2004.

It would have been helpful if young people in receipt of the full EMA could have been guaranteed receipt of the full HE grant. This would have helped a seamless transition in funding for school leavers and FE college students into HE, and aided the simplification of student funding across these sectors."[288]

165. The Secretary of State responded by saying "I do not actually accept the argument that because this is the State support that you received at the age of 16, it should necessarily be the State support that you receive at the age of 20, but I do accept the argument…that it must be a coherent system and one which incentivises rather than disincentivises".[289]

Eligibility for Maintenance Grant

166. There has been some confusion about precisely who will be eligible to receive the full £1,000 grant. The White Paper says that students from families where income is £10,000 or less will receive the full £1,000, and those whose family income is up to £20,000 will receive some grant. These limits appeared to suggest that a very small proportion indeed of the student population would be eligible for the £1,000 grant; figures from the Family Resources Survey 2001-02 indicate that only 7% of families with one or more dependent children between 16 and 18 have total income of £10,000 or less.[290]

167. When we saw Margaret Hodge, she told us that it was the Government's intention that the full £1,000 grant would be available to "30% of the cohort".[291] In a letter sent after that meeting, she told us that since the launch of the White Paper in January, "We…have received more up-to-date data which indicated that within the 30% of students to be supported, we may be able to afford to raise the threshold for the full grant higher than the proposed £10,000", and that a further statement would be made once the data had been checked. When we met the Secretary of State he acknowledged that the £10,000 figure had been arrived at in error, and also told us that he was not yet in a position to say what the income limit would be. He declined to offer an estimate, on the grounds that "having made the mistake before, I am rather loath to set another hare running".[292] The income limit for eligibility for the full grant has not yet been made public.

Assistance With Payment of Tuition Fees

168. With the present standard £1,100 fee, the Government has a scheme to assist students from poorer families:

"Under the current system the Government spends over £400 million on paying the fees of those whose parents are least able to afford the standard £1,100 fee. This sum pays the fee in full for those whose parents are on incomes up to £20,000. For those between £20,000 and £30,000, it covers part of the cost of the fee. The Government will continue this spending on student support when the new contribution arrangements come into effect in 2006. This will reduce any contribution that students have to pay by up to £1,100 [uprated for inflation]."[293]

170. The question we put to Margaret Hodge was: should not the Government increase its support for students from poorer families so they are not disadvantaged when differential fees are brought in? In other words, should not the Government be willing to pay the maximum amount that a student may be charged under the new regime, in order to make the new scheme equivalent to the existing one? Her answer was that it was not necessary for the Government to pay fees up to £3,000 "because not everyone will be charging the variable fees". By the time we spoke to the Secretary of State, however, and put the same question to him, the view had changed. He told us:

"I think there is a good case for that, and that is why I have indicated that it is something we are prepared to look at".[294]

Student Debt

171.When the Committee considered this issue for its report last year, there was some argument that despite the Rees and Cubie reports, the evidence pointing to the deterrent effect of debt on participation in higher education relied too much on anecdote. However later that year the Public Accounts Committee investigating the same issue concluded that "The current system of financial support for students is too complicated, particularly in respect of the wide range of discretionary funds that might be available. This complexity and the fear of debt are barriers to increasing participation."[295] Since then, further concrete evidence such as that outlined below has been made available.

172.We asked a number of witnesses about levels of student debt. A significant number of Vice-Chancellors and principals expressed concerns that many students were already forced to take on significant levels of part time work to fund their studies. The introduction of higher levels of fees led to concerns that it would make matters worse.

Professor Michael Brown, from Liverpool John Moores University said:

"It should be stressed that the levels of part time work being undertaken by students because they need to work in order to pursue their studies is substantial. Our own internal surveys have shown a significant number of students are working more than 30 hours a week for relatively low levels of pay to allow them to continue their studies."[296]

Professor McKenna from the University of Ulster shared this view:

"…the White Paper has failed to find any remedy to the situation in which many thousands of students have to work 30 hours a week to fund their education yet are still deemed full time students. It is a recipe for second class citizenship, inside and outside higher education."[297]

173. The key concern however, was that the proposals contained in the White Paper would continue to deter students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Cardiff University told us:

"..the very students the Government wants universities to increase are those with the highest debt aversion, and therefore the least amenable to the rational economic argument used by the Government. The prosopect of increasing debt is likely to be a serious disincentive to poorer students, despite repayments depending on income."[298]

Goldsmiths, University of London:

"…we are gravely concerned at the debt burden which the proposed fee arrangement will impose on many students, and at the likely disincentive to lower income potential recruits of precisely the kind universities need to attract".[299]

Written evidence from the LSE linked both these concerns—of debt aversion and the need to work, describing them as a "double disadvantage" for poorer students:

"The proposal about loans, although ensuring that tuition is free at the point of entry, and sufficient to cover accommodation costs, falls well short of meeting living expenses for UK graduates. This may put students from poor backgrounds at a double disadvantage; they may be deterred by long term debt, and they would be more likely to need to take up work during term time, thus harming their studies."[300]

174. Phil Willis MP pointed to recently published evidence, which supported these concerns, and commented that there is "…compelling evidence that debt aversion is one of the principal reasons that students from lower socio-economic groups do not go into higher education".

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation's report Socio-Economic Disadvantage and Experience in Higher Education concluded that "Students from disadvantaged backgrounds were more likely to prematurely reduce their levels of participation within higher education, by dropping out of courses, or by forgoing the opportunity to progress to more advanced courses". Factors identified to lie behind this difficulty were:

"A fear of debt, which could exert a much greater deterrent effect on disadvantaged students' continued participation than could actual debt, especially when this fear was coupled with a lack of confidence, about both their chances of academic success, and their chances of finding a job at the end of it all to pay off this debt".[301]

Professor Claire Callendar at the South Bank University, in her report Attitudes to Debt came to very similar conclusions:

"Debt aversion deterred entry into HE and had the greatest impact on the participation of the very groups the Government most wants to attract into HE. Student funding policies, predicated on the accumulation of debt, will deter HE entry among those with no other financial resource to call upon to fund their higher education. So the Government's widening participation policies are being undermined by their student funding policies."[302]

The Unite Student Living Survey 2003, conducted by MORI found that 28% of students who dropped out, or considered dropping out, cited financial problems as the cause.[303] 37% of those students interviewed said that top up fees would have either probably or definitely have made them choose a university that didn't charge them.[304]

The Interest Rate Subsidy for Student Loans

175. We also looked at whether the money the Government spends on subsidising the interest rate at which student loans are repaid might be better used in other ways. Professor Barr, the leading critic of the current policy, which provides interest-free loans in real terms, has calculated that the current cost is £800 million a year, and that it will rise to £1.2 billion when the system of differential fees is fully operational.[305] Margaret Hodge defended the policy :

"By having a zero real interest rate policy we are actually supporting…those who will tend to come out as graduates on lower incomes, women who will have career breaks and others who will perhaps work in the voluntary sector or elsewhere where over their life time their earnings will be lower than if they go into the City. I think having a real zero real interest rate policy is a progressive policy and charging graduates real interest on their loans would have been a regressive option."[306]

The Department pursued a similar argument in its reply to our report of last session on student support.[307]

176. The NUS was also against the removal of the subsidy. Mandy Telford told us:

"the NUS does not support raising the interest rate on loans because it would mean that those who are the poorest graduates will pay the most for the rest of their lives. The richest graduates will pay it off quickly and the poorest will be paying it off forever and, therefore, accruing lots of interest."[308]

177. Professor Barr strongly contested this argument:

"The Department argues that 'those who benefit most...are those who earn the least' (para. 30). Separately, it argues that targeted interventions '... only have the effect of channelling the subsidy back to those people—ie on lower earnings—who are the principal beneficiaries of the subsidy at the moment' (para. 31). Both arguments are —quite simply—wrong: they ignore the much larger total benefit for the great bulk of graduates who repay their loans in full. The same resources would do much more to help the poor if spent in ways…that do not leak out to the latter group."[309]

He suggested that, amongst other things, the money could be spent on larger maintenance grants; raising the income threshold for eligibility for grants; offering a super grant covering all costs to some students in their first year; increasing the full maintenance loan, abolishing the income test for the loan, and re-introducing debt forgiveness.[310]

Conclusions and Recommendations

University Funding

178.The conclusions of the Dearing Report were that "the costs of Higher Education should be shared among those who benefit from it", with the individual, the State and employers all as key beneficiaries. The principle is correct, and should be supported, but what needs to be addressed is how individuals who benefit the most financially from a university education can make an appropriate contribution, as clearly there are some graduate occupations where the benefit is not always financial.

179.Allowing institutions to charge up to £3,000 per year in differential fees will bring in a maximum of £1.8 billion a year to the sector, if all institutions charge the maximum top up rate. This will only be a significant source of additional income if public expenditure is sustained at its existing levels. There are legitimate concerns that central government funding of higher education will be cut accordingly, as revenue from top up fees increases, as was the case in England and Wales since the introduction of tuition fees in 1997 and as has happened in Australia.

Top up and tuition fees

180. The introduction of tuition fees has seen average student debt rocket, and has resulted in many students having to work part time to fund their education. This has a disproportionately negative impact on those students from disadvantaged backgrounds—those that the Government is specifically supposed to be targeting. The introduction of top up fees in addition to tuition fees means that student debts will increase further still, and for the first time even the poorest students are expected to contribute towards their education. All the evidence suggest that this policy will continue to widen the social gap that already exists in higher education participation

Student Support

181. In our report to the last session of Parliament we concluded that the elements required of a system of student support are:

"A student support system for the future should:

Be equitable and encourage broadly based participation, and in particular should increase participation by first generation students;

Require those with the means to do so to make a fair contribution to the costs of their higher education;

Support lifelong learning, so that choices between part time and full time study and for discontinuous study and between higher and further education are financially neutral;

Be easy to understand, administratively efficient and cost effective and offer good value for money for both students and society;

Integrate learning support across all post compulsory education;

Provide sufficient income through loans grants and access to the benefits system, to enable students to learn effectively without detriment to their studies;

Be integrated into the benefits system in order that students in challenging circumstances are able to access the support that they need ; and

Be additional to and not at the expense of institutional investment.

The system devised by the Government falls short on a number of crucial areas.

182. Shifting the payment of fees contributions to the end of the course does not remove the deterrent of debt on potential students, especially as the Government's proposals for higher differential fees would significantly increase the average level of debt. On the basis of the evidence presented, the deferral of fees until after completion of a student's course will not remove the disincentive that debt poses to participation in higher education, particularly among under represented groups.

183. The Government needs to target expenditure more effectively on those who need it. Ending the undifferentiated interest subsidy, and introducing a real rate of interest is regressive. Those students with highest earnings would pay off their debts more quickly, while those on lower incomes would incur more interest, and face the prospect of never actually fully repaying their loans. Women in particular, who take career breaks to have children, would be particularly discriminated against if interest rates on student loans were no longer subsidised.

184. The threshold increase from £10,000 to £15,000 of student loans repayment is welcome, but still falls short of the Committee's previous recommendations that the level should be average earnings (currently £24,500), and should keep pace with changes in the level of average earnings. Providing higher education tuition would significantly reduce average student debt, which would also help reduce the burden of student loan repayments.

185. At its current level, the reintroduction of the maintenance grant at £20 per week is unlikely to provide much incentive to students from poorer backgrounds, especially given the fact that the poorest students will also be expected to make a contribution to the costs of their tuition for the first time once top up fees are introduced. Instead we recommend that funds are allocated to double the amount of grant available to £2,000 per annum as is the case in Scotland. Furthermore, this system would be considerably improved if eligibility and provision of grants within Higher Education were linked seamlessly with the system of provision that already exists for 6^th form students in the form of the Education Maintenance Allowance.

186. The Government's proposals as outlined in the White Paper, involve significantly increasing levels of debt, which will impact disproportionately on under-represented groups. Their policy on top up fees runs directly counter to their claims that they are seeking to close the social gap that currently exists in higher education participation. The most progressive means of ensuring that those students who benefit the most financially from participation in higher education contribute the most is through a fair and progressive system of taxation on income. Such proposals, in offering free tuition at the point of delivery, lighten the burden of debt that recent graduates face. These graduates, and those in the past who have benefited from free higher education tuition at the point of delivery only make significant extra contributions once they are earning significant incomes. Those in low paid employment—such as in the public sector—are therefore protected from accumulating large amounts of debt, while the introduction of realistic levels of grants goes some way to neutralising the fear of debt that they are particularly susceptible too. It is these plans, and not those of the Government that go furthest to meeting all the criteria for student support outlined in the Education Select Committee's report last year." —(Paul Holmes.)

Motion made, and Question put, That the paragraphs be read a second time.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 1

Paul Holmes

Noes, 7

Mr David Chaytor

Valerie Davey

Jeff Ennis

Mr Robert Jackson

Ms Meg Munn

Mr Kerry Pollard

Jonathan Shaw

Motion made, and Question put, That paragraphs 142 to 211 be agreed to.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 7

Mr David Chaytor
Valerie Davey
Jeff Ennis
Mr Robert Jackson
Ms Meg Munn
Mr Kerry Pollard
Jonathan Shaw
Noes, 1

Paul Holmes

Paragraphs 212 to 221 agreed to.

Summary agreed to.

Annex agreed to.

Resolved, That the Report be the Fifth Report of the Committee to the House.

Ordered, That the Chairman do make the Report to the House.

Ordered, That the provisions of Standing Order No. 134 (Select committees (reports)) be applied to the Report

Several papers were ordered to be appended to the Minutes of Evidence.

Ordered, That the Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee be reported to the House.

Several Memoranda were ordered to be reported to the House.

The Committee further deliberated.

[Adjourned till Wednesday 25 June at Nine o'clock.

263 The Future of Higher Education, 1.28, p17 Back