Government reform of Higher EducationWritten evidence submitted by the Bridge Group

This submission deals in brief with the following issues in relation to the Select Committee’s Consultation on the Future of Higher Education:

The impact of the new fees system on potential students’ perceptions and decisions to enter higher education and on their choices of institution and course;

The need for financial support to be simple and predictable, with detailed information made public as soon as possible;

The considerable strains that the new system will place on the requirement for impartial, thorough and accurate information, advice and guidance for all ages in order for there not to be a detrimental impact on the efforts of the last 10 years to widen participation to higher education;

The need for a stronger evidence base on the impact of widening access programmes, particularly in terms of value for money; and

The necessity to promote research and fund programmes that support outreach work with younger children (pre-16) as well as access to the professions and employability.

The Bridge Group is an independent non-partisan policy association promoting social mobility through higher education. The association offers Westminster and other influencers specialist guidance on policy, drawing on the expertise of our professional network of associates and the collation of research and evaluation.

The Group is non-partisan and its approach to policy is evidence-based, bridging the gaps between research, policy, and programme implementation. The Bridge Group attracts a broad range of experienced colleagues to its network of associates, to provide opportunities to share expertise across various sectors, institutions and bodies, as well as help inform policy recommendations.

The association’s inaugural seminar took place at Google, London in November 2010, with Alan Milburn as the keynote speaker. A summary of the proceedings is available on our website: http://www.thebridgegroup.org.uk under Evidence. The Bridge Group will publish a policy recommendation paper emanating from that seminar in May 2011.

Impact of Higher Fees on Perception, Behavior and the Market

1. There is little certainty on how the new fees regime will impact on access to higher education. On the one hand, evidence points to the fact that tuition fees have not deterred prospective low-income students from entering higher education in the current system. As Lord Browne noted, “if fees can be deferred, then participation can be protected”. Conversely, there is survey evidence demonstrating the negative effect that tuition fees can have on attitudes and aspirations to higher education. The Sutton Trust has argued that the prospect of £9,000 fees is a disincentive for students from widening participation backgrounds as they consider higher education. Further, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has argued that “a £1,000 increase in loans or grants is not sufficient to counteract the impact of a £1,000 increase in fees – the coefficient on fees is significantly higher than both loans and grants.” We should not assume that this previous increase in the number of low-income students entering higher education will continue. Evidence from Australia indicates that a sustained long-term rise requires sustained effort and appropriate funding.

2. Even if higher fees do not deter low-income students from applying to higher education, this may not be apparent when students are selecting which institutions and courses to apply to. There is some UK evidence at the institutional level of higher prices attracting international students through being interpreted as an indicator of quality. A study by the University of Leicester concludes that UK students will make the same assumption if the new fees arrangements give rise to a differentiated price market. Some university courses may thus become “Veblen Goods”, with higher prices implying prestige, thereby making them more attractive. This may increase the competition for places at the most selective institutions and courses, making it harder for low-income students to enter them. It is possible that the increased competition for places in recent years has contributed to the slow progress to date in widening participation at the most selective English universities.

3. In addition, given the long-term contributions graduates will need to make towards their loan, there is significant concern that students – in addition to parents and career advisors – will increasingly look to more vocationally-focused courses. This would be to the detriment to social science and humanities courses, which many graduate recruiters and firms prefer. This requires a renewed focus on Information, Advice and Guidance as well as graduate employability, as detailed below.

The Information, Advice and Guidance Requirements of a Market in Higher Education

4. For too many young people it is still a matter of serendipity (or, rather, socio-economic background) as to whether they find and are able to benefit from pertinent information, support and opportunities. The proposed changes will exacerbate this situation and increase inequalities of opportunity unless coordinated action is taken. It is essential that the proposed All Age Careers Guidance Service, the initiatives being proposed by Simon Hughes in his role as Advocate for Access, and the approach to widening participation being promoted through the Office for Fair Access (OFFA)’s guidance to higher education institutions are properly aligned.

5. Browne advocates enhanced student choice and increased flexibility. This is a positive move but will inevitably lead to a more diverse and complex system of higher education. For a higher education market to operate to the benefit of all students, and particularly those already under-represented in higher education, Information, Advice and Guidance (IAG) must be improved at every level. The increased complexity of the system could have a disproportionately negative impact on students from less advantaged backgrounds, whose parents and carers may be less confident about researching higher education courses and fees and whose schools may be less rehearsed at supporting students’ university applications, especially to the most competitive courses.

6. With the new fees regime, it is all the more important that applicants and students are well-informed and advised about their options, particularly in terms of graduate prospects. Students are likely to become more discerning about what they can expect from their time at university and long-term outcomes in terms of employability. This may be especially true for applicants who are more financially disadvantaged, where the risks associated with not securing well paid graduate employment are higher. Information relating to graduate earnings and employment must be improved to help students identify the potential return on investment from their course. The Destination Leavers from HE survey is the only indicator of graduate prospects in most university league tables. The survey, which is taken six months after graduation and overlooks students opting for further study, does not paint a sufficiently accurate picture of graduate prospects. The longitudinal version of the survey, taken three years after graduation, is more useful.

7. In general, a properly functioning higher education market will require an IAG provision that is able to embrace and accurately reflect the diversity both of students and of institutions within the sector. The current over-reliance on league tables and on questionable proxies for quality will reinforce current misinformation and misunderstandings and will not serve the needs of those students who most require effective information and advice. There is a large amount of online information and advice in particular which is high quality, trusted, impartial and has greater currency with young people than “official” sources such as Directgov. This provision should be quality assured, and supported to become part of a diverse but coherent landscape of provision that targets the needs of all students, particularly those whose access to other forms of support and guidance are limited.

Recommendation 1: Information, advice and guidance should be fit for purpose and its provision professionalised, preferably through use of a kite-mark system of quality assurance. The various current and proposed initiatives and approaches should be aligned. Information about graduate prospects, disaggregated by course, should be enhanced and the longitudinal DELHE survey should be improved and prioritised.

Financial Support Needs to be Simple and Predictable

8. Prospective students and their families and supporters need clear information about fees and financial support as soon as possible – from both Government and higher education institutions. Claire Callender, in her study of current fee and bursary arrangements, finds that “a quarter of potential beneficiaries who were about to start, or had started, university for the first time in 2008–09, were unaware of bursaries …. Many students think they are ineligible or are deterred by the complexity of the application procedures because information was unavailable or unclear.” The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills’ assessment of current funding arrangements finds a similar lack of awareness. While these findings need to be seen in the context of the actual rise in enrolments by low-income students in recent years, £9,000 is significantly more than £3,000, and the timescales for informing prospective students for 2012 entry are limited (a year shorter than was available to communicate the changes for 2006 entry). OFFA has, therefore, rightly encouraged higher education institutions to consider carefully their methods for providing information.

9. The US College Board included simplicity and predictability as two of its seven recommendations for reforming federal student financial aid, published in 2008 (following a national review of arrangements). Simplicity and predictability are equally important for UK students: potential students need to have a good idea of their eligibility for financial support before they apply for it. Given the truncated timeline for higher education institutions to respond to the National Scholarships Programme, it is essential that the guidelines are simple and predictable for them too: higher education institutions will need to be able to estimate as accurately as possible how many students are likely to be eligible for various categories.

Recommendation 2: The Government should design the National Scholarships Programme as well as its other financial support to be simple and predictable for students and higher education institutions.

Recommendation 3: OFFA should encourage higher education institutions to publish their proposed bursary arrangements after submitting their access agreements. The Government should confirm and publicise its financial support arrangements as soon as possible, accompanied by information on the benefits of higher education.

Employability and Access to the Professions

10. Fair access to courses at selective universities and professional degrees is a significant step but, as set out in the Milburn report, much more needs to be done to achieve improvements in social mobility through access to the professions. We are pleased to note OFFA’s recognition of higher education institutions’ work on employability as part of access agreements. However, the Government needs to continue to lead on work with the professions and on careers guidance. We advocate a longitudinal approach to social mobility, encompassing outreach work targeted at school pupils, university admissions, student experience, employability and access to the professions.

11. An area of work which is emerging, and could be significantly developed, is the mobilisation of university alumni to support the professional progress of students from more disadvantaged backgrounds. Fundraising from alumni will become increasingly important (to boost bursary/scholarship funds, for example), and we advocate the continuation of the government matched funding scheme, specifically targeted at fundraising aimed at improving student access and employability. While this would significantly increase the capacity and impact of work in this area, inspiring alumni can also contribute to the employability and professional success of students. This could be accomplished through mentoring, by offering structured, paid placements, providing support during application and interview processes and by facilitating students’ access to the types of professional networks more affluent students might have established through family links.

Recommendation 4: The continuation of the government matched funding scheme, targeted specifically at fundraising campaigns aimed at improving student access to the professions. Explore with institutions the development of employability programmes targeted at more disadvantaged students, driven by the mobilisation of alumni.

Widening Participation Outreach with Younger Children

12. Genuine widening participation is a long process requiring long-term commitment. If the Government wishes higher education institutions to follow recognised good practice and continue to work with younger age groups, state funding will be required specifically for this purpose. In its guidance on access agreements for 2012, OFFA encourages higher education institutions to continue to work with younger age groups, but acknowledges that many will wish to concentrate their widening participation outreach on older age groups (years 12 and 13 and mature students) with the imminent potential to progress to their own courses. The focus on recruitment also reflects the nature of philanthropic funding and sponsorship: external funders generally want to see clear returns for their donations and these are easiest to demonstrate in work with older students from an ability range that reflects current entry requirements. Funds from stretched university budgets may come under similar scrutiny and be focused on short-term goals, particularly with the increased government pressure. Looking internationally, many institutions, such as those in Australia and New Zealand, which receive little or no state funds for widening participation, focus efforts on recruitment-related outreach. Without state funding, aspirations for higher education of the large number of younger students will be at risk.

13. A greater focus needs to be given to demonstrating the impact of widening participation programmes, particularly in terms of value for money. While an increased focus on outcomes of widening participation initiatives should be welcomed, this is easier said than achieved. Tracking and monitoring of students is patchy at best, and there is no comparable, robust quantitative data relating to outcomes for different types of intervention. Both of these factors have profound implications for making informed policy decisions. Much could be done to promote or even require the collection of uniform data, and potentially to encourage specific methodological approaches. Conducting effective monitoring and evaluation has clear cost implications, and unless this is carried out on a large scale and with a longitudinal approach there is a risk that the difficulties of proving impact will further exacerbate the tendency to pursue the “low-hanging fruit” approach to outreach.

Recommendation 5: The Government should continue to focus on and fund the rigorous collection, analysis and transparent provision of data relating to the outcomes of widening participation initiatives, including work with younger (pre-16) children.

Recommendation 6: The Government should continue the current widening participation allocation for outreach under the new fees and funding arrangements, targeting resources at the hardest to reach and at younger age groups.

10 March 2011