Education experts criticise Theresa May’s university tuition fees review plans

Theresa May’s plans for tuition fees and the university funding system have faced criticism from across the education sector – with some suggesting they could do “more harm” than good.

The year-long review into higher education, announced by the Prime Minister in a speech on Monday, could result in universities charging students different tuition fees depending on the subject they choose.

Institutions could be encouraged to charge less for humanities courses, compared to science, technology, engineering and maths (Stem) degrees.

But critics say the proposals could deter students from doing Stem degrees amid a skills shortage, as well as limiting the career prospects of poorer students pushed to choose cheaper courses.

Lord Baker, a former Education Secretary and chairman of the Baker Dearing Educational Trust, which promotes technical education, said: “If Stem degree courses cost more than academic courses, this could have the perverse effect of driving students away from the areas of greatest economic need, in view of the skills shortage.”

He has called on the Government to offer bursaries to encourage students to take up Stem courses “rather than discouraging them through the fees system”.

Bill Rammell, the vice-chancellor of the University of Bedfordshire and a former higher education minister, added that he would strongly oppose any move to introduce variable tuition fees.

He said: “You can’t judge the value of education based on the salary someone is going to earn or else no one would choose to be a nurse or work in the arts if that was the case.

“Also, it creates a two-tier system – students from poorer families will choose those courses with the lowest fees disadvantaging themselves from the start.”

Shakira Martin, the president of the National Union of Students (NUS), warned that variable tuition fees could create more competition among universities and cause long-term damage to the sector.

She said: “We fear that tinkering around the edges without major commitments to supporting students into and through universities and colleges will do more harm than good.

“It is concerning that further investment appears to already have been ruled and the education minister has suggested that institutions will not be forced to make courses more affordable.

“This limits the review to a highly restricted remit, yet leaves the door open to the spectre of further competition through variable fees, which will likely only damage the sector in the long run.”

She added that the proposals can only lead to small piece reform. “The Prime Minister is choosing to move the deckchairs around a ship she already acknowledges to be sinking,” Ms Martin said.

Damian Hinds, the Education Secretary, said: “Our post-18 education system has many strengths. It has a fantastic global reputation, we have record rates of disadvantaged students going to university and we are transforming technical education so employers have access to the skills they need.

“However, with a system where almost all institutions are charging the same price for courses – when some clearly cost more than others and some have higher returns to the student than others – it is right that we ask questions about choice and value for money.

“We also need to look at the balance between academic study and technical education to ensure there is genuine choice for young people and that we are giving employers access to a highly skilled workforce.”