Magazine R47 The British government is seeking to follow the US model of allowing universities to charge variable top- up tuition fees to students which may vary according to institution and course chosen. The prospect has fuelled a fierce debate with many of the government’s own MPs opposed to the proposed changes. Both alarm bells among some academics and fresh hope for cash-strapped universities have been raised. Concerns are nowhere greater than in science departments, whose courses are very much more expensive than many arts courses but students have been traditionally cushioned from the extra costs. The major fear is that if students are asked to pay the higher costs of science courses, many may choose a cheaper option. The Royal Society, Britain’s science academy, is particularly worried. Variable top-up fees may drive students away from science courses already facing a recruitment crisis, the society warned last month. The chair of its education committee, Alistair MacFarlane, issued a statement saying that if universities were able to charge higher fees for science courses, it could seriously heighten their unpopularity. Nick Brown, a Labour MP, said opposition to the government’s proposals to introduce variable top-up fees was threefold: “The manifesto promise not to introduce top-up fees was clear cut; the level of debt faced by poor students is too high; the proposition as currently framed will introduce a market into higher education, which I think is fundamentally wrong.” While some rebel MPs are turning towards support for the government’s bill, attitudes are hardening amongst many, to the alarm of university managers. News focus Business pressure mounts The quest for new funds for universities in Britain and elsewhere is forcing an increasingly hard-nosed approach by higher education institutes, writes Nigel Williams and below, Michael Gross reports on a new private German university hoping to make a profit for its shareholders. The bottom line: Medical students at work in a microbiology class. Increasingly business concerns are shaping the focus and scope of university activities. (Picture: Science Photo Library.)
Transcript
MagazineR47
The British government is seekingto follow the US model of allowinguniversities to charge variable top-up tuition fees to students whichmay vary according to institutionand course chosen. The prospecthas fuelled a fierce debate withmany of the government’s ownMPs opposed to the proposedchanges. Both alarm bells amongsome academics and fresh hopefor cash-strapped universitieshave been raised. Concerns arenowhere greater than in sciencedepartments, whose courses arevery much more expensive than
many arts courses but studentshave been traditionally cushionedfrom the extra costs. The majorfear is that if students are asked topay the higher costs of sciencecourses, many may choose acheaper option.
The Royal Society, Britain’sscience academy, is particularlyworried. Variable top-up fees maydrive students away from sciencecourses already facing arecruitment crisis, the societywarned last month. The chair ofits education committee, AlistairMacFarlane, issued a statement
saying that if universities wereable to charge higher fees forscience courses, it couldseriously heighten theirunpopularity.
Nick Brown, a Labour MP, saidopposition to the government’sproposals to introduce variabletop-up fees was threefold: “Themanifesto promise not tointroduce top-up fees was clearcut; the level of debt faced bypoor students is too high; theproposition as currently framedwill introduce a market into highereducation, which I think isfundamentally wrong.”
While some rebel MPs areturning towards support for thegovernment’s bill, attitudes arehardening amongst many, to thealarm of university managers.
News focus
Business pressure mountsThe quest for new funds for universities in Britain and elsewhere isforcing an increasingly hard-nosed approach by higher educationinstitutes, writes Nigel Williams and below, Michael Gross reports on anew private German university hoping to make a profit for itsshareholders.
The bottom line: Medical students at work in a microbiology class. Increasingly business concerns are shaping the focus and scopeof university activities. (Picture: Science Photo Library.)
They have warned that without theextra money promised in the billthey will have to cut courses andsack staff.
The Russel Group of large,research intensive universities haswarned that without variable feesthey may have to favourpostgraduates and overseasstudents over homeundergraduates. Malcolm Grant,provost of University CollegeLondon said: “We would look atUCL becoming increasingly apostgraduate institution. Thatdoesn’t mean we would cutundergraduate numbers, but thebusiness case means it would befoolish to expand homeundergraduates and, if we canexpand, our preference would betowards postgraduates.”
Meanwhile many universitiesare carrying out a majorrestructuring of their researchprogrammes, with seriousconsequences for somedepartments. Only the highestranked departments are likely towin sufficient infrastructure fundsto support leading-edge research.King’s College London is to axemuch of its life science provisionpartly because of a comparativelylow rating in the last researchassessment exercise. King’sintends to reduce life scienceteaching and research in areasincluding biosciences,environmental sciences,environmental health andmicrobiology.
A statement issued by King’ssays that while applications tobiochemistry remain buoyant,both biological sciences andenvironmental sciences have seena significant decline in numbers.
Peter Cotgreave, director of thecampaign group Save BritishScience, said: “This isn’t a storyabout a university in the middle ofnowhere that has beenunderfunded for years. King’s is auniversity with an internationalreputation.” He warned that King’swas setting a worrying precedentand placed struggling sciencecourses across the country in adangerous position.
Other institutions areattempting to bolster theirresearch strengths ahead of thenext assessment exercise. Queen
Mary, University of London,advertised up to 48 professorialposts last month. Significantnumbers of new chairs have beenor are being created at RoyalHolloway, Birmingham,Manchester, Nottingham,Sheffield, East Anglia andAberdeen universities.
Allowing different universities tocharge variable fees has longbeen part of the US highereducation landscape and a keystrategy to encourage universitiesto compete for studentenrolments. Higher educationfunctions in a complex andcompetitive market, where theprice charged can vary from$1,000 to more than $30,000 ayear. Under this pricing system,students are able to make tuition-fee levels a key part of theirdecision about which university toattend.
But one of the lessons of the USsystem is that price competitioncan drive the overall averageshigher, making access to highereducation for low-income andminority students increasinglydifficult, says Jamie Merisotis,president of the Institute of HigherEducation Policy, Washington.“Public sector tuition fees haveincreased faster than the rate ofinflation for more than 20 years,yet enrolments have continued to
rise. The cost of attending apublic university for four years isincreasing more rapidly as aproportion of income for thepoorest quintile of familiescompared with other incomegroups,” he says.
He warns that those whobelieve that higher educationresults in great public benefitshave failed in their arguments overthe past decade. Most of thepublic pronouncements “almostalways focus on the fact thatgoing to college enhancespersonal economic status. Therich combination of societal andindividual benefits of highereducation is largely overwhelmedby the reality that degree holdersmake an average of $1 millionmore over their lifetimes than non-degree holders.”
A lesson from the USexperience, then, is that variablefees are neither a great salvationfor higher education’s ills, nor arethey a great evil that will destroythe basic fabric of the academy.Instead the focus must be onensuring that access to highereducation remains a priority, hebelieves. And sciencedepartments in Britain will behoping that any additional feesystem will not detract studentsfrom pursuing science courses onthe basis of cost.
Current Biology Vol 14 No 2R48
Few things in Germany have alonger and more idealistic historythan its universities. Back in thetimes of mediaeval dukedoms,setting up an endowment for anew university was thetrademark of enlightened rulers,whose generosity is stillremembered today by the namesof venerable institutions like theRuprecht-Karls-UniversitätHeidelberg (founded in 1386) andthe Philipps-Universität Marburg(1527). To them, and later to the19th century humanist Wilhelmvon Humboldt, who set up thefirst university in Berlin, theimmaterial value of educationmust have appearedincommensurate with the cost ofa few buildings and staffsalaries.
What a difference a fewcenturies make. Today’spoliticians increasingly see thecost of higher education as anundue burden on their budgets. InGermany, the ideals of the pastare still sufficiently present tomake tuition fees of the kinddiscussed in Britain a taboo. Buton the other hand, stagnatingstate investment in highereducation is eroding the quality ofthe service that universities canoffer, thus opening theopportunity for private institutionsto offer a more efficient service tofee-paying students.
The first in the swelling tide ofprivately funded, fee-charginguniversities was the UniversityWitten/Herdecke, set up in theearly 1980s (www.uni-wh.de). It
