Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Leader: Making no plans for Nigel
19 August 2010
The UK and California both face a shortfall of university places, but at least snobbery isn't making things worse across the pond
If you are in a hole, it is always reassuring to be in good company. This summer, as the UK academy prepares to disappoint as many as 200,000 potential undergraduates (depending on whose guesstimates you care to believe) owing to a lack of places, across the Atlantic, California is also said to be turning away more than 100,000 qualified students for whom there is no room in the public higher education sector.
The answer to California's woes seems to lie with the community colleges, which are receiving a $2.6 billion (£1.7 billion) fillip from the Obama administration. These bodies provide basic skills education, workforce training and courses that prepare students for the US' four-year universities. Martha Kanter, President Obama's undersecretary of education and a former community college leader herself, is a passionate advocate of the sector.
These colleges roughly equate to the UK's non-sixth-form further education colleges, from which, in theory, students can progress to university: however, in practice, it is not common.
Someone taking a keen interest in the California system is David Willetts, the universities and science minister, who is off to the Golden State next month on a fact-finding mission. Mr Willetts is also a big fan of private provision: he recently granted BPP university college status. But he will be disappointed if he thinks this will rescue the government from negative headlines in the coming weeks.
Carl Lygo, BPP's chief executive, says the numbers it will accept through clearing will be measured in hundreds, not thousands. "We are not going to be the saviour of the government and take in 50,000 students," he said.
In the US, where the private higher education system is more developed, the for- profits are taking a bashing in Congressional hearings, with some unsavoury practices coming to light. There is no such problem in the UK, but keeping a weather eye on a fledgling area now could save tears later.
Regulations for keeping the system in check could do with tightening, especially in regard to degree-awarding powers. These are overseen by the Quality Assurance Agency and require revisiting only every six years. This caused some consternation when a subsidiary of US for-profit university provider Apollo took over BPP last year, as the latter had been granted the ability to award its own degrees in 2007.
In the UK, where many bizarrely consider it wrong to want to educate more of the population to a higher level, calls to limit the number of young people going to university are met by howls of protest over the lack of places. This may seem contradictory, but what it's really about is class. What some, especially the right-wing press, are trying very hard not to say is that a decent higher education is a privilege that should not be extended to hoi polloi because they may deny middle-class pupils their rightful place at university.
In the US, things happily are different. "Because we've had mass higher education for 50 years, there is an acceptance by the population that it is important and isn't just for the elite," says Philip Altbach, director of the Center for International Higher Education at Boston College.
Perhaps there's hope for us yet.
ann.mroz@tsleducation.com.





Readers' comments
This leader is naive and misplaced. It interprets American education in terms of British class, but Americans don't. It suggests that It claims that American education is more accessible, but access is based on wealth and merit. Some students pay a lot, some pay very little, but everybody pays. American education is extremely unbalanced, with top-flight undergraduates paying $40,000-50,000 per year, while community college students pay a few dollars per course. Americans complain about the rising costs of education but they accept that it cannot be free and they responsibly invest early and seek aid. Incidentally, most students pay with loans; financial aid is based on academic merit more than social disadvantage. The author's analysis of California is false: California's solution is to raise its fees and reduce its places by orders of magnitudes around two in some cases, an order that remains politically unacceptable in Britain, where higher education is interpreted as a means to social redistribution. Our universities are underfunded and increasingly unattractive because they are not allowed to charge British students more than nominal fees and the government is not allowed to recoup the costs from graduates. American education is not free of snobbery, but thankfully it is less vulnerable to reverse snobbery.
It is true that those with more money benefit more in both systems. One virtue of the US system is that those with high levels of academic ability are usually funded by scholarships whereas those from high income families with less academic aptitude pay more. This is not a bad model. The UK could give full scholarships to the brightest students, especially those who cannot afford it, and make those who can afford it pay the full cost of their education. If this was done, caps on places and fees would be less relevant.
Disclaimer: All user contributions posted on this site are those of the user ONLY and NOT those of TSL Education Ltd or its associated trademarks, websites and services. TSL Education Ltd does not necessarily endorse, support, sanction, encourage, verify or agree with any comments, opinions or statements or other content provided by users.