The selling of places to the wealthy is at one with the coalition's destructive policies on universities
Before the predictable and hasty denials emerged, angry incredulity greeted universities minister David Willetts' suggestion that extra places at "competitive universities" could be created for wealthy British students to pay higher upfront fees. Apparently such applicants, who would be ineligible for subsidies or loans on fees of up to £28,000, would free up publicly subsidised places, thus "improving social mobility".
There's "no question" of allowing the rich to buy degrees, David Cameron clarified; but why such applicants would choose the more expensive route unless incentivised by, say, lower admissions standards, remains unclear. Though not mentioned, such a scheme might also have the advantage of mitigating the government's self-inflicted £1bn public borrowing shortfall. The tuition fees fiasco, far from creating a marketplace of "student choice", has resulted in all universities levying fees of at least £7,500 which the government must pay upfront.
Yet this proposal is less pragmatic than ideological – more boldly so in the flush of last week's referendum boost for the Tories. Its crudity is entirely consistent with the wrecking-ball principles that have driven through destructive changes to English universities: teaching budgets eviscerated, departments closed, and tuition fees tripled to unaffordable levels for most. It is equally consistent with coalition practice to present marketisation and privatisation – which disproportionately benefits the well-off – as progressive, done solely with the interests of the least privileged in mind.
"Social mobility" is itself a fuzzy conceptual subterfuge, that has displaced meaningful policies of "social justice" which would ensure genuine equality of opportunity for all citizens from birth onwards. It is a limited exercise whereby a token handful will be helped to move upwards within an entrenched hierarchy of wealth and opportunity.
Willetts' proposals are less startling when viewed as the logical outcome not only of ongoing reforms but also a system already skewed in favour of those who can afford good educations. The top third of English universities have failed to extend the participation of the nation's poorest 40% in over a decade; and Cambridge and Oxford's stringent marks-based admissions criteria advantage those with private educations.
Though Oxbridge access programmes have been gradually improving, Cambridge now admits that its tripled fees will deter poorer students, making it difficult to meet even its old access targets, let alone "dramatically increase the number of people from poorer and disadvantaged backgrounds", which Nick Clegg insisted would be a precondition for increased fees.
Amazingly, the Office for Fair Access (Offa), which is charged with agreeing and monitoring access targets, has never penalised the many institutions which have failed to meet them. It will not now impose the promised sanctions on institutions charging over £6,000 without increasing access for poorer students; nor is it empowered to regulate fees in such cases. The access safeguards, promised before the Commons voted to triple fees, simply do not exist.
David Willetts' unguarded words illuminate the reality underlying the rhetoric of social mobility. The wealthy will be given unfettered access to a university education as the fees cap is quietly lifted, while corporate interests and private charity will be invited to subsidise a few token poorer students, usually in subjects that serve the sponsor's training needs.
The way to get the wealthy to contribute more to funding public institutions is through progressive taxation, not fee differentials. Creating more university places for the well-off while cutting thousands of publicly subsided places reverses the years of hard work put into democratising elite universities. With 70% of their courses axed, institutions like London Metropolitan University – which have been addressing the needs of students from less privileged backgrounds – now face extinction. The certain result is not "social mobility" but deep educational divides.
Beware these tiresome coalition rituals where an apparently "extreme" suggestion is softened by pieties like Cameron's "university access is about the ability to learn and not the ability to pay". These are not U-turns or evidence of "listening". Legislation already upholds the ability to pay above all else, and universities have been put on the path to unfettered privatisation. Unless we look these unpalatable truths in the eye and act accordingly, we face certain defeat in this war waged by the wealthy against society at large.