Suchergebnisse

AbstractUniversities UK (UUK) has suggested that there may be very significant losses to higher education as a consequence of Covid‐19. However, losses are likely to be substantially lower than the potential losses estimated by UUK. But the magnitude of losses is very uncertain. The UUK's proposal to restrict undergraduate enrolment per university to stop institutions poaching students is not in the interests of the most highly regarded universities, or that of students. Some rationalisation of the sector should be the price of further government support. Now is also the time to reconsider how university research is funded.

AbstractThe cost of higher education to the taxpayer is determined in part by the choice of subject and institution made by students. The Augar report on higher education noted that there was an oversupply of 'low value' courses and called on the government to 'bear down on low value courses' and 'target courses better aligned with the economy's needs'.1 Until recently there was no reliable data to identify such courses or the institutions supplying them. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has utilised recently available longitudinal education data on earnings, courses and institutions to rectify this deficiency. Many of the lowest earning courses are in the creative arts. Not everyone is happy with using earnings to measure the value of courses. This paper discusses the IFS estimates of graduate earnings and the public cost of higher education, as well as the criticisms of using earnings data to measure the value of courses and institutions.

AbstractThe British government is encouraging the growth of for‐profit alternative providers of higher education (HE). While it is true that for‐profits have opened HE access to previously under‐served groups and have been more agile in reacting to market demand, they have done so at a considerable cost to students and the taxpayer because they do not share in the cost of the failure of HE to ensure a payoff for many of their students. The US experience with for‐profits should be a cautionary tale for those supporting their expansion in Britain. Policy is needed to craft a regulatory framework that produces the benefits that for‐profits can provide, but minimises the costs that often accompany them. At present, it is far from clear that expanding alternative providers—that is, for‐profits—would 'work better' for students.

AbstractThe Department for Education is attempting to use lessons from economics to spur competition in higher education in the UK, in order to improve access and quality and reduce price. Laudable as these goals are, in this paper it is argued that there are aspects of higher education that are unlike other markets and which may make standard solutions to non‐competitive price behaviour ineffective. New insights into decision making from behavioural sciences, which challenge the notion of rationality in many students' higher education choices, are also discussed. Recent research has suggested some interventions that may nudge students towards decisions that help achieve the objectives for higher education set out by the Department for Education. It is argued that the Department for Education might be more successful in reaching its objectives if it focused more on these behavioural insights and interventions, and less on trying to make HE function like the competitive market that it is not.

Books reviewed in this article:Andrew Mason (Ed.),Population Change and Economic Development in East Asia: Challenges Met, Opportunities SeizedEmma Rothschild,Economic Sentiments: Adam Smith, Condorcet, and the EnlightenmentKlaus M. Leisinger, Karin Schmitt, and Rajul Pandya‐Lorch,Six Billion and Counting: Population Growth and Food Security in the 21st CenturyBarry Bogin,The Growth of HumanityNigel Harris,Thinking the Unthinkable: The Immigration Myth Exposed