As Rishi Sunak and his chancellor Jeremy Hunt desperately look for things to cut ahead of next week’s economic statement, I very much hope that they leave the lifelong loan entitlement well alone.
Announced by the then prime minister, Boris Johnson, in September 2020, during the depths of the pandemic, the LLE is intended to offer everyone a loan entitlement for four years of post-18 education over their lifetime, for all kinds of study at higher technical and degree levels.
Since the entitlement is not due to come in until 2025, it would be relatively easy to mothball it. However, this would be a mistake. The LLE is a welcome first step down the road to abandoning the outdated view that the standard three- or four-year full-time degree is the minimum worthwhile goal, or indeed the most appropriate one for many students.
After all, the “core” courses offered in the first two years are often the most valuable, both intellectually and vocationally. Moreover, students who realise that the degree course they embarked on isn’t right for them, or who have personal hardship, should be enabled to leave early with dignity, with a certificate to mark what they’ve accomplished. They shouldn’t be disparaged as wastage: they should make the positive claim, as many Americans would, that they have “had two years of college”. Those running universities shouldn’t be berated for taking risks in admissions, nor pressured to entice students to stay, least of all by lowering degree standards.
This, however, means that everyone should have the opportunity to re-enter, or just enter, higher education (maybe part-time or online) at any stage in their life. The re-entry path could become smoother – indeed, routine – if there were a formalised system of transferable credits that was respected and recognised across the whole system of further and higher education. Such provisions have been discussed for decades, and they’re urged in the Augar report; the LLE could be the catalyst for their realisation if it is generous and flexible enough to allow courses to be taken “à la carte” at any stage in life – including by offering grants as well as loans. This would mean, in particular, that those who leave university for any reason after one or two years would get a transferable credit that offered the opportunity to return and “upgrade” later.
But this is only one aspect of the widespread restructuring needed to give UK students a more flexible and effective education. Currently, universities all aspire to rise in the same league tables, which gives undue weight to research rather than teaching. Most of their undergraduates are between 18 and 21 years old and are generally enrolled on three-year full-time residential courses. Most are studying a curriculum that’s too narrow, even for the minority who aspire to professional or academic careers. Even worse, the school curriculum is too narrow as well. The long-running campaign for an International Baccalaureate-style curriculum for 16- to 18-year-olds deserves to succeed, but it needs cooperation from universities, whose entrance requirements overtly disfavour applicants who straddle science and humanities.
Admission to the most demanding and attractive undergraduate courses is naturally competitive and always will be. But what is not acceptable is that the playing field is still far from level. The most intractable challenge for the access agenda is that half the UK’s young people do not receive the quality of teaching at school that allows them a fair prospect of qualifying for the most competitive university courses. Even if the bar is lowered for them and they’re offered a place, they will struggle with the demanding curriculum. And, in England and Northern Ireland, even those who have been at “good” schools will be handicapped if, owing to the specialisation enforced by the A-level system, they have dropped subjects they later realise they wish to pursue.
It will be a long slog to ensure that high-quality teaching at school is available across the full geographical and social spectrum – and it may be impossible without a narrowing of the gulf between the resources of private and state schools. In the meantime, however, it would send an encouraging signal if high-tariff universities, especially Oxbridge, were to reserve a fraction of their places for students who don’t come straight from school. A second chance could be offered to those who were disadvantaged at 18 but have caught up by learning two years’ worth of credits at other institutions or online. Such students could then advance to degree level even in the more challenging courses in two further years.
Higher education is currently one of the UK’s distinctive strengths. But it mustn’t be sclerotic and unresponsive to change. A rethink is overdue if British universities are to sustain their status in a different world.
Martin Rees is the Astronomer Royal at the Institute of Astronomy, University of Cambridge and was president of the Royal Society from 2005 to 2010. This piece is based on a recent speech given in the House of Lords.
