UK universities are not a problem to be smashed with a hammer

It was a Ratner moment. The graphic published by 10 Downing Street showed a hammer smashing down on the words “crackdown on rip-off university degrees”.

I can’t think of any other country that would smash up one of its most successful exports. The only way universities can expand and pay their bills is to attract more students domestically and, crucially, internationally. Will the “rip-off” narrative now put them off?

At Staffordshire University, we have to work twice as hard to get school and college leavers to see the benefits of a degree. We’re located in a low participation area where progression to higher education is half the national average.

We are on a mission to help drive social mobility, to benefit not just individuals but the whole area. If we were to become financially unsustainable, it would take £250 million out of the local economy. It would be levelling up in reverse.

I have no problem with universities being asked to account for the quality of their courses. It’s also important that we offer students the right support so they complete their qualifications and achieve good outcomes. But we need a different level of analysis of graduate outcomes over the longer term. At the moment, the data looks at what they are doing 15 months after graduating. Some people take more than 15 months to get where they are going.

And what is valued employment in a local context? If it just promotes certain salary bands at a national level, it takes no account of geographical differences.

In Stoke-on-Trent, we have one of the fastest-growing economies in the UK. Yet we are starting from a relatively low base. We don’t have a plentiful number of jobs with high-level salaries. Even 15 months after graduation, someone might have got the best job that’s locally available.

As a university, we are putting in huge effort to stimulate the depressed labour market. It’s one of the reasons we recently launched an MSc in entrepreneurship. But we are not on a level playing field.

Then there’s the narrative around the value of creative degrees. At Staffordshire University, we produce creative entrepreneurs, who use their talents to set up their own ventures after graduating. Our creative degrees rank among the best in the UK in league tables. It’s a real success story. We have great arts and culture institutions on our doorstep too, providing job opportunities. But they don’t always pay particularly high salaries by national standards.

One of the less well publicised aspects of the government’s “crackdown on rip-off degrees” is the impact on foundation-year study. From 2025, the fees we can charge for a classroom-based foundation year will be capped at £5,670 rather than the current £9,250. So, in effect we will be selling a four-year degree for the price of a 3.6-year degree. It will potentially turn foundation years into loss-leaders.

But foundation years are an important stepping stone between further education and higher education. Students get more personal attention and the courses are more bespoke in terms of skills. They also offer an introduction to university life. Students can see their destinations, and this is part of levelling up. We often find students who did foundation years and go on to get first-class degrees.

All this is part of a wider debate – do people go to university to better themselves socially and intellectually or to get a job? At Staffordshire, we do both skills and knowledge. We’re one of the largest providers of degree apprenticeships in the country. We also offer key vocational degrees, such as social work, nursing, teaching and policing.

We are investing in microcredentials as well. What you find in low-skills areas is that a lot of people who need better qualifications are already in employment but on low wages. If we have some bite-size learning, they can earn and learn, progressing to better jobs.

There are positive developments in English higher education policy, such as the Lifelong Loan Entitlement, which, from 2025, will provide individuals with a loan entitlement to the equivalent of four years of post-18 education to use over their lifetime. There are also positive moves around investment in higher and degree apprenticeships. But they are set against a national backdrop of real challenges in higher education funding. The £9,250-a-year fees level has remained frozen for several years. There is a debate to be had around alternative sources of funding, including a graduate tax. But the current funding settlement is not sustainable. If fees stay flat, this could force institutions to look at cutting core areas. Will we be in mergers and acquisitions territory?

If the government is serious about promoting a knowledge-based economy, it has to invest in us. It has to see universities as part of the solution, not a rip-off problem to be smashed with a hammer.

Martin Jones is vice-chancellor and chief executive of Staffordshire University.