Nowadays a flurry of speculation is taking place about the independent review of student funding although it is not to be reported and to be written in custom papers until the autumn. The main debates concern the issue of what should replace the present system and whether the higher education system ministers will differ greatly from those we have now. Public and private resourcing is much discussed as well as the distribution of these resources among schools, social groups etc.
The government’s main issue is to make universities reduce their demands on the taxpayer which is to be achieved directly through taking various measures on increasing private funding and reducing public financial support. It will also be done indirectly introducing the merger of increased competition, information and rationalization.
Increased competition is to be achieved with the help of introducing more private providers and making public funding more closed to the process of teaching. Through reducing the number of awarding bodies the government is going to increase rationalization while information will improve the quality of teaching and promote innovation. All this and a more flexible choice of courses should result in learner satisfaction.
A study of many developed higher education systems has shown that due to the increased competition and research funds universities become more efficient and even innovative. The major disadvantage of competition is that it may cause status hierarchy and reduce the diversity of universities. All in all, too much competition reduces quality and investments in higher education while higher education has a limited potential in information.
Vince Cable, the business secretary, recognizes the role of higher education but the proposed means are controversial. He has recognized that universities can provide the following public goods as social mobility, technological innovation, economic dynamism but the greater competition may place all these public goods at a risk.