| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
174692
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Universities 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
162597
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
156784
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In his recent article in this journal, Alan Ware claimed that for most students higher education was not worth the cost.1 The following evaluates Ware's claim in the context of similar scepticism having been expressed in the media in the UK, the US, and elsewhere. It is argued that this view, and many of the conclusions drawn, is inconsistent with the available empirical evidence on the value of higher education. If students reject higher education because of such views they—and society—will underinvest in higher education.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
167904
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|