NewsBreakingOnline

Critics say proposal to let rich students pay premium fees to get places at top universities risks turning clock back to time when breeding mattered more than brains Ministers have been warned they risk turning the clock back to a time when “breeding not brains” mattered after ministers outlined proposals to allow teenagers from the wealthiest families to be able to pay for extra places at the most competitive universities. David Willetts, the universities minister, has argued the extra places will boost social mobility by freeing up more publicly subsidised places for undergraduates from poorer homes. The proposal was panned by both the Universities and College Union and the National Union of Students, who accused the government of “tossing out a poorly conceived policy idea” to mask the chaos it has created in university funding and the shortfall in finances that has created. Under current government plans, annual student numbers are capped to keep costs down, with English universities allowed to charge UK students a maximum annual fee of £9,000 from 2012, which graduates do not have to start paying until they are earning £21,000 a year. However, Willetts suggested universities could increase the numbers of British students by charging some the full annual fees of up to £28,000 a year for the most expensive courses, payable up front, who would not then require the support of the taxpayer. The changes would give more students the chance to attend their first choice university, a suggestion that many see as enabling the children of the wealthiest parents to buy their way in. At present, the government sets a quota of undergraduate places that English universities are allowed to offer each year. The move is being considered at a time when the government is cutting 10,000 publicly funded university places. The UCU general secretary, Sally Hunt, said: “Far from increasing social mobility, it is hard to see how this is anything other than the government entrenching privilege for the wealthy in response to its failing university fees policy. “We risk turning the clock back to a time when breeding rather than brains were required to get on in life. The news is particularly embarrassing for the Liberal Democrats as all their MPs pledged to vote, and campaign, against higher fees.” Hunt added: “Increasing fees for wealthy students to ensure them access to our most prestigious universities goes even further than their original breaking of the pledge and sends an extraordinary message to students from less wealthy backgrounds.” Employers and charities will also be encouraged to sponsor “off-quota” places under the plans to be outlined in a higher education white paper in the summer. Willetts told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme: “People are coming to us with innovative ideas about how you could liberalise the system so it was possible for extra people to get to university. These are people who we wish to go to university and who sadly are being turned away at the moment just because there aren’t enough places. “We would need to have a set of criteria, if this went ahead, that absolutely passed muster as improving social mobility. “I start from the view that, by and large, more people going to university is a good thing for social mobility. Anything that we did if this does go forward would have to pass the test of improving social mobility, not reversing it.” Aaron Porter, president of the National Union of Students (NUS), said the move would create a “two-tier system” in university education. “The government is yet again tossing out a poorly conceived policy idea in an attempt to disguise the chaos it has created in university funding and the shortfall in finances that has created,” he said. “This creates a two-tier system that allows the richest, less able applicants a second bite at the university cherry and denies low- and middle-income students the same opportunity. “Those students who can afford to pay higher, upfront fees will also avoid the interest rates and lifetime of debt that the rest of their cohort will have to consider when considering university.” Willetts denied suggestions that the scheme would allow less qualified applicants to get to a good university by the backdoor. “I don’t think that would be fair,” he told Today. “That’s why one of the crucial criteria would be that people have to have the same high academic standards.” The proposal is most likely to be taken up by highly selective institutions, which turn away thousands of qualified candidates a year. Oxford accepted slightly more than 3,000 British and EU undergraduates out of about 17,000 who applied for the current academic year. That demand is due to intensify as the latest application figures show the number of candidates for this autumn has risen by 2.1% to about 633,000 – another record high. The places may not be covered by access agreements, under which universities are required to outline how they will improve their proportion of students from state schools and deprived backgrounds. Under one version of the scheme, universities might operate a “needs-blind” admissions process, which assesses all candidates regardless of their ability to pay, but then offers places off-quota to candidates from the most privileged homes. The expansion of places will put greater pressure on less popular universities. Ministers have warned that undersubscribed institutions could have government-funded places withdrawn. In a speech last month, the business secretary, Vince Cable, said: “Institutions could very well find themselves in trouble if students can’t see value. In circumstances where places are unfilled, we might withdraw those places, and institutions should not assume they will easily get them back.” This is more likely to happen if more sought-after universities are free to expand in response to student demand. The government is also keen to encourage more corporate sponsorship of university places. The accountancy firm KPMG has unveiled a plan to pay fees for students at universities including Durham, in a training programme leading to an honours degree in accounting. These students also fall outside government restrictions on numbers, chiefly because they are on bespoke courses reserved for one firm’s employees. They do not need financial support as KPMG covers their fees and pays them a salary. The current version of the scheme is, in effect, an outsourcing of corporate training, but the range of education on offer could become more diverse in future. Tuition fees University funding Higher education Students Education policy David Willetts Hélène Mulholland Jeevan Vasagar guardian.co.uk