Nick Barr, Professor of public economics at the LSE speaking at a recent seminar on the university funding system, thinks they should. Why? Well Nick reckons the blanket interest rate subsidy (i.e. having an interest

rate at the level of inflation rather than the cost of borrowing) costs the tax payer £1.2 billion and only benefits successful professionals in mid career. The argument is to save this money and spend it on ‘increasing access’ for poorer students.

Of course, the problem with this redistributive measure is its impact on student debt, an already touchy subject politically. So far student recruitment has not been adversely affected by introducing tuition fees, so there is reason to believe that ending the subsidy would similarly just be taken on the chin by the student body. So watch out folks … there maybe more pain to come for the ever suffering university student!

The collective university establishment breathed one long sign of relief today, the relief that comes from the knowledge that the impact of tuition fees has not meant doom

and gloom. Students aren’t saying no to debt in favour of plumbing courses or careers with Tesco, in fact they still want those degrees.

No doubt the Higher Education minister Bill Rammell is also breathing easier, let us never forget that his government brought tuition fees in after carefully avoiding mentioning the issue in any manifesto.

What is interesting is much of the buoyant recruitment lies in EU and foreign students, especially Cyprus and Polish students, who are flocking over here. This does put a different complexion on the headline figures.

And … healthy recruitment also means the green light for fees to rise, something the universities themselves have been pushing for (one Vice Chancellor interviewed today wanted to see £7,000 per year). Only a steep decline in numbers is going to cut the wind out of those sails, and the first real test has been past.

WillIseemytutor has made front-page news in the Times Higher Education Supplement (THEd), the article headlined “Alarm at ratings website”. No prizes for guessing who are the ‘alarmed’ (the university establishment) that same constituency the Times Higher Ed ostensibly writes for.
This theme of alarm is later centre stage in their editorial (”if you can’t beat them, blog them”). Here we learn that the new internet media threaten the good name of universities, and most worryingly of all, resists effective ‘policing’ by the said same! So, what is to be done in this new nightmarish world? Apparently universities should also adopt tactics (like blogging) in the furtherance of their interests. What this analysis fails to convey is the assumption that given universities’ vested interests, everyone necessarily benefits from having a small elite controlling all messages. The great thing about online media - and I’m proving it as I write this blog [and yes, ignoring my typos] - is that it democratises what has previously been the province of a powerful few. This gives everyone a voice, and communicates messages which may otherwise go unheard.

No one should forget that universities are in the business of attracting students in what is now a marketplace. To do this they design and run marketing campaigns that sell a message (primarily through branding). Are we really expected to believe that these same institutions do not selectively portray themselves in the best possible light, in other words, are economical with the truth? If you were to gather together all the assorted glossy publicity efforts you would find no such a thing as a ‘mediocre university’, yet logic dictates they must exist, as ‘excellence’ (by definition) can not be the property of all. Everyone maybe ‘pursuing it’ ad nausea (i.e. trying to do better) but that is to say something quite different (and of little substance). Unlike our critics, we at willIseemytutor see our mission as championing the interests of the individual student, to enable them to better navigate all those competing claims and marketing babble in order to obtain the best education that is open to them.

What we do accept is the responsibility not to knowingly mislead anyone. Whilst our site is in its testing phase (alpha) we are continually reviewing data quality to ensure best information and welcome feedback from institutions.

One last point, our use of staff student ratios (SSR’s) has been criticised as a means of comparison as ’simplistic’ and ‘alarming’ - we beg to differ. We think it’s a ‘killer stat’ for reasons I won’t rehearse again here (please review this blog for the argument and see forthcoming FAQ’s).

What is a trifle confusing is the contrast between the lead stories on the front-page and the back-page of the THEd. The headline story on the back-page (”UCU set to sue over workload burdens” - apparently overworked academics are breaking the EU’s 48 hour working time directive). Why? Well, it turns out that 47% of surveyed staff cited rising staff-student-ratios as a cause. What this (inadvertently) shows is the importance of SSR’s in every dimension of higher education - our point exactly!