If you are a registered HEi-know user, please log in to continue.
You must be a registered HEi-know user to access Briefing Reports, stories and other information and services. Please click on the link below to find out more about HEi-know.
Universities awarded funding as part of a large-scale programme to tackle hate crime and sexual harassment on campus have made good progress, an evaluation of the scheme has concluded.
Education Secretary Damian Hinds has urged the Office for Students to adopt “ambitious” new measures “in order to tackle risks to the world class quality of higher education” in the UK.
The most internationally engaged "open border" universities perform best in the quality of their education, research impact, and knowledge transfer, according to U-Multirank, which has published its latest set of global rankings.
The Augar review panel was right to highlight under-funding of further education, but addressing this should not mean cuts in the higher education budget, argues Dr Joe Marshall, Chief Executive Officer of the National Centre for Universities and Business (NCUB).
As the sector begins to respond to the report from the post-18 education and funding review panel headed by Philip Augar, HEi-know asked three HE leaders for their initial impressions. Sir Peter Scott, professor of higher education studies at UCL's Institute of Education and former Vice-Chancellor of Kingston University; Dr Rhiannon Birch, head of planning and research at Sheffield University; and Professor Liz Barnes, Vice-Chancellor of Staffordshire University all offered their thoughts.
The long term cost of writing off graduate debt would be up to £80 billion lower than some politicians and commentators have claimed, an analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies.
The IFS dismissed suggestions that government debt would rise by £100 billion if it wrote off loans taken out by graduates who paid £9,000 a year tuition fees. The actual cost would be only around £20 billion if action was taken immediately, rising to £60 billion if the policy was pursued after an election in 2022, it said.
However, a paper on the analysis adds that writing off loans would still weaken public finances, and would also largely benefit high-earning graduates, with low earners standing to gain very little.
The analysis follows a debate on the cost of cancelling graduate debt after Labour pledged to scrap tuition fees and its leader Jeremy Corbyn suggested his party would also like to be able to “deal with” the debt burden of those with “the historical misfortune of being at university during the £9,000 period”
Shortly after Labour’s manifesto promise the IFS stated that scrapping fees for new students would increase public borrowing by £11 billion a year.
The new analysis says writing off post-2012 fee loans would bring about a one-off increase in the government’s deficit of £34 billion, but beyond that it would be increased only by the loss of interest that would otherwise have been accrued on the outstanding debt.
“Depending on how the write-off is scored it is possible that the deficit would actually be reduced in future years as less debt will be written off in those years. But of course this would all be dwarfed by the £11 billion a year cost if loans were replaced by “free” tuition going forward,” the paper adds.
The IFS also adds that cancelling graduate debt could leave those who did not borrow the full amount available and the 7 per cent of students starting in 2014-15 who chose to pay fees upfront feeling cheated.
© 2013 Media FHE, all rights reserved