Public Policy

What to Make of The UK Universities Minister’s Departure

July 15, 2014 1492

David Willetts

David Willetts (Photo: Which? Press Office/Flickr, CC BY SA)

Last night, a Twitter hashtag emerged to gather users’ thoughts about how posterity might record the outgoing U.K. Minister for Universities and Science’s contribution to the sector. It was fascinating to watch #WillettsLegacy develop, with initial ire that “Higher Education has never been so deep in the shit” (@dolbontboy) slowly giving way to “real admiration” (@mikegalsworthy) for a “thoughtful and respected” (@keith_herrmann) minister with “passion” and “enthusiasm” (@Suzanne_Wilson) for his brief.

For some, the legacy of David Willetts was “crippling debt” (@tmyoungman), “accelerated marketization” (@DrLeeJones) and a “black hole in funding” (@cmsdengl).  For others, Willetts was “a visionary” (@LE_Aerospace), “brilliant” and “outstanding” (@ProfRWinston). Often mentioned was “the value of having a universities minister who understands science” (@AlanHeavens).

This article by Steven Jones originally appeared on the LSE Impact of Social Sciences blog as “Higher Education community responds to cabinet reshuffle, but it is too soon to foretell David Willetts’ legacy” and is reposted under the Creative Commons license (CC BY 3.0).

At the time of writing, about 30 percent of the #WillettsLegacy tweets were positive, 45 percent were negative and 25 percent were mixed.

The success or otherwise of Willetts’ reforms won’t be known for some time yet, of course. The 2012 funding model places graduates in hitherto unknown levels of debt. Indeed, the Institute of Fiscal Studies recently noted that whereas under the previous student loans system 50% of graduates would complete their repayment by the age of forty, only 5% will do so under the new system. The 2012 model may be more progressive during the period immediately after graduation, but future generations of middle-earners are likely to pay more for longer.

If the reforms were an attempt to introduce competition to the sector, they were largely unsuccessful. Predictably, raising fees to £9k per year didn’t result in universities ruthlessly undercutting one another in the market place. What it did create was a plethora of “Cashpoint Colleges” teaching nothing much at all, at eye-watering expense to the taxpayer.

Indeed, early predictions of how costly the government’s underwriting of the new system would be proved wildly optimistic. RAB estimates have now risen from 30 percent to 45 percent, making the system more expensive than that which it replaced. Some call for the fee cap to be lifted; others suggest some kind of Graduate Tax may be a fairer option.

Though the widening participation agenda seems not to have taken a hit from the introduction of higher fees, UCAS report that applications from mature students and part-time students are downsubstantially since 2012. Even when young people from state schools get the grades for a top university, evidence shows that they’re less likely to apply and less likely to be offered a place than their equal-attainment peers from the independent sector.

Findings also indicate that some applicants are much more favoured by the applications process than others. Willetts supported the use of contextual data in admissions (“if they’ve come from a school that doesn’t get many good A-level grades,  getting a grade at that school is even more of an achievement”), but missed key opportunities to level the playing field further.

On the other hand, Willetts did much to raise the profile of teaching in Higher Education. For all of its faults, the National Student Survey shows student satisfaction rising every year. Open access for journal articles (triggered by Willetts’ own frustrations at being charged to read scholarly publications when researching his most recent book, The Pinch: How Baby-Boomers Took Their Children’s Future, and Why They Should Give it Back) is a step in the right direction.

Indeed, in Willetts, we had a minister who was willing to engage directly and openly with academic research. At a Sutton Trust event last year, I recall Willetts taking issue with an academic reportauthored by John Jerrim of the Institute of Education. The debate was heated, and Willetts repudiation of the evidence wasn’t entirely convincing, but it was heartening to see a policy-maker engage directly with educational research (rather than, say, dismiss its authors as blobbish ‘enemies of promise’).

With four years’ service as the Minister of State for Universities and Science, Willetts is entitled to the odd blunder. Among his most cringe-worthy was citing feminism as the “single biggest factor” for the UK’s social mobility problem, although selling off old student loan books smacked of fiscal desperation and the proposed cuts to the Disability Student Allowance are particularly offensive.

With no student having yet graduated under the 2012 system, Willetts’ legacy can be no more than a matter of speculation. Hasty measures to open up the Higher Education sector to alternative providers may yet take their toll both on universities and on the taxpayer. Those of us who received our degrees for free may wince at the levels of debt new generations of graduates face.

However, the consensus from social media, and beyond, is that Willetts shielded the Higher Educations from the worst excesses of austerity and neoliberalism. He’s generally remembered as a minister committed to his brief and ready to engage with dissenting voices; as “one of government’s genuinely nice blokes” (@tnewtondunn).


Steven Jones is a senior lecturer at the Manchester Institute of Education. He blogs at H.E. Watch and tweets as @StevenJones_MCR

View all posts by Steven Jones

Related Articles

Pope Francis, Human Dignity, and the Right to Stay, Migrate and Return
International Debate
May 5, 2025

Pope Francis, Human Dignity, and the Right to Stay, Migrate and Return

Read Now
Rosanna Smart Featured at Mark Kleiman Innovation for Public Policy Memorial Lecture 
Public Policy
April 29, 2025

Rosanna Smart Featured at Mark Kleiman Innovation for Public Policy Memorial Lecture 

Read Now
How Can You Serve the Globe’s People If You Don’t Know How Many There Are?
International Debate
April 10, 2025

How Can You Serve the Globe’s People If You Don’t Know How Many There Are?

Read Now
The End of the Free Trade Era?
Bookshelf
April 8, 2025

The End of the Free Trade Era?

Read Now
Yes, Cities Can Be Sexist 

Yes, Cities Can Be Sexist 

In this month’s issue of The Evidence newsletter, Josephine Lethbridge examines how city designs exacerbate gender inequalities – and what we can […]

Read Now
Jens Ludwig on American Gun Violence

Jens Ludwig on American Gun Violence

Let’s cut to the chase: “The overwhelming majority of murders in the United States involve guns,” says economist Jens Ludwig. “And in […]

Read Now
Covid-19 and the Crisis of Legitimacy

Covid-19 and the Crisis of Legitimacy

Wherever you stand on the management of the Covid-19 pandemic, it is hard not to accept that it has created a serious […]

Read Now
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments