IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/121557.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Conservative governments’ record on higher education: policy, spending and outcomes, May 2015 to pre-COVID 2020

Author

Listed:
  • McKnight, Abigail Ann
  • Obolenskaya, Polina

Abstract

In this paper we evaluate the distributional impact of higher education policy in the period since the Conservative government took office in 2015 up until the eve of the Covid-19 pandemic in early 2020. We do this by following the common framework adopted by research papers in the Social Policies and Distributional Outcomes in a Divided Britain (SPDO) research programme. Higher education is a devolved matter, so to assess the UK government’s record the analysis mainly focuses on England with comparisons made between UK nations. Key policy changes in England include the removal of the cap on student numbers, changes to HE architecture including the new Office for Students (OfS) and UK Research and Innovation, the introduction of a teaching quality framework and a simplified single route into the sector for new providers. Annual government spending on HE in England, in real terms, remained stable at around £11 billion with the vast majority spent on subsidising student loans. The growing use of unconditional offers is causing concerns with their link to poorer A-level performance, higher rates of drop-out, greater use by lower tariff universities and among applicants from less advantaged areas. More young people attend university than in the past and there is some evidence of a slight narrowing in the socio-economic gap in England. However, inequalities remain including a wide gender gap in participation and ethnic inequalities in degree performance. On average, graduates continue to enjoy an advantage in the labour market. However, beneath average rates of return lie considerable inequalities and it is estimated that a significant share of students would have been financially better-off had they not attended university. While demand stays high, there is no disincentive for providers to offer low value courses as the cost of education for students with low lifetime earnings is borne by tax-payers. Although recent OfS regulatory changes and threats to withhold student loan income to providers not meeting minimum acceptable student outcomes, has the potential to change incentives. The sustainable financing of higher education in England is once again emerging as a major issue. The nominal value of tuition fees is unchanged since 2016/17 leading to a fall in real income per student from this source, and this will inevitably impact on education quality and student experience. The Government did not publish a full response to the most recent review (the Augar Review) until spring 2022, some four years after it was set-up. The review and recommendations already seem a bit dated.

Suggested Citation

  • McKnight, Abigail Ann & Obolenskaya, Polina, 2023. "The Conservative governments’ record on higher education: policy, spending and outcomes, May 2015 to pre-COVID 2020," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 121557, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
  • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:121557
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/121557/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jack Britton & Lorraine Dearden & Neil Shephard & Anna Vignoles, 2016. "How English domiciled graduate earnings vary with gender, institution attended, subject and socio-economic background," IFS Working Papers W16/06, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Anna Adamecz-Völgyi & Morag Henderson & Nikki Shure, 2023. "The labor market returns to “first-in-family” university graduates," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 36(3), pages 1395-1429, July.
    2. Anna Adamecz & Morag Henderson & Nikki Shure, 2024. "Intergenerational educational mobility – The role of non-cognitive skills," Education Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(1), pages 59-78, January.
    3. Francesconi, Marco & Parey, Matthias, 2018. "Early gender gaps among university graduates," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 63-82.
    4. Rita Hordósy & Tom Clark, 2018. "‘It’s Scary and It’s Big, and There’s No Job Security’: Undergraduate Experiences of Career Planning and Stratification in an English Red Brick University," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 7(10), pages 1-20, September.
    5. Walker, Ian & Zhu, Yu, 2018. "University selectivity and the relative returns to higher education: Evidence from the UK," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 230-249.
    6. Adriana Duta & Cristina Iannelli, 2018. "Social Class Inequalities in Graduates’ Labour Market Outcomes: The Role of Spatial Job Opportunities," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 7(10), pages 1-18, October.
    7. Arntz, Melanie & Lipowski, Cäcilia & Neidhöfer, Guido & Zierahn, Ulrich, 2022. "Computers as stepping stones? Technological change and equality of labor market opportunities," ZEW Discussion Papers 22-014, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    8. Milla, Joniada, 2017. "The Context-Bound University Selectivity Premium," IZA Discussion Papers 11025, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    9. Claire Callender & Kevin J. Dougherty, 2018. "Student Choice in Higher Education—Reducing or Reproducing Social Inequalities?," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 7(10), pages 1-28, October.
    10. Marginson, Simon, 2018. "Global trends in higher education financing: The United Kingdom," International Journal of Educational Development, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 26-36.
    11. Adamecz-Völgyi, Anna & Henderson, Morag & Shure, Nikki, 2020. "Is ‘first in family’ a good indicator for widening university participation?," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    12. Andrew Jenkins & Alison Wolf, "undated". "What's in a Name? The Effect of Brand on the Level of English Universities' Fees," DoQSS Working Papers 16-12, Quantitative Social Science - UCL Social Research Institute, University College London.
    13. Britton, Jack & van der Erve, Laura & Belfield, Chris & Vignoles, Anna & Dickson, Matt & Zhu, Yu & Walker, Ian & Dearden, Lorraine & Sibieta, Luke & Buscha, Franz, 2022. "How much does degree choice matter?," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    14. Silvia Kopecny & Steffen Hillmert, 2021. "Place of study, field of study and labour-market region: What matters for wage differences among higher-education graduates?," Journal for Labour Market Research, Springer;Institute for Employment Research/ Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), vol. 55(1), pages 1-21, December.
    15. Sam Sims & Asma Benhenda, 2022. "The effect of financial incentives on the retention of shortage-subject teachers: evidence from England," CEPEO Working Paper Series 22-04, UCL Centre for Education Policy and Equalising Opportunities, revised Apr 2022.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    education; higher education; university;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I28 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Government Policy

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:121557. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.