The government’s plans to introduce accelerated or two-year degrees has divided opinion. Some critics of the sector have gleefully hoped that it signals an overdue shake-up of “bloated institutions”. Others have decried the “market-centric thinking” that aims to further commodify and squeeze public education. But the government’s proposals are far less radical than some recent op-eds would have us believe.
As the consultation makes clear, no university will be forced to offer two-year degrees. The new Office for Students will merely “support and encourage” their development, and wait and see whether the requisite demand for them really exists .
The government is using the greater flexibility it was given in setting tuition fees and student loan regulations by the recent passage of the Higher Education and Research Act. The consultation is relatively straightforward in this sense, proposing that providers may charge annual tuition fees for an accelerated degree at 20% above the standard level. At present, this would be £11,100 a year for an accelerated course at most higher education providers, compared to £9,250 for the normal three- or four-year offering.
The idea is that this will sufficiently incentivise providers – both traditional universities and newer private providers – to experiment with the new mode of delivery. As the latest Ucas End of Cycle report has shown, competition between universities for undergraduate recruitment is growing fiercer. The two-year offer may prove a tempting addition to a university’s provision in order to “undercut” their competitors on price .
However, this needs to be weighed against the raw financial incentives. Two years’ revenue of £11,100 adds up to a smaller amount than three years’ of £9,250. And then there are the logistical challenges in having “split” provision between standard and accelerated courses to consider, which may prove less cost efficient for providers than the government hopes.
Universities would have to bet on strong recruitment to accelerated courses to make them financially viable. Most would be wary of taking such a leap of faith in a market where slipping up for just one year’s recruitment can have a devastating impact on an institution’s income. We still have very little evidence of where student demand for these courses may come from, and there are questions to be asked about whether the maintenance support offered in the consultation will be enough to make them appealing to students – particularly those of more limited financial means .
It’s therefore far more likely that the accelerated offer will be found predominantly within the alternative sector, as it is presently. The government estimates that in 2015-16, 70% of the 2,500 students studying accelerated courses were enrolled across six alternative providers. The most notable and vocal of these providers is the University of Buckingham.
The government hopes that an expanded alternative sector offering accelerated courses will provide healthy competition to established universities. But the evidence we have available suggests that, rather than drawing away students from “traditional” universities on to “traditional” courses, new providers are instead catering to new and niche areas of the market. They are predominantly teaching courses in business studies, and most are located in London.
So academics teaching in the vast majority of established universities shouldn’t worry about their courses being squeezed into a shorter time-frame. Most growth in accelerated degrees will likely come elsewhere, or on a small selection of universities’ course offerings.
The government’s modest proposals are therefore difficult to argue with. But if two-year degrees do take off, universities will have to continue to demonstrate the merits of the efficiency and value of the three-year offering.
There are some challenging questions to answer here. Former universities minister David Willetts (himself a proponent of longer, not shorter degrees) points out in his new book, A University Education, that a European bachelors degree is supposed to include roughly 4,500 to 5,400 hours of study according to the Bologna Process.
However the Quality Assurance Agency expects only 3,600 hours of study for a UK honours degree [pdf], and there is research that shows British students study on average only 30 hours a week, compared to 42 in France and 39 in Switzerland. According to Willetts, this “leads to raised eyebrows at international meetings” of higher education policymakers.
We might argue that the “taking our time” British approach to higher education brings with it more extrinsic value. Students have more time for extracurricular development, and teachers have more time to research. But if two-year courses attract more demand than expected, the case will have to be better made to applicants and to the government that the traditional three-year course deserves to still reign supreme,Reckoned as one of the top design universities with diversity of programmes, polyu fashion and textile, as well as applied science programme, which is committed to be a hub for innovative design education in Hong Kong.
