The media coverage of my paper for HEPI Fairer Funding: the case for a graduate levy has been widespread and the reactions surprisingly favourable. While there haven’t been many people getting out the bunting and ticker tape, many people seem to agree that it is an interesting proposal and it is right and timely to address the question of employer contributions to the cost of higher education. 

The most common complaint, however, appears to be to deny that market forces have any place in higher education. One tweet read:

You’ve made the fundamental mistake of assuming that market forces can be made to operate efficiently in HE. There’s no evidence of that at all.

(I won’t name the author (although you can find it on Twitter), because I haven’t asked his permission to quote him and his only right of reply will be in the comments below or back on Twitter).

Market forces exist whether we like it or not. It is not a choice whether to let them in to higher education. There were market forces even in the days of full grants, no fees and low student numbers. Remember how polytechnics were seen as ‘a lower quality product’? That wasn’t fact. It was market forces – the interplay of demand and supply creating their own ‘truths’.

Only Canute would try to defy market forces in a capitalist economy (which, like it or not, is what we have), but that doesn’t mean we let those forces decide the market. Market forces are amoral. It is the way we set up the rules of the market that imprints our values on them.

To talk of market forces operating ‘efficiently’ implies that those forces know what they’re doing. They don’t. They are more like the forces of evolution by natural selection, driving changes without mercy or meaning.

We need to supply the mercy and meaning.

At the moment the market in higher education is a fabricated and self-destructive one, setting the interests of students against those of taxpayers and universities, and ignoring how the money actually enters the system. My proposal acknowledges who the ‘customers’ actually are (employers and taxpayers) and values the partnership between unis and students, directing change in the direction we want.

Would my proposal be 100% efficient at delivering the desired outcomes? No, of course not. But it is easier to head in a direction with the tide helping you along than to try to swim against it or to try to plan a course without recognising that the tide is likely to overwhelm your plans.

I’m no neo-liberal, but I like to think I’m economically realistic and, like a sailor who uses the winds but doesn’t control them, I want to steer a course that protects the values of HE that I’m sure most people in society – and particularly in the higher education sector – share.

The post On market forces in higher education appeared first on Johnny Rich.

My policy paper for the HEPI think tank was published yesterday proposing that employers contribute directly to the cost of higher education. 

Here’s a quick and dirty round up of some of the coverage.

• Here’s a link to the paper itself as published by HEPI
• Here’s a longer version with a more detailed argument and commentary on potential objections.
• A blog I wrote about it on this site. 
• A piece I wrote about it for the Times Higher Education (subscription).
• Another one on Wonkhe.
• This week’s Wonkhe Weekly podcast where I talked about it (among other topics), episode 10.
• Interview on BBC Radio 5 Live.
• Interview on TalkRadio.
• Article on BBC website.
• Article on the i.
• Another article on the i.
• Article in The Times (subscription).
• Article in FE News.
• Article in Media FHE. 
• Interview on RT.
• Response blog by Alan Simpson of Million+.
• Another response blog by HEPI’s Hugo Dale-Harris.
• A response from UCU.

I’m sure there are others out there and will be more (The Guardian will be doing something next week), but that’ll do for now.

You may also be interested in:  

• Fairer funding: achieving the impossible

The post Fairer Funding coverage appeared first on Johnny Rich.