HE heads caution against sector focus on short-term gains

Many will agree that post degree earnings levels are a poor and very blunt measure of how useful a degree is to society. Individuals should be able to study whatever they choose; but not at the expense of other taxpayers. It is one method the govt is trying to use as an 'objective measure' to weed out 'degree' courses being taught to students who do not have degree level ability. Such courses are a waste of taxpayer funds and also a waste of 3 years of someone's life who would be more suitable for skills based training (TVET) in one of the many well paid occupations the UK now has a chronic shortage of.

I found it strange that this article contained this statement "the UK system, in which student fees are used to subsidise teaching [& research]" I understand the position often made regarding research funding, but isn't this a nonsensical statement in relation to teaching? where except for the few areas of very high cost subjects, all income for teaching comes from the fees that are invoiced by institutions? Unless you were referring to the element of fee loans from the Government which are / are not paid back from each cohort - meaning the full 'cost' of teaching to government is 'subsidised' by the loans that some learners repay? But doesn't subsidy relate to the market & consumer, rather than the regulator/ controller? (And this is a forecast position based on a considerable future period?)

Hi John Baker. It does sound off but I think the point maybe was that some degrees are far more expensive to run than others (particularly if there is a large laboratory based component) but the fees are the same, thus there is cross-subsidy from one subject area to another.