35,66 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: Bentham Science Publishers
- Kategorie: Fachliteratur
- Sprache: Englisch
- Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2018
In a constantly changing economic environment, higher education institutions need to adapt in order to be relevant to their stakeholders and the society. The unpredictable landscape also demands a fresh approach as university presidents are increasingly s
Das E-Book können Sie in Legimi-Apps oder einer beliebigen App lesen, die das folgende Format unterstützen:
Seitenzahl: 286
Ähnliche
BENTHAM SCIENCE PUBLISHERS LTD.
End User License Agreement (for non-institutional, personal use)
This is an agreement between you and Bentham Science Publishers Ltd. Please read this License Agreement carefully before using the ebook/echapter/ejournal (“Work”). Your use of the Work constitutes your agreement to the terms and conditions set forth in this License Agreement. If you do not agree to these terms and conditions then you should not use the Work.
Bentham Science Publishers agrees to grant you a non-exclusive, non-transferable limited license to use the Work subject to and in accordance with the following terms and conditions. This License Agreement is for non-library, personal use only. For a library / institutional / multi user license in respect of the Work, please contact: [email protected].
Usage Rules:
All rights reserved: The Work is the subject of copyright and Bentham Science Publishers either owns the Work (and the copyright in it) or is licensed to distribute the Work. You shall not copy, reproduce, modify, remove, delete, augment, add to, publish, transmit, sell, resell, create derivative works from, or in any way exploit the Work or make the Work available for others to do any of the same, in any form or by any means, in whole or in part, in each case without the prior written permission of Bentham Science Publishers, unless stated otherwise in this License Agreement.You may download a copy of the Work on one occasion to one personal computer (including tablet, laptop, desktop, or other such devices). You may make one back-up copy of the Work to avoid losing it. The following DRM (Digital Rights Management) policy may also be applicable to the Work at Bentham Science Publishers’ election, acting in its sole discretion:25 ‘copy’ commands can be executed every 7 days in respect of the Work. The text selected for copying cannot extend to more than a single page. Each time a text ‘copy’ command is executed, irrespective of whether the text selection is made from within one page or from separate pages, it will be considered as a separate / individual ‘copy’ command.25 pages only from the Work can be printed every 7 days.3. The unauthorised use or distribution of copyrighted or other proprietary content is illegal and could subject you to liability for substantial money damages. You will be liable for any damage resulting from your misuse of the Work or any violation of this License Agreement, including any infringement by you of copyrights or proprietary rights.
Disclaimer:
Bentham Science Publishers does not guarantee that the information in the Work is error-free, or warrant that it will meet your requirements or that access to the Work will be uninterrupted or error-free. The Work is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either express or implied or statutory, including, without limitation, implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. The entire risk as to the results and performance of the Work is assumed by you. No responsibility is assumed by Bentham Science Publishers, its staff, editors and/or authors for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products instruction, advertisements or ideas contained in the Work.
Limitation of Liability:
In no event will Bentham Science Publishers, its staff, editors and/or authors, be liable for any damages, including, without limitation, special, incidental and/or consequential damages and/or damages for lost data and/or profits arising out of (whether directly or indirectly) the use or inability to use the Work. The entire liability of Bentham Science Publishers shall be limited to the amount actually paid by you for the Work.
General:
Any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with this License Agreement or the Work (including non-contractual disputes or claims) will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the U.A.E. as applied in the Emirate of Dubai. Each party agrees that the courts of the Emirate of Dubai shall have exclusive jurisdiction to settle any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with this License Agreement or the Work (including non-contractual disputes or claims).Your rights under this License Agreement will automatically terminate without notice and without the need for a court order if at any point you breach any terms of this License Agreement. In no event will any delay or failure by Bentham Science Publishers in enforcing your compliance with this License Agreement constitute a waiver of any of its rights.You acknowledge that you have read this License Agreement, and agree to be bound by its terms and conditions. To the extent that any other terms and conditions presented on any website of Bentham Science Publishers conflict with, or are inconsistent with, the terms and conditions set out in this License Agreement, you acknowledge that the terms and conditions set out in this License Agreement shall prevail.Bentham Science Publishers Ltd. Executive Suite Y - 2 PO Box 7917, Saif Zone Sharjah, U.A.E. Email: [email protected]
FOREWORD
This is the authors’ second book on universities in the 21st century, and it couldn’t come at a more relevant time, when public confidence in higher education is fading. With rising graduate unemployment, bloated administrative costs and student dissatisfaction, it’s no surprise that people are questioning the value of a degree, not to mention the university’s viability as an institution. If the essential work of teaching and research is to continue, the management model must change – and that begins with an honest examination of a university’s function and purpose.
In this marvellously insightful book, the authors offer some valuable strategies to help university leaders and students succeed in this uncertain era, when technology and artificial intelligence make knowledge rapidly redundant. They show us how thinking and behaviour need to change, from the top down. This book gets to the heart of what makes a great university – and one that can survive.
PREFACE
In our 2016 book, Reshaping Universities for Survival in the 21st Century: New Opportunities and Paradigms, we described the landscape of higher education and the challenges facing universities. We reflected on the unintended consequences of competition and marketization, such as ballooning student debt, graduate unemployment, and academic capitalism. In this follow-up book, we examine in greater detail the consequences of market failures caused by the marketization of higher education: an oversupply of graduates, the exploitation of PhD students for cheap labor, student dissatisfaction, the mismatch between qualifications and needed skills, student disillusionment, and the diminishing return on investments by students and their families. These failures have all contributed to society’s loss of confidence in universities. The marketable “excellence” of universities is artificially based on ranking metrics which neglect the core academic mission of teaching. The volume of research produced has had poor outcomes and only served to enhance ranking metrics. Poor management and bloated administration are major causes of high fees and student unaffordability. While student demand declines in the West, China strives to be the world’s new science superpower. Meanwhile, there is the omnipresent threat of disruption by new technologies.
In our narrative, our purpose has been to search for the quintessence of the idea of a university, the key principle which has enabled the institution to survive. We explain how universities can future-proof university graduates in this fast-changing world and contribute to the public good. We argue that the old managerial models are incompatible with the volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous world (VUCA) we now face. Finally, we offer strategies for university leaders to lead effectively in the VUCA era, illustrated by a case study.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Christina Chow,Clement LeungDr Christina Chowhas an Honours degree in Microbiology and Immunology from Canada’s McGill University, a Master of Management from the Norwegian School of Management, and a Doctor of Business Administration from the University of Newcastle, Australia. She is a Fellow of the Australian Institute of Company Directors, a Fellow of the Australian Institute of Management, and a member of Ausbiotech. She has teaching, research and management experience at institutions including McGill University, University of Hong Kong, University of Melbourne, Royal Children’s Hospital and RMIT University. She also has extensive experience in corporate governance and financial, project and risk management in the tertiary education sector. At RMIT University in Australia, she has worked with the former Vice-Chancellor and Chancellor in establishing RMIT’s Campus in Vietnam, the first foreign-owned campus in the country and Australia’s largest offshore campus. She is currently the Principal Advisor in Global Business in the College of Science, Engineering & Health at RMIT University. Her previous publication includes “Mission Possible? An analysis of Australian universities’ missions” and “Reshaping Universities for Survival in the 21st Century: New Opportunities and Paradigms”.
Professor Clement Leung’sacademic experience spans four continents. Professor Leung obtained his BSc (Hons) in Mathematics from McGill University, Canada, an MSc in Mathematics from Oxford University, and a PhD in Computer Science from University College London. He has an outstanding record of research achievements and extensive experience in the building up of academic units and international engagement. He has held several academic appointments in Europe, including an Established Chair and Head of Department at the University of London. His Australasian academic appointments include the Foundation Chair in Computer Science at Australia’s Victoria University, and full professorships at the National University of Singapore, Hong Kong Baptist University, as well as currently serving as an Associate Dean for Science & Technology at United International College. He holds two US patents, and his publications include four books and well over one hundred research articles in top high-impact journals. His services to the academic community include serving as Program Chair, Program Co-Chair, Keynote Speaker, Panel Expert, and on the Program Committee and Steering Committee of major International Conferences. In addition to serving on the Editorial Board of ten international journals, he has served as Chairman of the International Association for Pattern Recognition Technical Committee on Multimedia and Visual Information Systems, as well as well as on the International Standards (ISO) MPEG-7 Committee responsible for generating standards for digital multimedia, where he played an active role in shaping the influential MPEG-7 International Standard. He is listed in Who's Who in Australia, Who's Who in the World, Great Minds of the 21st Century, Dictionary of International Biography, and Who's Who in Australasia & Pacific Nations. He is a Fellow of the British Computer Society, awarded a Chartered Fellow by the British Computer Society, and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Christina Chow,Clement LeungAny historical, critical and integrative research depends on the research, analyses and observations of previous scholars. We are greatly indebted to each and every source cited in this eBook and we hope that we have made every effort to cite them appropriately.
We are very grateful for the expert advice of the staff at Bentham science eBook Department, especially for the tireless support and guidance of Ms. Humaira Hashmi, Editorial Manager of Publications and Ms. Hira Aftab, Assistant Manager, eBooks Publications Department.
Consent for Publication
Not applicable.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors confirm that the authors have no conflict of interest to declare for this publication.
PART I: THE EROSION OF CONFIDENCE
A Sign of the Times
Christina Chow,Clement LeungAbstract
This chapter looks at the negative headlines that currently dominate the public image of universities. In a climate of increasing graduate unemployment and underemployment and ever-increasing fees, the public is questioning the real value of a higher education. The crisis in college costs is eroding the democratic promise of higher education.
Today, the Western university model is under near-constant attack. Barely a week goes by without a broadsheet launching a scathing critique of Western university culture: the prevailing narrative is that this is a system in decay. Negative headlines dominate the public image of universities: “We've turned our unis into aimless, moneygrubbing exploiters of students” (Gittens 2017, The Sydney Morning Herald); “Are universities worth it?” (Aedy et al. 2017, Australian Broadcasting Corporation); “Degrees of failure: why it’s time to reconsider how we run our universities” (Wolf 2017, Prospect Magazine UK); “Universities are broke. So let’s cut the pointless admin and get back to teaching” (Spicer 2017, The Guardian UK); “University tuition fees are a pointless Ponzi scheme” (Swinford & Turner 2017, The Telegraph UK) “Is the Knowledge Factory broken?” (BBC The Inquiry 2017); “Is the public really losing faith in higher education?” (Lederman 2017, Inside Higher Education); “Moody’s Downgrades Higher Ed’s Outlook From ‘Stable’ to ‘Negative’” (Harris 2017, The Chronicle of Higher Education); “The Case against Education: Why the Education System Is a Waste of Time and Money" (Caplan, 2018).
These headlines signal a worrying trend. It is hard to imagine that in our 21st century knowledge economy, the demand for higher education and lifelong learning could lead to anything but growth. With the support of advanced technologies, higher education has enormous potential for expansion, in terms of providing wider access, improved quality, and greater affordability. Instead, universities have morphed into businesses heavily focused on rankings and league
tables, with ever-increasing fees becoming an issue for the majority of students. It is not surprising that, in this climate of increasing graduate unemployment and underemployment, the public is questioning the real value of a higher education.
Higher education is a critical factor for achieving social mobility in society. This is the basis of the American Dream: that one can realise one’s potential through a good education and hard work. Unfortunately, access to higher education is now out of reach for low-income families. In fact, the Institute for Higher Education Policy report has found that 95% of US colleges are unaffordable for low-income students (Poutré, Rorison, & Voight 2017). Most Americans cannot keep up with the escalating costs of a university education.
Yet universities seem oblivious to the rising dissatisfaction in society. While many industries such as health, aviation and manufacturing have progressed to take advantage of new technologies and management methods to better service their customers, most universities have retreated back to their bureaucratic ivory towers. Few current leaders have the courage to break ranks and demystify the marketization of universities or discuss the real purpose of higher education. Many administrators name-check values which happen to be in vogue – student experience, student outcomes, student entrepreneurialism – without putting their resources towards providing the transformational experience that students need. Instead, they seem focused on short-term goals, such as increasing student enrolment numbers for the next semester.
In 2017, Dr. Michael Poliakoff, President of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) said that universities’ ballooning administrative costs are a huge impediment to college affordability and access (American Council of Trustees and Alumni 2017). This is bad for morale. A recent report by the Institute for Higher Education Policy found that, even with the maximum level of federal financial aid, 70% of universities are unaffordable for the majority of students. The crisis in college costs is eroding the democratic promise of higher education.
The amount of funds spent on teaching versus administration reflects a university’s priorities and its institutional efficiency. A 2010 study of higher education costs in the United States found that there was a 39% increase in teaching expenditure per student between 1993 and 2007, compared to a 61% increase in administrative spending per student. Again, a 2014 report found that the ratio of academics to administrators at public research universities in the US had declined from 3.5 in 1990 to 2.7 in 2000. By 2012, the ratio had dropped again, to 2.2 (Archibald & Feldman 2008). This explosion of university administrators, while cutting back on academic staff, does not make rational sense to observers.
Based on Howard Bowen’s “revenue theory of costs” (Bowen 1980), the problem of cost escalation could be due to the rising revenue made available to universities, which tend to spend all the funds they can raise. According to this model, revenue becomes the driver of cost, rather than cost being a determinant of tuition. Furthermore, some universities set fees according to what they think students are willing to pay: a figure established by comparison with their ranked competitors and the public perception of excellence.
Contrived Excellence
Christina Chow,Clement LeungAbstract
This chapter looks at the manufactured excellence of universities which are based on league tables and ranking metrics. Success in these rankings lulls universities into a false sense of security and complacency. Societies are beginning to feel that universities which run as businesses and are obsessed with growing revenue cannot pursue real learning. There is declining confidence even within the higher education sector. Such negative sentiments have wider implications, as politicians can use them as an excuse in cutting government funding and attacking universities and experts.
Sir Keith Burnett, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Sheffield, has declared that “universities are becoming like mechanical nightingales”. He likens the current predicament of universities to Hans Christian Andersen’s story of the emperor who was captivated by an artificial mechanical nightingale instead of a real bird. Although the mechanical bird has some of the ideals of a perfect bird, it has a limited repertoire of songs and cannot fly. In the end, the emperor falls ill and is rescued by the real bird and its genuine singing abilities. Burnett’s point is that universities have constructed an artificial model of excellence metrics which ignore the real purposes of education. Instead of serving the needs of society and the mission of scholarship, they are now focused primarily on achieving high ranks in league tables. Success in these rankings lulls them into a false sense of security and complacency (Burnett 2016).
Academic faculties experience the same kind of frustration as the students and the general public. Sadly, universities have been taken over by the worst elements of corporate culture and commercial agenda: exploiting staff, short-changing students, and dishonestly recruiting students into disciplines which have no job outcomes. However, many university heads would deny that such a crisis of confidence even exists; endless funding fights with governments are distracting them from the mission of education. Universities are accused of giving lavish executive salaries to a parade of senior university leaders, while crying poor in the face of funding cuts. The excessive remuneration given to university vice-
chancellors has recently come under the spotlight in Australia and the UK, with education ministers calling for restraints. At the same time, universities are exploiting their sessional teachers and PhD students, who shoulder a large proportion of teaching responsibilities.
Although students now pay higher tuition fees, they appear to be putting less effort into their studies, leading to high dropout rates – for instance, Australian universities are experiencing their lowest completion rates since the time series began in 2005. In the 2010 cohort, only 66 percent of students had completed a course after six years. That rate is even worse for students studying for a degree in teaching, where the completion rate has dropped to 62% (Australian Government Department of Education 2017). Some Australian universities reported that dropout rates for first-year students were as high as 40%, with the average hovering around 21%. There are also concerns about the growing number of students who reported that they were not fully utilizing their skills and education three years after graduation (Australian Government Department of Education 2017). In the UK, the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) reports that for first-degree students aged under 21 who enrolled in 2013-14, the dropout rate was 6% after one year of studies, with some universities’ dropout rates reaching 20%. Similarly, in the US, the dropout rates of many four-year institutions are approaching 50%, with dropout at two-year colleges reaching as high as 80% (Craig 2017).
In the first two decades of the 21st century, universities in the West have enjoyed unprecedented growth in terms of numbers. International student enrolments have boomed. Cities have an explosion of new campus buildings. Almost every major university has an ambitious master plan to expand its footprint, sometimes creating campuses in cities which are depressed (Wolf 2017). Is this expansion frenzy sustainable? Are universities living on borrowed money? In a depressed employment environment, it is not realistic to expect that students can continue to shoulder the huge financial burdens. At the same time, the home countries of international students are rapidly building better universities. In the past decade, many universities have adopted expansion as a key part of their innovation agenda. However, it is time we examined the unrestrained expansion of universities.
As institutions of higher learning, have universities forgotten that one of their primary missions is to help students learn, to have life-changing experiences, and to continue on a journey of lifelong learning? With all the zest for industry engagement, innovation and commercialisation, students seem to have been omitted from a university’s success formula (Featherstone 2016). Regrettably, universities are preoccupied with increasing student revenue and recruiting high profile researchers in order to boost their global university rankings. Students and teaching-dedicated academics are not a priority, except when student survey results are released. Institutions may pay lip service to student-centric learning, but they rarely investigate how to actually improve the experience of genuine learning. There is a great deal that universities can do to help the new generation of students accommodate learning into their lifestyles, such as the use of virtual reality and artificial intelligence.
Societies are beginning to feel that universities which run as businesses and are obsessed with growing revenue cannot pursue real learning (Gillings & Williamson 2015). There are widespread cases of cheating, plagiarism, academic dishonesty, testamur forgeries and a general decline in academic standards reported in Australian universities – even the most elite institutions are not immune to this phenomenon. An open market exists for selling assignments and essay-writing services. Alarmingly, some final-year medical students were found to have falsified records of interviews with patients who had died, in order to pass their assignments (Gillings & Williamson 2015). The intention of the exercise was to help students better understand the plight of patients with chronic medical conditions; however, these students were not interested to learn and had no respect for the integrity of the profession.
In this climate, one cannot be sure of the quality of graduates produced by the system. There is little wonder that employers complain about the lack of appropriate skills in graduates. In their appetite for ever-increasing student revenue, some universities are admitting students who are unsuited to higher learning, and merely require a diploma for career purposes. For these students, a degree is little more than an accessory; they do not care about professional integrity or doing justice to their fellow graduates. Lamentably, universities fail to instil in their students a desire for learning: the primary responsibility of higher education.
The truth is that corporatized and partially-privatised universities in Australia have become addicted to fee-paying students, especially those from overseas who pay higher fees to secure their places. While the excuse is that they need to compensate for the lack of adequate government funding, there is no real justification for the insatiable appetite for revenue. Universities often accept borderline overseas students in order to achieve their revenue targets. This unbridled growth, sanctioned by the Government, creates a race to the bottom, putting the integrity of all universities at risk. If universities were to be put under stress-tests (like those applied in the banking sector where a simulation is used to see if an institution can remain solvent under difficult financial situations), they would be in great financial stress given any significant drop in international student enrolments.
There is declining confidence even within the higher education sector. In a report released by the Chronicle of Higher Education, the percentage of academic leaders in the US who regard American universities as the best or among the best in the world has fallen dramatically, from 87% to 67% from 2014 to 2017. The percentage of academic leaders who believe that the US will remain a leading force in higher education has also dropped, from 78% in 2014 to 60% in 2017.
A 2017 survey of US College Chief Business Officers by Inside Higher Ed (Lederman & Seltzer 2017) reveals that 71% of the respondents are increasingly concerned about the financial stability of US colleges. That figure is up from 63% in 2016 and 56% in 2015. These business officers said that universities would most likely respond by boosting student enrolments. There was also conjecture that institutions might merge, consolidate or use shared services. Given the declining number of potential domestic students in the US, some business officers voiced concerns that the large number of colleges and universities in the country is unsustainable.
Some universities are aggressively looking for international students to fill the revenue gaps. The financial stress of US public and private four-year institutions is confirmed by the latest credit rating released by Moody, which changed its outlook for the sector from “stable” to “negative.” (Harris 2017). Moody cited muted growth in tuition revenue and uncertainty surrounding the federal government policy changes as grounds for its downgrade. In January 2018, the ratings agency Standard and Poor’s gave a bleak outlook for the US higher education sector. The agency listed the recently passed tax reform and its uncertain impact on the endowment of institutions as one of the reasons for its negative rating. The agency believes that many institutions have limited flexibility and resources to draw on in the face of further credit pressure. The agency also cited the growing disconnect between students’ expectations of better employment outcomes and their willingness to pay would put greater strain on mid-level institutions (Harris 2018).
The distrust of so-called expertise is another symptom of the declining confidence in universities. Experts claim that their expertise based on training and years of research, usually conducted at universities and through teaching and consultancy experience. Yet many politicians have publicly disdained such authority. Michael Gove, the former British Secretary of State for Justice, famously stated during a debate on Brexit that “people in this country have had enough of experts” (Mance 2016). It appears that the public is still harboring a grievance towards experts for not being able to predict the Global Financial Crisis of 2007 (Clark 2017). The erosion of public confidence in universities is affecting philanthropic donations to these once-revered institutions.
Recently, a Pew Research Center study (2017) found that while 55% of the US public continued to regard universities as having a positive effect on the country, Republican voters had increasingly negative views on the national institutions. In 2017, 58% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents said that colleges and universities have a negative effect on the country. This sentiment might have contributed to the delay in the re-authorisation of the Higher Education Act by the US Congress. The declining perception of universities could be due to problems of affordability and ballooning student debts, as well as the debate over freedom of expression. There has been growing dissatisfaction over universities’ handling of student protests, with the feeling that university presidents should uphold absolute freedom of expression at all costs (Arnett 2017). Controversies over disinviting and removing speakers, and the creation of safe spaces, has probably damaged the conservative perception of universities.
In fact, a 2016 Pew Research Center found that over 70% of Americans believed in protecting the views of those with unpopular opinions and the right to nonviolent protest, which they regard as crucial to democracy. Further surveys conducted in the late 2017 by the Wall Street Journal, NBC News, Civis Analytics and Echelon Insights found similar public sentiments towards higher education. It appears that Americans are losing faith in the value of a college degree. The research shows society’s increasing doubt of the value of higher education, based on the fear of a huge debt burden and the slim chance of finding a well-paid job. Some respondents felt that universities were more concerned in pushing their own agenda and a particular political viewpoint, rather than focusing on useful subject matter and real-world skills (Lederman 2017). These negative sentiments have wider implications, as politicians can use them as an excuse in cutting government funding and attacking universities and experts.
One of the more damning reports on the current state of higher education comes from the United Kingdom. In December 2017, the UK National Audit Office released a report (Morse 2017) highly critical of its Higher Education market. It was prepared by Sir Amyas Morse KCB, Comptroller and Auditor General for the House of Commons. The report found that over the past few decades, the UK Government has increasingly relied on market mechanisms for the delivery of its national higher education. The intention was supposedly to give students more choices and create greater competition among providers in order to improve quality, deliver better value for money and reduce social inequity. Regrettably, the audit found that the marketization of higher education in UK had failed to deliver the intended outcomes.
The report found that the UK Government has made huge investments in its higher education system. The UK Department of Education increased the upfront funding for higher education from £6 billion in 2007/08 to over £9 billion a year in 2016, with funding per undergraduate increasing from £5,381 to £7,903 at 2016 prices. UK students pay for their higher education through income-contingent repayment loans, with a legal obligation to make repayments based on earnings after completing their studies. Any unpaid student loan balance is written off after 30 years and the Department estimates that around 40–45% of the student loans will never be repaid. Despite these massive investments, the outcomes have been very disappointing. Among the key findings, the report found that:
“Only 32% of students from England consider their course offers value for money, down from 50% in 2012. This figure is the lowest in the UK. Furthermore, 37% of students from England consider their course poor value” (Key Finding 15).
The audit also found that:
“Higher education has a more limited level of consumer protection than other complex products such as financial services ………. Prospective students have very little access to independent advice” (Key Finding 11).
The report went on to explain:
“Prospective students are in a potentially vulnerable position when deciding whether to enter higher education and take on a student loan. Higher education involves a potentially significant financial commitment, unlike other options such as apprenticeships. The average student debt, for a three-year course, on graduation is £50,000. This represents a legal financial liability, and is one of the largest financial commitments most students will make in their lives. It is likely to be second in scale only to mortgages which average £139,000 in the UK. Research in 2016 found that 58% of 15- to 18-year-olds, the typical age at which decisions on higher education are made, had not received any form of financial education that would improve their financial capability and numeracy to help protect them from making poor choices. The Financial Conduct Authority, which regulates financial service firms, identifies financial capability as one of the key drivers of vulnerability” (Key Finding 10).
Furthermore, the audit found that there is no meaningful price competition in the sector to drive down prices for the benefit of the student and taxpayer (Key Finding 16), and that “market incentives for higher education providers to compete for students on course quality are weak” (Key Finding 17). Moreover, “students can do little to influence quality once on a course, despite improvements in complaints handling” (Key Finding 18), and “there is not yet evidence that more providers entering and exiting the market will improve quality in the sector, and protections for students are untested
