HEFCE (Mario Ferelli) argued strongly against an aggregate control, which would be more draconian as it would (for example) limit degree length and prevent development and innovation. He felt that an intake control, warts and all, gave the sector more flexibility to see its way through the period of restraint.
I wasn't convinced.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Academic, financial or space planning in UK universities [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Fiona Loughran
Sent: 18 June 2010 10:22
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: HEFCE Definition of Non-completion Redux
Dear Mike
You have raised some very interesting issues here, from a funding perspective and from a student perspective.
The current HEFCE method of controlling new entrants also means that it is better for an institution to recruit students to three year courses than to one or two year courses, as you can then get three years benefit in terms of student funding and fees. This may lead to reductions in Foundation Degree and HND courses, which also have WP benefits, as well as the issues you rightly raise about progression to top-up years.
One option would be for the sector to encourage HEFCE to move to a control on total FT UG funded students, rather than focusing on new entrants (assuming that such a control is here to stay for financial reasons).
This would give the Government greater control over the student support costs, as these could actually increase with the current control if many institutions moved to three year courses rather than one or two year courses.
It would also remove the potential impact of the current control on courses and progression routes likely to benefit WP students.
This is something that could be raised with HEFCE through the current teaching funding consultation (eg Question 9 asks if you consider that any other principles or features should be fundamental to our teaching funding method?)
Fiona Loughran
Director of Planning
University of Portsmouth
Tel: 023 9284 3526
|