Why student number caps will hurt everyone, not just universities

This week, we submitted our response to the UK Government’s consultation on higher education reform.

Our strong opposition to caps on the number of students going to university, as well as our reservations about using minimum entry requirements, might seem predictable. These measures would have a negative financial impact on many universities. But there is much more behind our response.

We’re opposing a student number cap because we know it will, in effect, serve as a cap on aspiration. It will hurt those from disadvantaged backgrounds the most; it will crush their hopes and dreams.

As well as limiting students’ freedom of choice by leading to a reduction in courses, a cap will be hugely limiting to those who can’t afford to move away from their hometowns for university.

These students won’t feel able to apply to as many universities as other applicants, and so will be less likely to get into university. They might risk choosing a path that isn’t right for them – and that’s more likely to result in poor employment outcomes. A student number cap carries a real risk of entrenching disadvantage, making it completely unhelpful to the government’s own levelling up agenda.

Limiting access to education will limit the success of the lifelong loan entitlement by making it harder for people to upskill. We also know that skills that are valuable in the job market at any time can change very quickly. It’s important that universities offer a range of courses to prevent future skills shortages.

The UK still needs more graduates, not fewer. There were 1 million more graduate vacancies than graduates in 2022, meaning restricting access to university is illogical. You only need to look at the 2011 number cap on nursing and allied health students, which contributed to the chronic shortages in nursing that we’re still suffering from today, to see the problem.

The government has already highlighted that several exceptions to the policy of introducing minimum entry requirements would be needed – it wouldn’t apply to mature students looking to retrain, for example. But there are many other hurdles to overcome to ensure that this policy does not increase inequalities.

Educational opportunity isn’t spread evenly across England. Minimum entry requirements would make the situation worse. It will prevent universities from identifying those with the potential to succeed by taking account of their full circumstances.

It’s not the case that students who come in with low grades come out with poor degrees. Universities have worked hard to widen access to university, and widening participation data from the Office for Students shows that students who entered higher education with the lowest reported A level results stayed on in higher education higher than the average.

We must continue to keep opportunities open to all who have the potential to succeed at university. The UK needs the widest talent pool possible to be able to compete globally.

And, of course, the universities most affected by minimum entry requirements would be those that recruit high proportions of students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Some of these universities are in the government’s priority areas for levelling up. Others are in boroughs with low gross value added (GVA) to the economy, such as Wolverhampton, Middlesbrough and Bolton.

Reduced student numbers could restrict their ability to invest locally and contribute to levelling up. Over time, these financial consequences could lead to greater ‘cold spots’ in access to higher education – something we all want to avoid.

We agree with the government’s view that where someone lives must not limit their opportunity. We’re committed to working together to ensure that this is never the case.

A further three-year freeze in tuition fees, in addition to the freeze over the past four years, has not been up for consultation, so it’s essential that our voices are heard on these major reforms.

With the right policies in place, universities can help collectively build a better and fairer future. We will do everything we can to work with the government to make that happen. But to do this, we need a sustainable financial model that will support the investment that is required.

This opinion piece was originally published by Times Higher Education.