Fears raised over fast-track degrees

The latest university challenge

FEES: Controversial plans to introduce fast-track degrees with higher tuition fees have been condemned by university leaders over fears the proposed courses will pile immense pressure on students.

The two-year degrees will cost the same as a three-year course, meaning annual fees for them will be higher.

CONTROVERSIAL PLANS to introduce fast-track degrees with higher tuition fees have been condemned by university chiefs over fears the courses will pile immense pressure on students leading to mental health problems.

The two-year degrees proposed by the government will cost the same as a three-year course, meaning annual fees for them will be higher.

Ministers are expected to table a bill to lift the current £9,000-ayear cap on tuition costs so universities can charge higher annual rates.

Concerns have been raised about how education standards would be maintained and the workload fast-track degrees would impose on staff.

And Leeds University Union has warned that offering students the option to complete their “already intense and demanding” degrees a year earlier could be damaging to their mental health and the overall student experience.

The union’s education officer, Melissa Owusu, said: ”At a time when students’ poor mental health and wellbeing is an ever surfacing problem on university campuses, I think more universities offering students the option to complete their already intense and demanding degrees in two years instead of three is misguided and will damage the student experience.

“University is about so much more than a degree, by intensifying and condensing course content students will have less time to explore and develop outside the lecture theatre.

“This proposal may be especially dangerous for students from lower income backgrounds. The government has removed student grants, so a shorter degree may seem more appealing to students worried about the cost of living, but I believe the model will be to the detriment of their health and experience.”

She added that by removing the £9,000-a-year cap, the government was creating an “education marketplace”, which set a dangerous precedent.

The University and College Union (UCU) said the proposals would do little to open up the university experience to more students but appeared to be aimed at helping for-profit companies thrive in the higher education sector.

The UCU general secretary, Sally Hunt, said the only saving grace of fast-track degrees would be if they were available at cut price, which was not the case under the plans.

“Accelerated degrees risk undermining the well-rounded education upon which our universities’ reputation is based. As well as placing a huge burden on staff, these new degrees would only be available to students who could study all year round.

“Our universities must remain places of learning, not academic sweatshops and the government needs to resist the pile ’em high and teach ’em cheap approach to students’ education,” she said.

The Russell Group, which represents 24 leading universities, also expressed fears about the impact on learning. Its acting director, Dr Tim Bradshaw, said: “Careful consideration will be needed for how these accelerated courses are delivered so that they don’t negatively affect student learning or compromise the overall undergraduate experience.”

Universities Minister Jo Johnson told university chiefs that while for many students, the classic three-year degree will remain their preferred option, “clearly it must not be the only option”.

Under the latest proposals, fees for the fast-track degrees could be as much as £13,500 a year.

THE CLEAR difference between the Tory and Labour approaches is illustrated by university policy and the Government’s desire to launch two-year degree courses.

While Labour remains implacable over its opposition to the student tuition fees that it introduced when last in power, the Tories believe shorter courses could be a more attractive proposition to aspirational students. Even though the cost will rise, this could, in theory, be offset by a reduction in living costs and expenses.

Of course, it remains to be seen whether it is possible – even practical – for lecturers to teach the same subject material at differing rates which are determined by each student’s specific circumstances.

However Universities Minister Jo Johnson, whose older brother Boris is Foreign Secretary, does need to realise that cramming studies into a foreshortened period out of financial necessity may not be in the best interests of those under-graduates who are already undertaking one, or more, part-time jobs to subsidise their higher education. Not everyone is fortune enough to be born with a silver spoon.

That said, Mr Johnson deserves credit for showing a degree of pragmatism, the primary duty of all politicians at a time of financial prudence.