Fighting fund banner

 

85% of professors fear for-profit education providers will offer lower quality degrees

16 June 2011

Government plans to encourage the growth of for-profit education providers could leave students with lower quality degrees and put the reputation of UK higher education at risk, warns a report released today by UCU.

The report, For-profit education: a step too far?, includes a survey of 500 professors, which reveals that over four-fifths (85%) think for-profit providers would offer lower quality courses than public universities, if they are given the green light to expand in the government's forthcoming higher education white paper.
 
The survey of leading academics revealed that:

  • 81% of the professors questioned said they believed an expansion of for-profit providers would lead to a decline in the UK's global reputation
  • 79% warned that qualifications offered by for-profits would be viewed as inferior by employers
  • 80% said companies with a primary obligation to shareholders should not have access to loans funded by taxpayers' money.
  • 66% said there needed to be tighter regulatory checks on for-profit companies than public universities

The report comes just weeks after it was revealed that ministers had been warned by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) that for-profit companies could threaten the quality of students' education and diminish the standing of UK higher education. More on that story can be found here: UK university reputation at risk from sub-prime 'for-profit' colleges government warned

UCU said the findings had to act as an 'urgent wake-up call' and urged ministers to heed warnings from America, where for-profit companies are being investigated by the US Congress following a string of scandals.

The report exposes how much the for-profit education industry in America depends on publicly-subsidised loans. Figures collected by the US Senate show that huge quantities of taxpayers' money are used to support the for-profit industry. For-profit companies took almost a quarter of all federal grants and loans designed to support students. However, they only recruit and teach 10% of the total enrolment in US higher education.

In 2008-9, the US taxpayer pumped almost $24 billion into for-profit education. For-profit colleges, on average, rely on federal loans and grants for 86% of their revenue. However, despite this investment for-profit institutions in America have much lower graduation rates and students are twice as likely to default on their loan payments.

UCU general secretary, Sally Hunt, said: 'The findings of this report should act as an urgent wake-up call to ministers. Some of this country's most senior and respected academics have delivered a damning verdict on expanding the for-profit sector. If the government ignores these warnings, millions of students face being ripped off by private operators whose main interest is their own profits, not education. For-profit providers are not the answer to the current funding crisis in higher education.'

Alan Rector, professor of medical informatics at the University of Manchester, took part in the survey. He said: 'Coming from the US and being acutely aware of the situation with for-profit institutions there, they have become a fraud on students - employers assume that they attended these institutions because they were not good enough to get into 'real' universities. The credentials from for-profit institutions are also not recognised for immigration purposes by many countries.'

Daniel Waldram, professor of theoretical physics at University College London, was another to respond. He said: 'The UK currently has an exceptionally strong, world-class university sector. The expansion of for-profit private universities will only damage the UK's higher education reputation. The for-profit model is wholly inappropriate for providing high-quality university education appropriate to the needs of the UK.'

For-profit education - a step too far?, UCU report, Jun 11 [270kb]

Notes: 506 professors participated in the online survey between 24 and 28 May 2011.

Last updated: 11 December 2015

Comments