It makes sense that the “producers” of higher education have always been more interested in the value of student tuition fee loans than they have been in the subsidy attached to those loans – or indeed who that subsidy gets allocated to, and when in a graduate’s life it manifests.
But it has always seemed odd to me that we endlessly debate the maximum level of tuition fees, while leaving what students get for that money – and what therefore students need to pay more for – largely undebated.
At the same time, it seems daft that the sector tends to be much more interested in the level of funding for, and unit of resource of, undergraduate study, than what the state both requires and assumes that that money will be spent on.
Take student financial support, for example.
