Westminster government plans for graduate earnings data to be used in the English regulator¡¯s quality metrics ¨C and potentially in setting student number caps ¨C have provoked sector concern, as moves to tighten franchising oversight after high-profile criticism receive a mixed reception.

While the government courted headlines with a crackdown on?¡°rip-off¡± degrees via student number controls on courses falling below Office for Students quality thresholds, its also said that the Department for Education would ¡°ask the OfS to consider how they can take graduate earnings into account in [its] quality regime¡±, which would mean earnings figures potentially triggering OfS investigations and determining which courses have numbers capped.

Universities have long cautioned about the context needed around the government¡¯s Longitudinal Education Outcomes dataset, showing graduate earnings by course and institution.

¡°Graduate earnings are not an accurate measure of university quality: there are far too many external factors at play, such as local jobs markets or earning disparities across different sectors,¡± said Vanessa Wilson, chief executive of the University Alliance.

ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø

¡°There is a risk that a small number of genuinely high-quality courses could come under investigation if earnings data were used as a quality measure, wasting the time and resource of the regulator and drawing the institution¡¯s resources away from delivering for students.¡±

The DfE consultation response acknowledges that ¡°many factors influence graduate earnings¡±, but says ¡°students have a right to expect that higher education will lead to improved employment opportunities and commensurate earnings¡±.

ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø

Chris Millward, former director of fair access at the OfS, now professor of practice in education policy at the University of Birmingham, said ¡°robust and contextualised salary data has been available for some time¡±, so it was ¡°not surprising that the government should be interested in exploring how it could inform other regulatory activity¡±.

But he added that ¡°context and use of judgement¡± from the OfS in using this data would be crucial ¡°if a breach of the B3 [quality] condition restricts admissions through number controls¡±.

He went on: ¡°There could also be challenging questions about the extent to which earnings can reflect quality, as defined in the 2017 [ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø and Research] Act, particularly if their use is tested in court.¡±

GuildHE chief executive Gordon McKenzie said: ¡°Basically, I?think it¡¯s unlikely to mean much because I?think the practicalities of trying to use it [deciding whether to use raw data or how to adjust the data] will lead OfS and ministers, of whatever party, to conclude that it adds nothing, it doesn¡¯t work.¡±

ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø

Meanwhile, on franchising ¨C in which a university subcontracts the delivery of a course to another provider ¨C the DfE said it planned to ¡°work with the OfS to make clearer our expectations of providers in these arrangements and to ensure that the oversight of franchised provision by lead providers is robust and effective¡±, and would ¡°closely consider whether we should take action to impose additional controls, in particular regarding the delivery of franchised provision by organisations that are not directly regulated by any regulatory body¡±.

The spotlight was turned on the quality of franchised provision delivered by small private colleges outside OfS regulation by a recent New York Times article Oxford Business College, which offers degrees from Buckinghamshire New University, the University of West London and Ravensbourne University London.

Iain Mansfield, a former adviser in the DfE, now head of education at the Policy Exchange thinktank, said: ¡°The government is right to raise concerns about the quality of franchised courses ¨C another area where low value provision has grown rapidly.¡±

He said the move ¡°raises the stakes¡± for the OfS, ¡°yet to complete a quality investigation, over a year since the first were announced¡±.

ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø

Diana Beech, chief executive of London Higher, said there was ¡°a concern that these regulations may be implemented in a manner that adds to the significant regulatory burden that higher education providers already experience. Therefore, we would make the case for a proportionate and risk-based approach in this area.¡±

Professor Millward said the move sounded like ¡°straightforward tidying up of gaps in regulatory oversight, which is important if this way of expanding higher education is to sustain confidence and grow¡±.

ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø

john.morgan@timeshighereducation.com