The cap on tuition fees should be raised in stages to a level that generates ¡°genuine competition¡± in the university sector, the 1994 Group has recommended.

The body representing smaller research-intensive universities says in its submission to the second phase of Lord Browne of Madingley¡¯s review of fees and funding that a market of this sort would ¡°enhance excellence in teaching and learning¡±. It stops short of recommending the precise level at which the cap should stand.

The group also recommends that the government change the system for allocating student numbers to ¡°reward universities that show high retention and completion rates¡±.

It supports the introduction of a ¡°less regulated environment¡± in the academy, with institutions allowed to compete against each other for quotas within an overall national cap on numbers.

ÖйúAƬ

Arguing that quality ¡°can only be maintained by increasing funding¡±, the group also sets out principles that it says are essential for a sustainable sector.

It says that while the unit of funding ¨C the amount of money per student ¨C must rise, ÖйúAƬ should be ¡°free at the point of use¡±, and that the poorest students should have their fees subsidised and receive non-repayable financial support.

ÖйúAƬ

Its submission also argues that ¡°the artificial barrier between full-time and part-time students is unacceptable in a modern, diverse and accessible ÖйúAƬ system¡±, and says that the support available to full-time students should be extended to part-timers and postgraduates.

It adds that two ¡°fundamental guarantees¡± should be adopted: that no student is unable to attend university because of cost; and that universities remain committed to improving the student experience for all.

Other proposals in the 1994 Group¡¯s submission include plans for a variable system of bursaries funded from sources including private donations, and measures to address the ¡°huge student-loan subsidy¡± by charging interest above the government¡¯s rate of borrowing.

It also suggests changes to the Quality Assurance Agency and the ÖйúAƬ Funding Council for England to ¡°enhance institutional autonomy and remove over-regulation¡±, and says that the Office for Fair Access should be scrapped.

ÖйúAƬ

john.gill@tsleducation.com