The future size and shape of HE - Universities UK

Comparing the scenarios176 In seeking to assess these scenarios it is helpfulto examine where they lie in relation to a seriesof key characteristics. Table 12 sets out thiscomparison.Table 12Comparison of the threescenarios on key characteristicsKey characteristicScenario 1Slow adaptation to changeScenario 2Market-driven and competitiveScenario 3Employer-driven flexible learningEconomic growthIn line with the long-term growthrate, but with at least one majorrecession.Sustained at recent high levels aftershort–term slowdown.As with scenario 1.Levels of publicinvestmentSustained at current levels perstudent.As in scenario 1 but much moretargeted than now.Reduced level of public investmentper student with much greatertargeting than now and more cofundingwith employers.Government regulationAs now with regulation of full-timeundergraduate fees and sustainedquality assurance arrangements.Reduced regulation of full-timeundergraduate fees. More liberalquality assurance regime toencourage the emergence of newproviders.Increased regulation of publicfunding related to employerrelevance and student need.Individual contributionsto tuition costsIncreased.Increased.Reduced/not increased.Employer contributionsto tuition costsLittle change.Increased but not necessarily topublicly funded institutions.Substantially increased.Participation of youngpeopleAs now but with some switch fromfull-time to part-time study.Reduced proportion of qualifiedyoung people in full-timeundergraduate provision, but withan increased proportion achieving alevel 3 qualification by age 19increasing numbers in part-timeundergraduate provision.Removal of the distinction betweenfull-time and part-time study leadsto a substantial reduction in thefull-time equivalent of initialundergraduate higher education,but on a headcount basisparticipation may match currentlevels.Participation of olderpeopleModestly increased.Substantially increased.Substantially increased.Employer engagementModest change from now, mainlythrough increased influence on thecurriculum.Increased but not necessarilyprimarily with publicly fundedinstitutions.Substantially increased so thatemployers are the primary driversof significant proportion of publicfunding for higher education.Competition (UK)Increased competition amongstpublicly funded providers with amodest increase in the number ofprivate (mainly) niche providers.Significant expansion of the rangeof private providers with fiercecompetition for UK students(including from overseas).Highly stratified and polarisedsystem with only limitedcompetition.Competition(international students)UK institutions continue to competeeffectively for internationalstudents despite increasedcompetition from other countries.In part this is achieved throughincreased collaboration in theinternational student marketbetween UK higher educationinstitutions.UK institutions compete less wellthan now in the changinginternational student markets.With the exception of a small groupof elite institutions UK highereducation institutions compete lesswell than now in traditionalinternational student markets.However, they do engage with thelower value technology-based massborderless higher educationmarket.38