Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 15 March 2007. It occurred during Adjournment debate on Higher Education.


Higher Education

I think that they are. In the end, I chose history. The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) is nodding that I did a crunchy subject, and I certainly think that it was—I have not read his latest book about Rome, however, although I did see it in the Library the other day. The Department for Education and Skills has launched a new bursaries website in the past couple of weeks, which is a way of conceding that the information available was bewildering for students to navigate. It is possible that a third barrier is presented by the structure of degrees. The financial arrangements for part-time students may present a barrier as well, but it is likely that the structure of courses does not attract some people who would like to benefit from higher education. Perhaps we should adopt a credit-based system allowing students to dip in and out of higher education at different points in their lives, perhaps even studying at different institutions. The hon. Member for Henley nods. That happens to be my party’s policy; I do not know whether it is his party’s policy, or indeed whether he can speak for his party when his chaperon is absent. It seems that he does not dare to say anything! But it is my party’s policy, something that may not be quite as well known as our opposition to variable fees at the last general election. We would like the degree structure to be reformed, so that students can take up a course of study and if their circumstances change—or for any other reason—can stop before continuing with it later, perhaps at a different institution, in order to build up a degree. I understand that Wales is beginning to move in that direction; perhaps England should consider doing the same. There has been an increase in foundation degrees over the past few years. We welcome that, and look forward to discussing it soon when we debate the Further Education and Training Bill. We may also need to consider the length of study involved in a full-time degree. Why does it have to be three years? It is not three years everywhere else, as we know from discussions we have had elsewhere about the Bologna arrangements. Perhaps the period could be condensed. Do students really need the long holidays that are required by the academics who teach them? If we condensed the programme of study into two years, the debt with which students leave university would undoubtedly decrease, and that would draw more people in.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
458 c521-2 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Admissions Disadvantaged Finance Fees and charges Higher education Higher Education Funding Council for England Low incomes Loans Standards Universities Students Universities and Colleges Admissions Service
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk