Member

There is, of course, a big difference in full-time undergraduate loan repayment rates over the first five years after graduation by provider. But I think this is an absolutely terrible way of spotting providers that offer poor value for money. Doing so would unfairly penalise institutions serving students in poorer parts of the country where wages are lower and would discourage the provision of courses that lead to low-earning but socially valuable careers, such as teaching or social work. This Government rightly put great weight on widening access and participation in their plans for the reform of higher education. It is critical for them to note that an approach that equates value for money with the proportion of loan repayment by provider would throw sand into the engines of social mobility.