Argument: Private universities are needed to increase the number of places for students.

British universities are facing cuts in government funding and as a result there will be no new places created to cater for rising demand. Professor Steve Smith, president of Universities UK noted the fact that the budget cuts that could soar to as much as £950,000,000 over three years would decrease the quality of education whilst keeping the numbers of University places stagnant. In 2009, 160,000 students who applied did not go to University. In 2010, 75,000 more people applied.1 Governments in rich countries all over the world are facing squeezed budged over the next few years and will be unable to increase funding for universities. This leaves private universities as the only way to meet increasing demand for higher education.

1Shepherd, 2010

Candidate 1: "Private universities would increase the divide between the rich and poor

Funding universities through taxation rather than privately allows poorer people in society to access university education because the government can increase access in three key ways. First, it can subsidise universities to decrease the price, second, it can exert pressure on universities to increase diversity within their student populations (by increasing numbers of people from disadvantaged backgrounds) and third, it can easily control peripheral support structures such as student loan schemes that become difficult to manage under a privatised system."
Candidate 2: "Encouraging private universities will not increase the number of university places available. Instead they will skim off the students who can afford to pay, but who would be going to university anyway. This will leave remaining publicly funded universities having to pick up the strain, often with less money and just as many potential students without places."
Candidate 3: "Allowing universities to be guided by an invisible hand does more harm than good

University degree programmes, unlike other products like televisions or designer shoes, are tools of social mobility: unlike a TV, a good degree will help you to get other good things later in life (like a higher salary). This means that it is important that people have a fairly equal opportunity to access the best degrees. Market forces will make the best universities more expensive than the others, and mean that the best degree places are awarded not to the cleverest, but to those able to afford it. Universities are already elitist despite being open to all and being publicly funded. In the UK class is a major determinant of where you go to university. Oxford University only has 11.5%, and Cambridge 12.6% of its students coming from a working class background compared to an average of 32.3%1. This is a situation that will only get worse as students have to pay for the best private universities.

1 Davis, Rowenna, "Does your social class decide if you go to university? Get the full list of colleges." Guardian.co.uk, 28 September 2010,"
Candidate 4: "It is unfortunate that the current system constitutes taking from the poor and giving to the rich, but this is justified as long as two things are true: first, overall, the government does redistribute wealth in such a way as to take from the rich and give to the poor, and second, the funding of universities from the public purse is of benefit to the poorer people in society. In this case publicly funding universities gives the poor the option of going to university that they would otherwise not have, even if they fail to take that option up. (The opposition arguments explain why this latter condition is the case.)"
Candidate 5: "If more diversity is necessary, then governments can change the way in which they fund universities, perhaps by giving a proportion of funding based on student numbers.

However, for the large part so-called "increased diversity" would not constitute improvements on the quality of academic education, but rather gimmicks to make a university look more attractive to the young people who apply – there are incentives to make the university popular to sixth-form applicants, not to existing undergraduates."
Candidate 6: "Private Universities would risk reducing the quality of university degrees.

New private universities will not have a long standing reputation to keep up. They may not be as well regulated and they will have no social interest beyond simply getting money from their students. This means that they may well offer cheap and poor quality education in order to find a gap in the market. This could damage the reputation of other universities as Dr Paul Greatrix registrar of Nottingham University worries "If there are entrants who are on the extreme end of cheap and cheerful, this will damage our international reputation."1 In systems that are both private and state funded universities there is an immense divide between a few very good elite institutions that charge immense amounts and a much larger number of poorer quality universities. Take the US system, it is well known for its world class Ivy League universities. Its publicly funded universities however do much less well with only the University of Michigan near the top of the world rankings in 20th place. Of the state universities only those that do not face so much Ivy league competition over in California due to distance do well1. Having Private universities clearly creams off the best students and the funding leaving the public universities in a worse position lowering the overall quality of education.

1 Shepherd, Jessica, "What universities think of competing for their admissions." Guardian.co.uk, 28 June 2011. 2 Hotson, Howard, "Don't Look to the Ivy League." London Review of Books, Vol.33, No.10, 19 May 2011 ."
Candidate 7: "Universities can't be guided by an "invisible hand": the conditions in the higher education market are not such that optimum results will obtain from this sort of "free market" idea. There are several reasons why. First, demand for university courses fluctuates, and a low intake for a course one year, and therefore decreased funding, could unfairly penalise other people studying in that department, who are not free to leave (and take their money elsewhere) but simply have to suffer the decrease in quality until the end of their degree course. Second, universities don't operate in a true free-market system: the high start up costs (buildings, libraries) mean that it is very difficult for new universities to enter the market, even if standards in existing ones fall.Thirdly, there will always be those students who are poorer and have to go to the worse universities (if they cannot afford or do not want the burden of a student loan). A poorer student will either get a second rate education and waste valuable time and money or will opt out of higher education all together and accrue none of the benefits, since graduates typically earn more than non-graduates1.

1 Lexington, "Higher education: Is it really the next bubble?" The Economist, 21 April 2011,"
Candidate 8: "This will increase the perception that universities are just for the rich

Treating university education like any other commodity will increase the perception that, like any other very expensive commodity, it is a luxury, and that therefore those who can't afford it should just see that as an economic reality, and not as an assault against their life chances. This will mean that fewer people from less well-off backgrounds will go to university, even if they are very clever, and thus will decrease social mobility."

Encouraging private universities will not increase the number of university places available. Instead they will skim off the students who can afford to pay, but who would be going to university anyway. This will leave remaining publicly funded universities having to pick up the strain, often with less money and just as many potential students without places.
