New tariff groups and an old problem

One of the paradoxes of the recent trend towards the massification of traditionally elite (high tariff providers) is that we have no way of knowing at what point, or even whether, such behavior takes the average tariff below other (traditionally non-elite) providers.

The first problem is that the (UCAS) tariff band definitions had not changed since 2012 – which is somehow fourteen years ago. Today marks the first use of a new and improved UCAS provider typology – which looks a bit like this:

• Smaller: Fewer than 100 accepts per year across all ages and domiciles, and where the Provider has not already been categorised as Specialist. Also new providers in their first year.
• Specialist: More than 75 per cent of accepts in one subject (CAH1), 85 per cent in two subjects, or 90 per cent in three subjects.
• Higher tariff / Medium tariff / Lower tariff: Determined by the average verified attainment scores (all level three) among accepted UK 18/19-year-old applicants. I guess the top third, middle third, and bottom third(?)

Providers have been categorised into these groups based on accepted applicant profiles across the 2023–2025 application cycles (or the last three). And applicant acceptances for these purposes do not include RPAs.

What I’d love to do now is tell you which providers are in which group, and how this has changed from the 2012 iteration. Of course, the actual assignment of providers to these groups is a closely guarded secret for reasons of national security. Can you imagine the carnage that would ensue if we found out that the University of Cambridge was officially a high tariff provider?

Anyway, these groupings have now been applied historically so we can see what this new group of “higher tariff providers” have been doing – and it turns out that the 2026 cycle January deadline data is another entry in the trend towards the increase of applications to such providers.

[Full screen]

Because these are not the same tariff groups used by the Department for Education, or the Office for Students (both of whom do at least publish their list of providers and groups, after a fashion) there’s no chance that this data can be used for regulatory oversight. And – of course – as tariff means less at a provider than a course level (“low tariff providers” do have “high tariff” courses and vice versa), it is questionable how you could assign a tariff group without taking account of subject mix: something that nobody seems to want to get to grips with.