Subscribe

Briefings

Daily BriefingEvery weekday · by 8amHigher education's essential morning read.Monday BriefingWeekly · MondaysThe full week ahead in HE policy.Friday ReviewWeekly · Friday lunchtimesWhat you need to know about the week just gone.

Newsletters & more

HE InfluencePolitics and policy and the way the sector is seen.HE CounselNewGovernance, law and regulation for anyone following legal developments.Policy RadarThe monthly live policy briefing – watch live or catch the replay on the portal.

Services

Wonkhe PassFull access for your whole institution.Wonkhe SUs PassFor students' unions – briefings, recordings and training.Free briefingThe Monday Briefing, Lite edition – free.
About Us+
About WonkhePeopleOur partnersWrite for WonkheContact us
Events
Latest+
Explore the whole archiveDataWonkhe researchLong readsAnalysisCommentWonk Corner
Podcast
SUs
Tuesday 29 September 2026Home of the higher education debate

Copyright © 2026 Thesis House Ltd.

Wonkhe is published by Thesis House Ltd, registered in England and Wales (no. 08784934), 31–35 Kirby Street, London EC1N 8TE.

  • Moderation policy
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Policy

Off-quota places – another unforced HE policy error?

This morning David Willetts took the airwaves to float the idea of ‘off-quota’ places at university. Not a new idea by any means, but an interesting indication of the direction of travel for the HE White Paper which most now expect in the first half of June. On the one hand, there is a sound political argument for leaking out policy initiatives in this way; it can have the effect of softening up the ground for when the big one drops later on. But David Willetts has underestimated the toxicity of a policy like this which touches a very raw nerve indeed. Still wounded by the fees and funding settlement, this policy will feel like a kick in the teeth to those still clinging on to the idea that access to HE should never depend on the ability to pay. The ‘free at the point of use’ principle, still hanging on by its finger-nails, ensured that there was always going to be the greatest strength of feeling against the deep cuts to the teaching grant. The ensuing high fees for many felt like the sad, but necessary consequence of this – softened by continued commitment not to charge up-front fees.

This article is more than 10 years old

Comment|10/05/11
Mark Leach

Mark Leach

Mark is founder and Editor in Chief of Wonkhe
Tags
  • Access & WP
  • Fees and Funding
  • Student Numbers
  • The Market
  • UK Government
Mark Leach
Mark is founder and Editor in Chief of Wonkhe

This morning David Willetts took the airwaves to float the idea of ‘off-quota’ places at university. Not a new idea by any means, but an interesting indication of the direction of travel for the HE White Paper which most now expect in the first half of June. On the one hand, there is a sound political argument for leaking out policy initiatives in this way; it can have the effect of softening up the ground for when the big one drops later on.

But David Willetts has underestimated the toxicity of a policy like this which touches a very raw nerve indeed. Still wounded by the fees and funding settlement, this will feel like a kick in the teeth to those still clinging on to the idea that access to HE should never depend on the ability to pay. The ‘free at the point of use’ principle, still hanging on by its finger-nails, ensured that there was always going to be the greatest strength of feeling against the deep cuts to the teaching grant. The ensuing high fees for many felt like the sad, but necessary consequence of this – softened by continued commitment not to charge up-front fees.

But the idea of ‘off-quota’ places sends a deeply conflicted message at a very sensitive time. On Monday the Government launched a PR campaign to explain the new fees system – with a strong emphasis on the idea that nothing needs to be paid up front to enter HE. But this policy simply helps to re-enforce the counter-narrative that suggests it is indeed the size of your wallet that matters if you want to go to university.

David Willetts claims that this idea will need to meet a “social mobility test” – but framed in this way, and taken to its logical conclusion, it seems impossible not to predict that this will further embed the dominance of the richest firstly through education and on in to the professions and Government. This will hinder social mobility, not help it. Astonishingly, Vince Cable has this morning come out against this idea – perhaps part of the Lib Dem’s new plan to posture a little bit more within the Coalition. But this simply looks dysfunctional and disorganised. And Vince Cable will always be 100% complicit in this Government’s higher education policy as Secretary of State responsible.

It is claimed that entry criteria would need to be met in the usual way despite the availability of an off-quota option – but this could provide an incentive to some universities to vigorously chase these places for financial benefit, in a similar way to the approach adopted for international students in many quarters of the sector. But the truly elite institutions will never need to compromise their reputation for academic excellence in this way.

This policy also assumes that many institutions want to grow their student numbers, but this simply isn’t the case. Many want to the stay the same, or even shrink. Which makes it even harder to understand exactly who this benefits and how. Leaking policies to soften up the ground is an old trick, but it can backfire terribly if the policy creates a large enough and strong enough sense of outrage. As David Willetts is pounced on from every corner today – he must surely be asking himself if this was really the right time to open up this row.

UPDATE: The Government is already showing signs of back-tracking on this proposal and No. 10 has claimed that it is not "agreed policy". Even more curious then that the idea was floated in the way that it was.

UPDATE 2: It seems that they were indeed totally caught off guard by the Guardian scoop last night. So why didn't they dismiss the story earlier? Sending Willetts on Today poured a lot of fuel on the fire.

Comments · 4

New comments will come back with sign-in later this year.

Nick · 10 May 2011

Not sure it was a guardian scoop, the story was in THE on may 7th

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=416064&c=1

Mark Leach · 10 May 2011

Good point. Story was in THE but Guardian splash last night made it the story it is today.

Alan Lockey · 10 May 2011

Erm… the policy was actually buried deep in Vince ‘I’m disowning this policy’ Cables speech to Hefcre on April 6th….

Mark Leach · 10 May 2011

Cable said in his speech: “Another measure for the longer term could be to remove student number controls which inhibit universities’ ability to recruit students who represent no burden to the public purse,” Cable said in April. “For example, I don’t believe that universities should be prevented from expanding courses where employers cover students’ costs.”

There’s a long jump from employer funded which is what he said there and individually funded.

If Cable had wanted to say this, then he would have actually said it in that speech and it would have been noticed.

Anyway this is just the Government trying to spin their way out of all this.

Related articles

Let’s not confuse institutional prestige with national priority

David Mba | Comment | 28/09/26

Getting into university isn’t enough

Antony Moss | Comment | 28/09/26

Aerial image of Liverpool city centre

If universities aren’t a priority, at least give them certainty

Ian Turgoose | Comment | 28/09/26

Students are working more than ever. Or are they?

Jim Dickinson | Comment | 25/09/26

Image of the Singapore skyline

Lessons in collaboration from Singapore

James Coe | Comment | 25/09/26

Image of a postcard of the University of Birmingham bell tower on a cork board

Higher education postcard: Old Joe

Hugh Jones | Comment | 25/09/26