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
Friday 25 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

Time to end the messy status quo

In his first report as Director of HEPI, Nick Hillman calls for an end to the messy status quo that has led to fragmentation across UK higher education and it’s regulatory regime. He calls for policymakers to set out where they stand and bring the debate forward despite difficult politics to settle the many outstanding questions that lay before us.

This article is more than 10 years old

Comment|20/02/14
Nick Hillman

Nick Hillman

Director, HEPI
Tags
  • General Election
  • HEFCE
  • Regulation
Nick Hillman
Director, HEPI

Universities have faced stiff competition from new institutions in recent years. Today’s higher education system is a rainbow coalition. But the different colours are bleeding into one another.

Take London. There are historic institutions like UCL and the LSE. You can also study for a Royal Holloway degree via the multinational firm Pearson. You can study at the University of Law, Britain’s first for-profit university. You can take a University of London degree in your bedroom, or at the New College of the Humanities in Bloomsbury (if you have a spare £17,814 a year). Or you can attend one of the institutions that have sprung up around the Commercial Road offering HNCs and HNDs.

There is nothing wrong with such a spectrum in principle. Indeed, it offers some welcome diversity. But there are stark anomalies in practice.

Some students have access to a complaints ombudsman; others don’t. At some institutions, tuition loans are limited to £6,000 but fees are uncapped; at others, fees and loans are both capped at £9,000. Some international students may work part-time; others can’t. Some institutions pay VAT; others don’t. Some students are effectively protected against institutional failure; others aren’t.

There are at least six types of institution. In a rough hierarchy of prestige, they start with those teaching off-the-shelf qualifications to UK and EU students. Next come institutions with ‘highly-trusted status’, which means they can have international students from outside the EU too. Third are providers with permission to teach another institution’s degrees. Fourth come institutions which have volunteered for a full quality inspection. Fifth are those with their own degree-awarding powers. Finally, there are institutions with full-blown university status – though they are treated differently depending on whether they are funded by HEFCE or not.

Three years ago, the Government promised one set of rules for all higher education providers. But, coming on top of higher tuition fees, the topic was deemed politically toxic and taken off the table.

The choice now is clear. There is still an argument for having the same rules for all institutions. There is also an argument for a new regime that is equitable, rather than equal, and which reflects different levels of risk. But the case for maintaining the haphazard, messy and illogical status quo has much less rationale.

The Higher Education Policy Institute is today launching a report that looks at these issues in detail and aims to rekindle the debate. The long-term standing of our world-class higher education sector demands policymakers state where they stand.

They must offer a response before the 2015 general election not so much because voters demand it but because the long-term reputation of our higher education sector depends upon it.

Read the full report from HEPI here.

Related articles

A field guide to mergers in higher education

Richard Mills | Comment | 24/09/26

If Scotland’s university funding problem is systemic, the response must be too

Vicki Stott | Comment | 24/09/26

There’s nine more pieces for the Quality Code

Nic Beech | Comment | 23/09/26

Conversations about academic authorship need to be transparent

Madeleine Pownall | Comment | 23/09/26

Before we ask students to belong, we should ask where

Billy Wong | Comment | 22/09/26

Why has the OfS downgraded graduate outcomes?

Stephen Isherwood | Comment | 22/09/26

Comments

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