Down on gowns

Down on gowns

Will the government hobbIe Oxford and Cambridge?

FOR a government obsessed with "modernising", Oxford and Cambridge are too obvious a target to miss. Older than Parliament itself the two universities cling to many centuries of traditions. Unlike most other universities mound the world, they are rederations of largely self governing colleges: communities of scholars where students receive individual tuition and dine together daily in the college hall.

At the Labour Party conference in September, however, Cordon Brown, the chancellor, uttered words which sent a chill around Oxbridge colleges. He attacked Oxford and Cambridge for taking half of their students from private schools, even though these educate only 7% of children, and said it was tune to "modernise" the universities by "the distributing resources".

The problem from the Edinburgh-educcated Mr. Brown's point of view is that these apparent bastions of tradition and privi­lege receive more government money per student than other universities. The government is thinking of withdrawing the extra finance, now worth an annual £1.700 ($2,900) a student, that they receive to cover the extra costs of their college system.

Oxbridge со lieges, Jen r\that a withdrawal of their extra cash will endanger their tradition of individual tuition. Some also fear that a drive to mollify the government, by admitting more state school students will lead to quotas or a lowering of admission standards, The colleges have many old boys and girls in high places and have launched a frenzy of lobbying. But their picas may not sway the government, which is due to announce its decision by Christmas. Tony Blair does not seem keen to emphasise his connections to elitist Oxford: his old college, St. John's, has found him rattier cool to suggestions that lie come down for a celebratory dinner, or have Ins portrait painted.

Oxford and Cambridge argue that, as Britain’s elite universities, they should be compared with other world-class institutions such as Harvard in the United States, or France's grandes ecoles – all of which charge much more (either to the state or to students) than they do. Oxford says its average tuition cost is £6,000 a year compared with the £4,000-plus fees of top American universities.

Certainly, Britain needs elite universities and should be prepared to pay extra for diem if need be. However, the case for Oxford and Cambridge would be stronger if they could demonstrate that the dozens of individual colleges were spending their money efficiently, and that the continuation of the collide system in its current form was vital to the provision of top quality individual tuition.

What little evidence exists is not particularly helpful to the colleges. An analysis of Oxford colleges' accounts in the nine years to 1995-96, now circulating around the university and seen by The Economist shows that much of the 71% growth in the spending during that period went on administration and domestic staff such as cleaners and caterers. The repot suggests that colleges cut costs by merging and/or contracting to outside firms their catering, cleaning and administration. By doing this they could probably live without some of the college fee. But even after such savings is likely that, to keep individual tuition, some extra cash would still be needed.

Open universities?

Those who agree with the chancellor's view that Oxford and Cambridge are biased to wards rich children, educated in expensive private schools, sometimes claim that the proportion of Oxford's intake from private schools has gone up from 38% in 1970 to 49% now. As our chart shows, this is misleading. The proportion of students from state schools, now 42%, has hardly change since 1970. The rise in the private schools' proportion is in fact due to the abolition h the late 1970s of a third, hybrid species, the direct-grant school.

Direct-grant schools selected their pupils by academic ability, with the state paying the fees of those who could not afford them. Most became private schools after the abolition of their state subsidies. That shut off one of the main avenues 10 Oxbridge open to children from families who could not afford private education. It is hardly Oxbridge's fault that the proportion of privately educated pupils it accepts has risen as a result.

Private schools generally produce better exam results and therefore better Oxbrige candidates. Though only 7% of British children go to private schools, they turn out 35% of those pupils who gain three A-levels at the top grade. Still, they get around 50% of the 'places at Oxbridge. So is tins evidence for the government's suspicion that Oxbridge remains biased in favour of the privately educated?