Good Students Should Pay More?

The Vice Chancellor of Oxford is a reasonably paid man (base pay in 2011/12 was £371,000 (excluding pension which gave him £53,000 more)). Prof Hamilton is a salt of the earth chap, just like the rest of us despite making about 70% above the average for UK VCs. 

He has this world class idea to go with his world class university. The idea is that students should pay more. 

Foreign students pay a fair whack already, but the students in his sights are home students. These students pay in the neighbourhood of £9000 now. He wants to add £7000 to reach £16,000 (see here). He argues this is needed to pay the true cost of education, at his university. What a great idea!

Clearly this is a world class idea, from a world class vice-chancellor, at a world class university.

Or not.

Oxford is a great university. It is a great university because of its great scholars. It is a great university because of the great students that go there, not because of how much it charges them. It is a self-reinforcing system of attraction between scholars and students. It is not great because of its vice chancellor. The best a VC at Oxford can do is not mess things up.

If it is such a great idea, what might be justifications for £16K fees?

1. Because Oxford needs the money? They don’t. Oxford is doing just fine in the scheme of things. It is one of the richest universities in the UK and if it needs more money, it needs to learn how to budget better. In any case, it would take a little over 140,000 students paying an additional £7000 to add another £1,000,000,000 to the nearly £4 billion it already has.
   
2. Because it would teach better with more money? Unlikely. They already get £6465 in fees from overseas students, but do they teach them 70% better? Do they have 70% better learning outcomes? Do they get 70% more academic time than home students? I suspect they mostly get what home students get, sit in the same lectures with home students, work in the same labs, sit the same exams, learn from the same books, and put their trousers on one leg at a time like the home students. 
3.  Because they want to charge what their competitors in the US (e.g.: Harvard and MIT) do? Unlikely. Net income from students in both places is not what advertised price would have you think. For example, MIT net cost to students after all sources of aid are considered is lower than what a UK student would have paid under the OLD fee regime (~£3000). 
4.  Perhaps, it is just that smarter students (yes, Oxford students are smarter than many others) cost more to educate. Sorry, this doesn’t cut it either. Very good students are easier to educate not harder. They tend to consume less time and, when sitting in the same room getting the same material as students who are not as good, learn more. I know, I have worked with both. Someone teaching at Oxford doesn’t know anything other than very good students because the university doesn’t accept any. They don’t take chances on the kid with 300 UKAS points, at least not that I can tell. Some of these can be made into excellent scholars but it takes some extra work. I have seen it happen. I don’t think Oxford does that very often. 
5.  Because they can? Yes, but not yet.

The last one pretty much nails it. They want to do it because if they set the price that high enough students will pay it. This is the age-old tendency to put money and elitism first. It is the same mentality that made them turn students away with low bank accounts  to the tune of £12,900/yr living expenses. Don’t tell me this is all about talent. It is about 70% more money. Does more money get you more? Ask Prof Hamilton, I am sure he can say what Oxford gets that is worth the extra £110,000 he received above what the VC of Cambridge got (2011/12 data).