糖心Vlog

Cut university student numbers by 30 per cent, thinktank says

Five-year tuition fee freeze, ban on franchising and introduction of new national entry test among other recommendations from Policy Exchange

Published on
June 9, 2026
Last updated
June 9, 2026
A crowd of graduating university students, with a dashed line and scissors, to illustrate that student numbers at UK universities should be reduced 30 per cent according to a thinktank.
Source: LawrenceSawyer/Getty Images (edited)

Student numbers at UK universities should be reduced 30 per cent, with cuts targeted at institutions whose graduates go on to earn the least and those with the highest dropout rates, a new report has recommended.

Research from right-wing thinktank Policy Exchange has found, for 15 of 34 subject groups, including sociology, creative arts and design, and performing arts, that more than a quarter of graduates earn less than the national living wage after five years.

In findings being used to turn up the pressure on universities, especially from the right, the data also show that, in 27 subjects, median graduate earnings after five years were below the national average for full-time employees. Of the cohort analysed, these 27 subjects represented 87 per cent of total graduates.聽

The report, Tarnished Towers: Fixing England鈥檚 Broken 糖心Vlog System,聽calls for an end to higher education expansion and marketisation, claiming that 鈥渢he failure of both is displayed in the state of the system today鈥.

糖心Vlog

ADVERTISEMENT

It says expansion has 鈥渟erved to place people in similar jobs to those they would have been doing before, though now with an additional 拢50,000 of debt鈥.聽

鈥淓ncouraging young people, not yet academically qualified, to spend three years studying a degree of minimal value, that will provide them with no gains yet burden them with a lifetime of debt, is a tragic waste of human potential,鈥 the report says.聽

糖心Vlog

ADVERTISEMENT

It goes on to advocate for a 鈥渟maller system with higher academic standards鈥. Specifically, Policy Exchange recommends that student number controls are reintroduced and that places should be reduced by six per cent year-on-year for five years, leading to a 30 per cent total reduction.

鈥淩eductions should be targeted at institutions with the highest drop-out rates, lowest progression to highly-skilled employment or further study and lowest earnings, as well as at providers that have grown rapidly at the expense of their staff-student ratio, local accommodation availability or entry standards,鈥 the report says.聽

It adds that the resulting savings should be used to fund an increase in apprenticeships, additional places in further education colleges and an uplift to the higher education teaching grant 鈥 which is set to be cut again for the next academic year.聽

The report also suggests that there should be tougher entry standards for universities, including the introduction of a new national entry test for applicants who fail to get at least C grades at A level or who hold non-traditional or vocational qualifications.聽

According to Policy Exchange, data shows a correlation between non-continuation rates and previous qualifications, with those students whose entry qualifications were BTECs more likely to drop out than their peers with A-grade A levels. Similarly, outcomes are worse for those with poor grades at A level and on franchise courses.聽

糖心Vlog

ADVERTISEMENT

Policy Exchange recommends banning franchise courses altogether, saying聽that the 鈥渕inimal benefits鈥 are 鈥渙utweighed by the significant detriment to students and the taxpayer鈥.聽

Among its 40 recommendations are also calls to close the student loan book to for-profit institutions, freeze tuition fees for five years, abolish the postgraduate master鈥檚 loan and end government funding for foundation years.聽

Commenting on the report, shadow education secretary Laura Trott said: 鈥淔or too long, too many young people have been pushed into courses that leave them with large debts, limited teaching time and poor employment prospects. Young people deserve far better from a system that is too often failing them.鈥

糖心Vlog

ADVERTISEMENT

Suella Braverman, Reform UK鈥檚 education spokesperson, added that 鈥測oung people have been sold a lie about university, wasting three years of their lives to get massively into debt, while we have a chronic shortage of nurses, builders and care workers鈥.聽

Responding to the report, Libby Hackett, chief executive of the Russell Group, said universities welcomed a 鈥渞obust debate鈥 about the future of the system.

She acknowledged that 鈥渇aultlines鈥 such as unemployment, high debt and the rise of AI meant some young people were being failed.

鈥淎s a sector, we can鈥檛 shy away from these big questions. We need to cement a strong vision for the central role that universities will play in our society and economy for the rest of this decade and beyond.鈥

糖心Vlog

ADVERTISEMENT

Hackett said the group 鈥渟trongly supported鈥 the idea of a 鈥渘ational minimum entry standard to study at university, which we understand the Department for Education is exploring following the post-16 white paper, adding that it 鈥渃annot happen soon enough鈥.

helen.packer@timeshighereducation.com

Register to continue

Why register?

  • Registration is free and only takes a moment
  • Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
  • Sign up for our newsletter
Please
or
to read this article.

Related articles

The removal of recruitment caps in 2015 was hailed by ministers as a boon to institutions鈥 and students鈥 ambitions. But the tuition fee鈥檚 declining value and the Russell Group鈥檚 ever-growing market share now threaten the viability of some institutions, and calls are growing for a U-turn, writes Juliette Rowsell

21 November

Reader's comments (12)

Perhaps ask the 30% student of the student body who would then be trapped forever in menial jobs about this policy. Download social mobility and a class system all over again lies behind this report.
'Perhaps ask the 30% student of the student body ...'. But that's the point. They are trapped in menial jobs despite having a degree.
Any (and I mean any) evidence for that?
And 700,000 grads are currently in receipt of benefits or working for around the national miniumum wage. The report makes sobering reading and whatever you think about the recommendations, you have to consider the data produced here. That's not social mobility and young people are being failed.
Many careers that typically require a degree for entry can be served by an apprenticeship approach. Having made a choice to go with finance (aka betting) and service industries, it seems likely that the UK does not need such a high proportion of school leavers to be funnelled into HE. High quality HE is not possible if there are too many students (activities with Socratic interactions don鈥檛 scale). Anything but high quality HE is, for many students, a poor choice.
It's not surprising that this is from a right wing think-tank. Keep the lower class ignorant and keep them subjugated. What is higher education for? Is it solely for lucrative jobs or for mental, intellectual and creative development? These same people advocating for reduction in university educated people will spend huge sums of money in public schools, etc. to ensure that their own wards receive quality university education! The 30 pc reduction will never include their own children.
Indeed! I wonder if Cruella's children will be joining a plumbing firm or are off to a "top" university?
It's a Centre-Right Think Tank (thom they say they are non-partisan!) but the arguments are based on extensive data and research and any open-minded person should consider the options. Of course the system we have now is a result of Willets and Osbourne's marketisation approach. Of course it's not just private education, but the better off can afford to move to housing in catchment areas with the best state schools. The middle classes in the UK have always been absolutely ruthless and hypocritical when it comes to the education of their children (whether they are left liberal progressives or not including many high profile Labour/Socialist politicians) and it is true I think that this issue is as much about secondary education as the Universities. Aspiration is crucial I think. And we must not also forget that it's not what degree you do but the University that awards it, which is probably still the criteria for real social mobility in most cases sadly. But all this does not invalidate the overall thesis in this report that there are a substantial number of students undertaking certain degree subjects who are not going into graduate employment, or in some cases any employment at all. Some that are in work in are not even achieving the national minimum wage. All these students are indebted, though unlikley to repay their loans? And there remains a real suspicion that much of this is as a result of bad faith, with the pushing of certain degrees programmes that might not live up to what the student has been promised, as well suspicion about the robustness and quality of the franchising process about which there has been extensive discussion recently. But I agree entirely whether it's under the present system or a system of reduced capacity, it will be childrten from the Higher and Lower Working Class who are or will be disadvanted the most.
Interesting article and the report is a considerable cut above the usual "Mickey Mouse degree" insults from the Daily Mail. The focus on improving quality is very welcome. But if there are too many students, there are presumably too many universities, so which ones (in which constituencies) will be allowed to become insolvent? What really worries me is the prospect of a return to the 1970s when universities were the preserve of middle-class white students (and a few working-class white students like me).
I read the report and it's right about the obvious problem: price is fixed, demand is subsidised, losses are displaced, and institutions are incentivised to chase volume. But the report then makes a classic policy-think-tank error: it correctly identifies a broken incentive structure and then decides the solution is a centrally administered moral sorting machine. Its central fantasy is that government can confidently distinguish 鈥済ood鈥 from 鈥渂ad鈥 higher education by earnings, entry grades, continuation, employment category and a few proxy measures, then cut the system by 30% while painlessly transferring students into apprenticeships and FE. That is not a serious model of a tertiary education system. The report treats low earnings as though they are a clean measure of educational failure. The 鈥30% of degrees do not pay鈥 argument is especially fragile because it slides from aggregate economic return to individual moral indictment. The report repeatedly uses counterfactual language, ie students would otherwise be in similar jobs without debt; apprenticeships would be better; FE would absorb demand, but the counterfactual is largely asserted rather than demonstrated. I'm not defending universities but the report repeatedly attacks them for gaming metrics, then proposes a regime built almost entirely from gameable metrics.
But what is the mechanism for this if there are no funded numbers for Univiversities as in England? Would you only fund certain degrees, irrespective of the institution, or cap the number of student loans?
new
From the interesting range of 鈥楥omment鈥 so far, the Report is doing its job of stimulating discussion and debate about just what HE is for, how much of it is needed, who benefits from it, how to finance it鈥

Sponsored

Featured jobs

See all jobs
ADVERTISEMENT