Streamlining what universities offer could backfire for d...

Home

Edition

Africa Australia Brasil Canada Canada (français) España Europe France Global Indonesia New Zealand United Kingdom United States

Edition: Global

Africa
Australia
Brasil
Canada
Canada (français)
España
Europe
France
Indonesia
New Zealand
United Kingdom
United States

s Newsletters

Academic rigour, journalistic flair Students talking and laughing

Gigi Delgado/Shutterstock Streamlining what universities offer could backfire for disadvantaged students Published: November 20, 2025 6.31pm GMT David Allan, Edge Hill University

Author

David Allan
Reader in Professional Education and Learning, Edge Hill University

Disclosure statement

David Allan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Partners

Edge Hill University provides funding as a member of The Conversation UK.

View all partners

DOI

https://doi.org/10.64628/AB.ujswjchuf

https://theconversation.com/streamlining-what-universities-offer-could-backfire-for-disadvantaged-students-268025 https://theconversation.com/streamlining-what-universities-offer-could-backfire-for-disadvantaged-students-268025 Link copied Share article

Copy link Email Bluesky Facebook WhatsApp Messenger LinkedIn X (Twitter)

Print article

The government’s vision for higher education in England, set out in a recent policy paper, includes some changes that will benefit students from poorer backgrounds.

An increase in maintenance loans, for instance, will help to support disadvantaged students. So too will the introduction of a lifelong learning entitlement loan. Students from disadvantaged backgrounds often have learning trajectories that are far from linear, so access to a lifetime entitlement makes sense.

Other positive aspects include an aim to create more joined-up thinking in communities, greater links between higher education providers and employers and targeted funding initiatives. There is a general acknowledgement of the challenges disadvantaged students face. And these students are addressed throughout the document, albeit mostly through the lens of seeing their economic potential.

But the government’s broader strategy for universities will present significant challenges for students who come from poorer families and live in disadvantaged areas. It encourages universities to carve out particular specialisms. This means honing their expertise and concentrating on their unique selling point – their “core purpose”. It suggests that while competition can be healthy, “too many providers with similar offerings are chasing the same students”.

The implications for this in practice may be that universities axe some of their courses in favour of a narrower menu of study. The casualties of such a move would typically be arts and humanities courses. This is especially likely when the government plans to offer funding incentives for priority areas, which include science, technology and engineering.

Indeed, many reductions in the higher education portfolio have already taken place across the sector, such as for arts subjects. This is arguably due to pressures on each university to deliver “successful outcomes” for its students. These outcomes, such as employment after graduation, however, are narrowly measured. They run the risk of devaluing arts-based education. They also may constrain opportunities for many people seeking greater life chances.

Local limitations

Disadvantaged students in particular could be significantly affected by changes that reduce the variety of courses available at their local university. A diverse portfolio of courses creates opportunities for those who may not traditionally access higher education. Disadvantaged students are less likely to apply to prestigious institutions. They are more likely to study closer to home.

In recent years, closure of courses at universities has created what is known as cold spots. These are areas of the UK where certain university subjects are not offered. These closures, unfortunately, often affect lower tariff providers – universities that require lower grades for entry to a degree course. This means reduced opportunities for disadvantaged students to access the courses they might want to study in their local area.

For regional areas, too, a wealth of course availability can create wider opportunities. For instance, it can allow local businesses to make use of a wide range of skills from students who remain in the area.

Streamlining might mean that only prestigious universities offer certain courses. Gorodenkoff/Shutterstock

Streamlining what universities offer may also result in further status distinctions between higher education institutions. It could pave the way for an even more ferociously competitive sector, the rationale being that “the cream will rise to the top.” But this may mean that only universities ranking highly in a particular field will be positioned to provide courses in this field.

This is neglectful of smaller and often newer providers that may be in need of developmental support. It may close down opportunities for universities to grow and establish research excellence where it may not yet exist.

It benefits everyone if England’s higher education system grows and flourishes. But for every positive choice we make, we have to consider the possible fallout on marginalised members of society. The implementation of these policy proposals, then, will need to consider the implications of perpetuating a heavily driven and economically competitive market for higher education. This could mean careful contemplation of the purpose of higher education itself.