Aspiration, aspiration, aspiration

POORLY-qualified youngsters tend not to get into the nation's top universities. That is the main reason why the quads of Oxbridge colleges echo to the cut-glass accents of former public school pupils. But there is a second, subtler reason. Even some well-qualified youngsters from state schools and colleges fail to get in. That is because they do not apply for competitive courses in anything like the same numbers as their privately-educated counterparts. The latest effort to cajole universities into taking more students from poor families, published today, sensibly recognises this.

Vice-chancellors and the governing bodies of England's 130 universities and colleges are currently calculating what they will charge undergraduates who begin their courses in September 2012. The coalition government voted in December 2010 to allow universities to charge up to £9,000 ($14,500) a year in tuition fees, up from £3,290 at present, but said that those that intend to charge more than £6,000 should ensure that they took more students from poor families.

Although it seems plausible that pupils from families with low incomes are deterred from university by its cost, the evidence does not yet support this. The claim has been made repeatedly since the introduction of tuition fees was mooted in the mid-1990s. Yet the proportion of young people going to university from rich and poor families alike has risen rapidly over the past two decades, and demand continues to outstrip supply.

Past performance is no predictor of future results, and universities minister David Willetts is anxious to ensure that the forthcoming increase in tuition fees does not deter potential students. Mr Willetts has been rattled by reports that most English universities will charge the maximum permitted fee. The universities of Cambridge and Exeter have said they will charge full whack, along with Imperial College London; Oxford says it will have to charge the same if it is to fund bursaries for students from poor families.

Higher education is expensive. Expense can also be seen as a proxy for quality, and universities are aware of the danger of appearing cheap: potential students suspect that low tuition fees signal a second-rate education. In the past, lifting the fee cap has led to a race to the top, with all institutions charging the maximum level permitted.

In a recent speech to university heads Mr Willetts threatened to slash further the grants that universities receive if this happens. His motivation, however, was not concern about the potential deterrent effect of high prices, rather it was affordability. Mr Willetts's problem is that initially the state must pay the tuition fee, recouping the cost only after the young person who incurred it has graduated and is earning a decent salary. In the financial modelling that determined how generously students could be supported, he guessed that the average fee would be £7,500. If it turns out to be far higher, that would bust the Treasury's spending plans.

Unfortunately for Mr Willetts, there is precious little he can do about it. From September 2012 the state will give teaching grants only for expensive subjects that either boost economic growth, such as science, engineering, or are socially desirable, such as medicine and dentistry; these tend to be delivered in the country's best universities and will rightly attract the highest fees. The subsidy for all other courses will be removed, so his threat to slash teaching grants for lesser institutions that charge more than he envisaged is a hollow one.

Slashing spending on research would also fail to punish the miscreants because research is concentrated in the elite universities that can justify the highest prices.

The Office for Fair Access, a quango, is the only body through which Mr Willetts might enact his threat. Yet it was created not to penalise institutions for charging too much, but to nudge those that provide an expensive education into taking more students from poor families. It seems implausible that it could be refashioned to serve a completely different purpose.

Today the Office for Fair Access published guidelines for universities seeking to charge more than £6,000 a year. Spending on scholarships will be pruned and the money redirected to boosting attainment and aspiration among under-represented groups. It wants institutions to set themselves targets for ensuring that the students in their lecture halls more closely resemble those off campus, and to meet those targets. Those who already attract greater numbers from poorer backgrounds must ensure that they take steps to prevent students from dropping out. Spending on outreach activities such as summer schools, open days and school visits must also be detailed; it suggests that an institution charging the full whack should spend £900 per paying student.

The guidelines are a great improvement on the existing "access agreement", a piece of paper which states what every university intends to do to take more students from under-represented groups that has been in place ever since tuition fees were trebled in 2006 (you can see Oxford University's paperwork, for example, here).

Concentrating on raising attainment and aspiration is particularly appropriate given that universities that had offered bursaries to students from poor families often failed to attract applications. That was mainly because those that could afford such largesse had strong competition for places, which went to the better-qualified applicants from richer homes.

Vice-chancellors have until April 19th to determine what fee levels to charge. I reckon the lion's share will aim high. Expect fireworks.