Former DfE adviser calls for cap on creative courses

The number of students allowed to take creative subjects at university should be reduced to a quarter of current levels, a former high-level government adviser has said.

Tim Leunig, a prize-winning economist who was Chief Scientific Adviser at the Department for Education between 2014 and 2017, said neither the economy nor the cultural sector requires the current number of students graduating with degrees in creative subjects.

Writing in a blog, Leunig – who devised the furlough scheme during the Covid pandemic – said there are currently around 127,000 creative arts students – more than the number of engineering students, double the number of medical students, three times the number for physics, and five times the number for maths.

READ MORE:

He said that capping the number of students allowed to take creative courses at around 25% of the current level, equivalent to some 32,000, would allow government to invest more in university arts courses because graduates in the subjects, on average, cost the taxpayer money.

"Economics and medicine students are good news for everyone," he said. "They earn a lot, repay their student loans, and pay a lot of tax. They fund our schools, pensions and so on.

"In contrast, creative arts graduate outcomes are uniquely awful. The average male creative arts graduate earns about £100,000 less than if they had never gone to university, and costs taxpayers about the same.

"For a woman, a creative arts degree lowers lifetime earnings a fraction and costs the taxpayer about £50,000. Given the gender ratio, the average taxpayer loss per student is £68,000, or about £2.9bn a year."

His comments come after Education Secretary Gillian Keegan instructed the Office for Students, the public body that distributes government money to higher education providers, to freeze grants intended to meet the extra costs of offering music, drama, fashion and other arts courses for undergraduates.

Leunig said the government decision to "shave the subsidy a fraction" while leaving "demand untouched" means costs will fall a "tiny bit", while the same number of students will be taught a little less well.

"The government should instead have limited student numbers," he said.

"It already limits medicine and dentistry numbers, because of cost. Limiting access to expensive courses is reasonable, but it is creative arts, not medicine, that cost the taxpayer a fortune in the long term.

"Creative arts courses should be capped – perhaps by (say) three quarters, saving taxpayers £2.2bn every year."

'Beacons of excellence'

According to Leunig, remaining courses should be made "outstanding beacons of excellence" by increasing the government grant for creative arts tenfold, from the current £16.7m a year £167m.

This, he says, would result in taxpayers still saving £2bn a year overall.

"Furthermore, we should accept that creative arts graduates very rarely pay their loans back," he added

"We should reduce their course fees to £3,000 a year, with government paying the difference to their university or college. That is costless, since the money is never paid back."

"The most talented students will still do the courses they want to do. Their student fees, loans and debts will fall dramatically. They will take courses that are significantly better funded, with more and better quality teaching.

"We cannot, as a nation, afford to have unlimited creative arts students. Neither our economy, nor our cultural sector require it.

"What we need instead is excellent provision, for a sensible number of students, properly funded and supported."

Leunig's proposal comes amid strong criticism of the government's decision to freeze the level of funding it provides universities to support the cost of creative subjects.

Jo Grady, General Secretary of the University and College Union, said arts subjects are "increasingly becoming the preserve of the rich", adding that Keegan's decision will "further shut down opportunities for working-class students".