In a letter to ministers, the higher education body GuildHE raises a series of questions that it says need answering, and warns against making a ¡°costly and ill-advised mistake¡±.

The letter has been made public today, hours before Chancellor George Osborne unveils the swingeing cuts to be made in the CSR period, which runs from 2011-12 to 2014-15.

Ruth Farwell and Andy Westwood, GuildHE¡¯s chair and chief executive respectively, say that Lord Browne¡¯s proposals for a market in fees in which universities compete for students is ¡°based fundamentally on the principle that student choices should shape the future of higher education¡±.

They caution that such a vision ¡°depends critically on a one-dimensional view of students in England and their geographical mobility¡±.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

In fact, the letter says, the view of students as school-leavers planning to move away from home to attend university is outdated, with such students ¡°an increasing minority¡±.

The review¡¯s proposals do little to secure the future of good locally based provision, it continues, which is ¡°the only real choice that many have¡±.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

In this context, GuildHE says, the review¡¯s market-based proposals could do severe damage to efforts to widen access to higher education, as ¡°we simply cannot know the impact of the proposals on participation levels among less well-off students¡±.

Professor Farwell and Mr Westwood also address the view that the costs of higher education should be borne by those who most benefit from them, noting that ¡°Browne and the CSR¡¯s position appears to be that graduates capture most of the economic benefits and, therefore, should pay the most for it¡±.

They disagree, arguing instead that there are three beneficiaries ¨C the graduate, the economy and society as a whole ¨C and all should pay their share.

¡°Substituting state income with graduate income is not appropriate or ideologically fair,¡± they say in the letter, which is addressed to ministers including business secretary Vince Cable, universities minister David Willetts and Mr Osborne.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

¡°Anything with too much weight on one beneficiary (ie, Browne¡¯s on the graduate) may be better affordable in the current climate, but is unfair and unprincipled in the longer term,¡± the letter says.

Among other points covered is a plea for any change to be introduced ¡°at a practical pace¡±.

The GuildHE letter warns that if the implementation of any new system is rushed through, ¡°institutions and individuals may find the transitional period more life-threatening than the eventual market-oriented system that Browne and ministers desire¡±.

john.gill@tsleducation.com