Higher Education In The UK Is In Crisis. We Need to Reimagine Its Very Purpose If It Is To Survive
Education systems do not operate outside of society or in a vacuum, they reflect wider dominant socio-economic approaches and discourses- the increasing privatization and monetization of public goods and the corporatization of HE exemplifies this within the UK. In this instance this article is discussing the ongoing neoliberal impact specifically upon HE in the UK and how this has not only impacted how the purpose of education is viewed but also how it has led to a crisis in HE. Whilst we are discussing the existential crisis of HE in the UK we are also discussing the failure of neoliberalism at the same time.
Neoliberalism has led to growing inequality, limited opportunity, and a dysfunctional system within both society and Higher Education (HE). To move forward, we must acknowledge that the neoliberal model has failed and that education’s purpose extends beyond serving market demands. The marketisation of Further and Higher Education has caused financial and existential crises, distorting the intrinsic value of learning. Addressing this requires more than policy tweaks—it demands a fundamental ideological and philosophical shift in how education is perceived and valued. We must reframe HE within its broader social context and challenge dominant market-driven narratives. Only then can discussions around funding or reform have real substance.
Over the last 40 years or so the very basis of education and its role within society has pivoted- away from education as a (sometimes uneasy) mix of the ‘old humanism’ and ‘democratic-learner’ models, and towards education for career and job market alone. Universities have become increasingly positioned not as sites of progressive, creative and critical investigation, but as producers of career outcomes and servicers of the labor market- this is how they exist within contemporary frameworks.
However, the dominance of the neoliberal model within HE must be viewed within a wider socio-historical context. The approach that valued education as a process and a social good that benefitted society as a whole, where education was appreciated for its intrinsic value and seen as a valuable resource that had the potential to eradicate class inequality has been eradicated. The end of the consensus underpinning the post-war settlement and the rise and dominance of free-market neoliberalism from the 1980s onwards saw a transformed conception of the relationship between education and society, towards what Raymond Williams (1961) described as the ‘industrial-trainer’ model. In many ways education and in particular HE has been repurposed and repositioned away from its wider civic sense and ethos and has been remodeled within the neoliberal economy.
The cultural, economic, and ideological triumph of neoliberalism reshaped state functions, including education, by promoting a new common sense that valorized the private over the public. Central to this transformation was the appeal to individual freedom and autonomy, casting the state as oppressive and positioning education as a personal professional investment. This ideology proved compelling even to those it disadvantaged, such as the working class. Neoliberal dominance persisted well beyond Thatcher’s resignation in 1990, remaining unchallenged during Labour’s 1997–2010 governance. As Stuart Hall (2018) observed, the concept of the citizen gave way to that of the consumer—an individual making choices in a market-driven system, with personalized services prioritized over collective responsibility. New Labour’s “third way” politics, which claimed to transcend traditional left-right divides, reinforced neoliberalism as the default socio-economic framework. Consequently, the framing of education as individual aspiration and market-driven choice became deeply entrenched, even among groups historically opposed to such views.
This dominance of global free-market neoliberalism and a wider process of globalization have combined with prevailing conservative ideological perspectives to produce the notion of the nation state as a competition state- which must compete in the global marketplace on all fronts, including HE- whilst simultaneously building upon the familiar narrative of individualized economic responsibility. Global free-market capitalism is lauded by some as inherently promoting growth, co-operation and positive interconnectedness, but its deeper existential basis is the embrace of individualized competitiveness. It requires a reorientation of the state towards the norms of competitiveness and individualism. This has meant that for universities, they have become transformed into businesses competing in the global economy.
The conservative right brand of neoliberalism is remorselessly determined by a discourse of binary oppositions: in particular, a central distinction is made between individual entrepreneurism vs state handouts and bureaucracy. Indeed, the very success and purpose of Thatcherism was to reposition how we see ourselves and our role within society, as well as the role of the state. Old notions of collectivism and cooperation were radically abandoned in favor of a new individualism. New relationships between markets, the individual and the community, and their role within a global marketplace, have firmly repositioned the purpose and role of education.
The predominance of the market, the neoliberalism of small government and a competitive view of human nature and individualism have become a virtually unquestioned orthodoxy in discussions of the role of education and its common purpose. Indeed, it is so dominant that this outlook is seen as being post-political- it has become so dominant as to be accepted as orthodoxy. Moreover, the ideological structures that this has produced also facilitate a passive acceptance of social inequality and an unequal distribution of wealth and life chances. The central notion is that education is there for individuals to help themselves, and this is entirely rooted in the meritocratic myth that your place, worth and position in society is solely the responsibility of the individual.
What is key to highlight here is that HE seems to have abandoned its commitment to the promotion of knowledge and citizenship as institutional goals of intrinsic value to such a degree that they do not match the organizational model and ethos of the university. This has occurred to such a degree that it renders the university incompatible with its new-found purpose. The principles of the university as a site of learning, knowledge and critical development have been firmly abandoned as a principal ethos. With this being the case, trying to fit some sort of student as consumer or dominance of the labor market into the institution that is not structured to provide this will ultimately result in the crisis we see today- for instance, the prioritization of only specific areas of study and the focus upon cash streams. This has led to an increasingly dysfunctional and unsustainable situation.
While students are seen as rational individuals pursuing advantage, the notion of education is itself also seen in economic terms. Education within the contemporary neoliberal model is driven “less by the commitment to opportunities for all in a more egalitarian society, and more in terms of supplying flexibility to the labor market and re-educating people to “get on their bikes” when their jobs disappear as a result of some unpredictable glitch in the global market” (Hall, 2017: 291). This is the fundamental neoliberal principle and philosophy, both in terms of individual responsibility for your lot in life, and as the dominant philosophy behind the purpose of education. This deeply embedded understanding is the means through which education systematically legitimizes structural inequality.
The dominant ideology in HE maintains discursive power by neutralizing alternative viewpoints, framing them as irrational or radical. Neoliberalism, despite being a specific and ideological model, is rarely recognized as such. Its influence has individualized, monetized, and commercialized higher education, reinforcing its own legitimacy. When contradictions emerge or the system fails, neoliberalism is not blamed; instead, it demands deeper market involvement—through cuts, restrictions on unions, and further reforms. In moments of crisis, when the status quo is threatened, neoliberalism adapts to maintain dominance. This occurred under New Labour, which restructured social democracy within a neoliberal framework. Blair’s introduction of tuition fees marked the monetization of higher education as an investment in one’s future, continuing Thatcher’s ideological trajectory. Initiatives like free schools, academies, league tables, and increased university fees translated neoliberal values into institutional structures, embedding competition and market logic as the defining features of education’s purpose.
The education system is, by its very nature, a vehicle for specific socio-economic understandings of the role of the individual and the state, and it is currently directly led by a very clear ideology. As Mike Rustin commented: “we have seen in Britain over nearly forty years the pervasive influence which this system of corporate power (self- promoted as a free market) has gained over the state and civil society” (Rustin, 2016). This extensive re-engineering of the HE system is clearly a contradiction of neoliberalism’s own precepts. Yet any alternative is not even up for serious discussion, let alone serious policy changes. The point being that there must exist a philosophical and discursive framework to support any proposals for change, one that challenges neoliberal orthodoxy for the failure that it is (this even being admitted to by the IMF itself). We must break the myth that there is no alternative and any other possibility is worse- this seems extremely unlikely to happen without a major change of course from the Labour Party leadership which is currently beholden to the approach of New Labour before it.
Indeed, claims of a global and national order and governance that is moving away from neoliberalism may be wishful thinking at best. There is very little evidence to support this, especially within the UK. However, even if this was the case then what is the new model or order and how is it fundamentally different? Even with the Trumpian bull in a China (pun firmly intended) shop approach to protectionism and trade barriers there is no fundamental change, in fact the conservative right have firmly entrenched themselves as the mainstream. Even when Labour win a crushing landslide victory against the Conservatives there are no proposals to make any significant changes of direction even with the mandate to do so. Again, the conservative, neoliberal approach remains dominant as the mainstream whilst further reinforcing inequalities.
Particularly within the UK, education is inequality materialised. The metrics of measuring inequality show us this: from the number of pupils in receipt of free school meals or other help-to-eat schemes through to the cost and background of those who attend private schools, and the dominance of power and income that this very small section of the population disproportionately represents. The salient point here is the importance to educational attainment (unacknowledged in neoliberalism) of the different cultural worlds in which class can place us, and the power or powerlessness that we can feel within these positions. The social and cultural dominance of class is evident within the values that determine success and failure, and the ways in which students are required to negotiate these. The poor and other marginalized groups have to adopt or adapt to survive and succeed. The poor and working class are recognized, but they have to embrace the rules of the game, or else consign themselves to a continued position on the periphery.
Education is often framed as the embodiment of a free-market, individualized neoliberal society—meritocratic, self-directed, and free from state constraint. Yet, this model plays a crucial role in legitimizing these very ideas. Neoliberal education reinforces narratives of individual choice and responsibility, masking structural inequalities. It symbolizes the broader neoliberal approach to state, society, and self.
As Arun Appadurai (2004) notes, the capacity to aspire is not equally distributed; it is shaped by social and economic conditions, with the powerful possessing a greater ability to envision and pursue future possibilities. Despite this, political rhetoric insists that success or failure reflects personal morality and effort. Poverty and unemployment are framed as individual failings rather than systemic issues. This dominant discourse normalizes inequality, making it difficult to imagine alternative frameworks. Consequently, social hierarchies are justified as outcomes of merit, obscuring the role of privilege and access in determining life chances.
The monetization of education, and associated ideological approaches to HE, have been an unmitigated disaster for those involved; they have resulted in increased strikes, high turnover of staff, plummeting morale, student disengagement and huge increases in attainment inequality rates and staff/student mental health issues- to name but a few catastrophes. The complaints figures bear this out: “university students made a record number of complaints last year to the higher education watchdog in England and Wales, which expressed concern about ‘increasing levels of distress among students who are struggling to cope’” (Weale, 2023).
In fact what we have seen over recent years is consecutive record numbers of complaints by students. This can be partly attributed to the Covid pandemic, but at a deeper level it is indicative of the perception that students now have of themselves as consumers, and of the deep inequalities arising from increased student numbers without the investment in resources and infrastructure to support it. The recent and ongoing industrial action within HE is also indicative of this crisis. Once we commodify learning, its meaning and purpose are then defined as economic functions, to which we respond as economic individuals, rather than as engaged students.
However, the crisis for students is not measured by complaints alone. According to Felicity Mitchell, the independent adjudicator for higher education: “we are seeing increasing levels of distress among students who are struggling to cope, and this is a major concern. At the same time the pressures on providers make it more difficult for them to support students effectively” (Weale, 2023). Just as wider social and political norms affect how students view their relationship with HE providers, wider socioeconomic inequalities have had a devastating impact upon who can go to university and their experience when there. Weale also quotes Chloe Field, the Vice- President for Higher Education at the National Union of Students: “students are at breaking point, with the cost-of-living crisis and spiraling rents pushing many over the edge. It is no surprise the OIA has received a record number of complaints” (Ibid).
Under the neoliberal model, universities have become profit-driven corporations focused on perpetual growth, measured primarily by student numbers—without adequate resources to support that growth. Institutions invest heavily in student accommodation, not to address housing needs, but to generate revenue through high rents. The removal of student number caps has triggered unsustainable expansion, intensified competition—especially for international students—and an obsession with league tables. This market-driven model has little to do with education. At the same time recent visa restrictions have contributed to a sharp decline in overseas student numbers, worsening financial instability across the sector. As a result, universities face significant challenges: some are closing departments, merging, or even considering closure. According to Universities UK (2025), most institutions are making major cutbacks, including reduced spending on repairs, course closures (49 percent), course consolidations (55 percent), module removals (46 percent), and department closures (18 percent). Research funding is also declining, further undermining the academic mission of higher education.
What is needed is a transformed relationship between HE and society, one that is not in hock to a view of individuals as exclusively economic agents, economic entities, enterprising individualist subjects, or sovereign consumers determined by market forces. There needs to be a rejection of any idea that HE is a profit-generating industry that supplies flexibility to the demands of the global market. Post-school education is a public good, and should be the entitlement of all citizens, supported and funded by a democratic state. Education, just like health care, is a fundamental right for all to access for free, as well as being essential for the functioning of a successful society, not just for those who can afford it.
Along these lines universities need to be perceived as being more accessible. As well as opportunities for those leaving school, it is also important to provide for older people who want to go back to higher education, or to enter university for the first time. Indeed, those entering university as mature students can experience some of the most profound and transformative effects that education can offer. Universities should also be viewed as public, not private, property, and be more open for use by the public as well as students. We need to think of universities not as some exclusive out-of-bounds hallowed ground, but as sites that are open, transparent and accessible to the wider public.
Unfortunately opportunities within HE are still viewed through the lens of class and place for many; this is not simply because of the practical question of affordability (although student debt is increasingly prohibitive for many outside of the middle and upper classes); it is also because class affects whether people feel that university is a place where they can belong, rather than an exclusive realm. Indeed, “it should be a fundamental principle of a democratic society that learning and knowledge should be as widely shared and available as possible, not confined to privileged elites and minorities” (Rustin, 2016:163). Creating a fairer, more open and accessible HE sector must be a priority whatever the future holds.
In order to combat inequality and address a wider sense of crisis, we must tackle it at its core- education. Education is the infrastructure that enables society to function, and it should accordingly be funded by central government and those who benefit from it the most. This could be achieved through taxes on those who currently benefit from an unequal distribution of wealth and opportunities, for example through a wealth tax on the multinational corporations that currently avoid paying fair and proportionate tax in the UK, or a ‘levelling-up levy’ based on taxing all private educational providers. A different funding model is needed, based on the idea of the university as a public asset and service. A different, more democratic, notion of the purpose of education, combined with a different and sustainable funding model, would be a big step towards the dismantlement of the role of the university in reproducing inequality and avoiding perpetual crisis.
However, the recent backlash to the implementation of collecting VAT from private schools shows the assumed privilege that the two-tier education system has enjoyed for so long- this is not even suggesting for a moment that we address the role these providers have within the maintenance of a deeply segregated and flawed education system.
Nevertheless, there are a number of practical steps that can be taken to effect fundamental change here. First of all there is the need for any government to accept the idea that the current HE model is not working. Indeed, with its huge Parliamentary majority Labour should seize the moment to shift away from toeing the line of economic orthodoxy passively accepting that privatization and neoliberalism works: the current economic and social crisis highlights that it does not. In fact, repeated national polls suggest there is widespread public appetite to shift away from current economic models. Universities, like any other public educational service or health service, must not be viewed or modelled as for-profit businesses. More specifically, HE must be valued as a space for education and knowledge, not as a location for furthering a neoliberal agenda; whilst at the same time universities must operate as inclusive and egalitarian spaces for positive social change, and play a role in dismantling the structural class inequalities that are so engrained within education in the UK.
This will not be easy, education is currently thought of and positioned as part of a wider discursive framing, and until this broader common sense is challenged in a meaningful way, progressive change will remain far off. Nevertheless, a critical understanding of currently dominant assumptions is a first step towards change, not least in aiding the realization that change is possible. One key argument would be asserting the overwhelming case that the neoliberal project has fundamentally failed (something recently admitted to by the IMF), and failed rather badly for the majority within the UK, by any metric. As Joseph Stiglitz recently pointed out: “after 40 years of neoliberalism in the United States and other advanced economies, we know what doesn’t work. The neoliberal experiment has been a spectacular failure” (Stiglitz, 2019).
This point must be front and center before all else. But secondly, education has to be considered and reimagined as a key public service that benefits both individuals and the wider society, not as an individual consumer commodity. This has to be firmly established if any meaningful change is to be possible, or to gain any traction among the wider public and within HE. Thirdly, it needs to be recognized that no change can happen overnight. Dominant narratives and ideological discourse around education have to be seriously and fundamentally challenged and then changed (in itself a long and slow process), and this applies also to changes in HE.
For example, it is theoretically possible for fees to be cut overnight, but for a sustainable and managed transition it might be better for them to be incrementally reduced, and where possible scrapped for the most disadvantaged first. Government should also, and immediately, begin to provide equal funding for all educational subjects, rather than solely prioritizing STEM subjects based on their perceived financial value. This can be achieved by increasing central government funding for certain courses or degrees, and urging universities to invest their reserves in staff, pay and resources instead of solely focusing on student accommodation. Continued government policy places excessive emphasis on STEM subjects (in particular upon mathematics), and devalues creative and critical subjects, as well as undermining the humanities and social sciences. This must be remedied.
Ultimately university should be free, as it benefits everyone- society in general. Such a change would represent a radical challenge in terms of the currently firmly established neoliberal model. However, it is achievable- as we have seen in recent years in Germany, for example, where HE fees were abolished in 2014, and even in the US, where the university debt of 15 million graduates was wiped in 2022; not to mention the abolition of HE fees in Scotland in 2000. As Joseph Stiglitz suggests, we should now replace the failed experiment of neoliberalism: “this agenda is eminently affordable; in fact, we cannot afford not to enact it. The alternatives offered by nationalists and neoliberals would guarantee more stagnation, inequality, environmental degradation and political acrimony, potentially leading to outcomes we do not even want to imagine” (Stiglitz, 2019).
For its own future viability the current education model has to change. Education has to be central to any comprehensive agenda of change based on rejection of the neoliberal model: to address the huge inequalities and ongoing crisis within our society and create a more egalitarian and socially just public space requires a comprehensive agenda focusing upon education, research and the other true sources of wealth. Rejecting conservative and neoliberal orthodoxy around public services and education is the most important task for those seeking positive and progressive change. Only by shifting away from a strictly neoliberal model will we be able to unleash education’s potential to drive egalitarian change in society and individual development.
References
Appadurain, Arjun. (2004) ‘The Capacity to Aspire: Culture and the Terms of Recognition’, in Culture and Public Action, Vijayendra Roa and Michael Walton (eds) Stanford University Press.
Hall, Stuart. (2017) Selected Political Writings, London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Hall, Stuart. (2018) in Mouffe, Chantal (2018) For a Left Populism, London: Verso.
Rustin, Michael. (2016) ‘The Neoliberal University and its Alternatives’, Soundings 63.
Stiglitz, Joseph. (2019) ‘If the Neoliberal Agenda Has Failed, What Should Come After It?’,
World Economic Forum, 03/06/2019 https://www.weforum.org/stories/2019/06/after-neoliberalism-joseph-stiglitz/
Universities UK. (2025) ‘Universities Grip Financial Crisis- But at What Cost to the Nation?’, 06/05/2025 https://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/what-we-do/creating-voice-our-members/media-releases/universities-grip-financial-crisis-what
Weale, Sally. (2023) ‘Student Complaints in England and Wales at Record Levels, Watchdog Says’, the Guardian, 20/04/2023 https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/apr/20/university-student-complaints-england-and-wales-record-levels-watchdog
Williams, Raymond. (1961) The Long Revolution, London: Chatto and Windus.
