But it’s not just graduates who have reaped the benefits; our society and our economy are better off for this expansion, which is why today’s demands for a hike in fees and cuts to student numbers from the Association of Graduate Recruiters (AGR) is so bizarre.

Of all its targets, the government’s 50% target for the number of young people entering higher education has been the most prominent and hotly debated. Whether the figure was arrived at after a careful analysis of the UK’s future skills needs, or was written on the back of an envelope to reflect the ambitions of a Prime Minister determined to open the doors of Britain’s ivory towers to the masses, really doesn’t matter. At the Guardian’s higher education summit this week I will argue that the 50% target has done more to widen participation than any other single intervention. Without it, I don’t believe that universities would have embraced the need to extend their reach to the extent that they have. The government has expanded places year on year, the student support package has been designed to benefit more students in need than ever before and the emphasis on extending opportunity now sees higher education delivered through a variety of modes and institutions.

In spite of the howls from the Opposition towards the 50% target – including the Liberal Democrats – there is no evidence than standards have fallen.
‘More means worse’ has been the mantra of those who have sought to protect a university education as a privilege for the few throughout the past decade and it is disappointing to see the AGR repeating this tired and unfounded philosophy today.

Student satisfaction remains high, the UK remains an attractive destination for international students and UK universities continue to dominate on the world stage in research rankings. Our sector is second only to that of the United States. I challenge critics of our higher education sector to name and shame cases of poor quality and low standards. Show us the evidence and give the sector the chance to answer the criticisms.

The Association of Graduate Recruiters are also evidence-lite when it comes to their assertions about tuition fees. Contrary to their conviction that higher fees will lead to higher quality, there is no evidence that trebling university fees in 2006 has made any impact on the quality of the student experience. This was the damning indictment of the Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Select Committee report into ‘students and universities’ last year. Perhaps the AGR believe that something can only be of value if it has a decent price tag?

As youth unemployment remains high and the graduate jobs tougher to find there is a serious risk that those who have long argued against widening participation will be joined by pragmatists who argue that, in the present climate, expansion is unaffordable and unnecessary. Such pragmatism is short sighted. Britain’s future industrial strength and economic success is reliant on a highly skilled workforce. That workforce needs to be educated and trained today. Better to fund their future, than to leave an entire generation scarred by long term unemployment.

Of course, this does not imply that the traditional three year university degree is the only route to a stronger economy and opportunity for all, which is why the government’s emphasis on training and apprenticeships has been just as welcome.

The Prime Minister stated in his last speech to the Labour Party conference that there would be no cap on aspiration. This must remain a clear dividing line at the next election. After all, when the well-heeled ladies and gentlemen of the Association of Graduate Recruiters call for fewer university places, they’re not talking about fewer places for their own children: just other people’s children.

Photo: Azorina 2006