51Թ

University teaching income ‘£6.4 billon less’ than 10 years ago

UUK says shortfall in teaching money is ‘baked in’ to higher education funding system as institutions brace for new tax in upcoming budget

Published on
November 24, 2025
Last updated
November 24, 2025
Back view of man presenting to students at a lecture
Source: iStock/monkeybusinessimages

Universities in England are receiving over £6 billion less each year for teaching students than they did a decade ago, new analysis shows.

Ahead of the autumn budget on 26 November, Universities UK (UUK) has calculated that funding per student for teaching in 2025-26 is at 64 per cent of the level it was in 2015-16.

The membership body said because both tuition fees and government grants have failed to keep up with inflation, today universities receive £6.4 billion a year less in real terms for teaching home students compared with 10 years ago.

It follows recent modelling from the Office for Students that warned 45 per cent of universities could face a financial deficit this academic year.

51Թ

ADVERTISEMENT

Despite these concerns, little positive news is expected for universities in the upcoming budget. With a commitment to link tuition fees to inflation already made in a recent skills White Paper, the focus will instead be on the proposed international student levy, which would result in universities being taxed on their income from overseas students.

UUK said the promised tuition fee uplift would “only prevent the gap that has grown in funding the teaching of domestic students from growing further”, rather than fixing the sector’s mounting problems.

51Թ

ADVERTISEMENT

“The yearly £6.4bn shortfall is effectively ‘baked in’ to higher education funding in England without increases in direct grant funding,” the group said in a statement.

UUK also warned that the international student levy could add £780 million in additional costs to universities each year, while the uplift to tuition fees would raise just over half of that, at £440 million.

However, the government looks set to forge ahead with the levy, with skills minister Jacqui Smith recently defending it as a tool to fund maintenance grants.

Vivienne Stern, chief executive of UUK, described the levy plans as “beyond disappointing”, saying a “new tax on international students” is “the opposite of helpful”.

51Թ

ADVERTISEMENT

“This budget has to be about growth,” she continued. “The government has rightly identified universities as fundamental to this aim.

“The secretary of state for education was right to set the goal of putting universities on a firm financial footing,” she continued. “If that’s the goal, this research shows just how far off achieving that we are. Universities are cutting costs hard, losing jobs and courses as a result.”

Joanna Burton, head of higher education policy at the Russell Group, said the analysis shows the tuition fee uplift “is not enough to resolve the structural pressures facing the sector”. 

She continued: “With the budget approaching, government must recognise these challenges and rethink the proposed international student levy; a tax on universities that would add further burdens and restrict investment in students, research and communities."

51Թ

ADVERTISEMENT

helen.packer@timeshighereducation.com

Register to continue

Why register?

  • Registration is free and only takes a moment
  • Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
  • Sign up for our newsletter
Please
or
to read this article.

Related articles

Reader's comments (6)

The problem with all these financial estimates which are not always reliable is that all they just result in "we want more money". But this is the case for all our publicly funded institutions today, just look, for example, at the prison service which is in a much worse state that HE. There does have to be some analysis of how large the sector should be and how this should be funded. It would help if the claim were also accompanied by some plan for pay restraint for senior managers. For example how much has this increased or decreased in real terms over the period?
I can answer that for you. Over the last 10 years, the average pay for UK university vice-chancellors has seen a significant increase, with average total remuneration packages rising from around £260,290 in 2013-14 to over £340,000 in 2023-24. This represents an overall increase of approximately 30% over the decade. And that is just VCs and does not take into account the increasing costs and size of that whole cadre of personnel over the last ten years. I also read somewhere in the THES that the overall cost of the last REF to the sector in real terms was £4.5 bn which does seem rather a lot for what is a quality assessment exercise.
The following statement is not a financial estimate. Its a statement of fact. '... funding per student for teaching in 2025-26 is at 64 per cent of the level it was in 2015-16.' So yes, that does mean the sector needs more money.
Well it is not a fact but a statement by UUK derived from an analysis of factual data to be fair. Indeed "real terms" calculations are often very misleading as we know though economist argue they are essential for planning. Sometimes they are found out later to be wrong. Often the data to produce them is selective or selectively applied. They are certanly not infallible and they are not "Fact" as you claim. The base year selected can be an issue. Measuring inlation and which indices to use is also a metholological choice not a given. There are different indices for inflation for example as I am sure you know. But really no, "real terms" calculations in economics are not completely accurate or fact, though they are more reliable for comparing economic data over time than using unadjusted, nominal figures. Their accuracy is always limited by the reliability and appropriateness of the inflation index used for adjustment. This claim is also produced by UUK though I am confident all is accurate and objective (we know of their excellent track reciord in this area), but please don't claim this as a fact. Logically, it does not follow the sector needs more money. There are other possibilitie:, i.e the level of funding could actually have been too high in 2105-16 and is now more reasonable, or the sector is, in general, too large, or that there is excessive spending, or that the sector has been misgoverned and resource wasted. And of course, all sectors health, schools, transport, housing, environment, prisons etc etc rightly claim they need more money. Rachel has just abolished the the two child benefit cap, rightly in my view, costing around this same as this alleged shortfall. The fee-paying student will say they are being over-charged and accumulating too much personal debt and then the poor old tax payer faced after today of stumping up a stonking all time UK high of 38% of GDP will say with some justice perhaps, that maybe they are over taxed a tad? So it all does depens on the nation's priorities I would think? But all praise to UUK for their work and their analysis, I just don't think it will carry much weight with anyone outside the sector itself, though I do hope I am wrong.
The cost of the last REF to the sector was £450 million and not as stated above, though still a big chunk of this shortfall.
new
And this is quite the norm for public services I am afraid. I read a report about 10 years ago that argued that the NHS needed a £6 bn (if memory serves) increase in funding year on year just to maintain current provision. Governments tend to announce an extra 2 or 3 billion each year as if it will boost the NHS but in real terms it will always be a decrease. Some areas of government spending are inflation proofed others not. Just to say "we need more money" isn't much of an argument today. Probably most commentators would now argue that we are at our limits in terms of borrowing (c £150 bn pa) and debt repayment costs (c £45 bn pa) and taxation 38% of GDP is at an all time high for the UK. I suppose we can always just raise fees but then that also has an impact on hard pressed parents supporting their children thro uni. No-one seems to keen to make cuts for schools and welfare.

Sponsored

Featured jobs

See all jobs
ADVERTISEMENT