Join HEPI for a webinar on Thursday 11 December 2025 from 10am to 11am to discuss how universities can strengthen the student voice in governance to mark the launch of our upcoming report, Rethinking the Student Voice. Sign up now to hear our speakers explore the key questions.
This blog is kindly authored by Meg Haskins, Policy Manager at the Russell Group.
You can read HEPI’s other blog on the current OfS consultation here and here.
Quality is one of the most frequently used, yet least clearly defined, concepts in higher education. For decades, debates have rumbled on about how best to measure it, and yet the term continues to be used liberally and often vaguely. From university marketing promising a “high-quality student experience” to political critiques of so-called “Mickey Mouse courses,” the term is everywhere – but its precise meaning remains elusive.
Quality matters: to students making significant financial and personal investments; to staff who take pride in their teaching and research; to funders and policymakers; and to the UK’s global reputation. If we’re asking students to take out significant loans and trust that higher education will act as a springboard into their futures, we must not only deliver quality but also demonstrate it clearly, transparently and in ways that support ongoing improvement.
The OfS consultation is the sector’s golden opportunity to define how this is done.
The Russell Group supports a more integrated and streamlined quality assessment system – one that reduces duplication, improves clarity and actively supports efforts to enhance quality further. But integration must not come at the expense of flexibility within the model. The system needs to make space for narrative contextualisation rather than reductive judgements.
Heavy reliance on benchmarking is particularly concerning. It risks disadvantaging institutions with a historically strong absolute performance and limiting meaningful differentiation. To ensure fairness, absolute values must carry greater weight, and there should be transparency on benchmark thresholds and definitions of “material” deviation, especially outcomes which will have regulatory and funding consequences.
So far, ministers have been light on detail about what change they’re actually expecting to see on quality assurance. Ideas of linking quality measures to recruitment numbers or fee levels have caused concern, which is understandable given that the system for measuring quality is untested. But we shouldn’t fear greater scrutiny. Students, taxpayers and the public deserve clarity about what quality looks like in real terms – and reassurance that it is being delivered at a high level and consistently.
Demonstrating quality is something Russell Group universities have always taken seriously, and is now under increasing public scrutiny in the face of rhetoric from certain political quarters about “rip-off degrees”. As such, our universities have taken steps to measure and robustly evidence the quality of our provision. Beyond regulatory metrics, graduate outcomes surveys, the TEF and professional body accreditations, our universities embed quality assurance through multiple levels of governance, including academic boards and senates, independent audits, annual and periodic module and programme reviews, and student feedback mechanisms. This has led to continuous improvement and enhancement of quality at our universities, reflected in the strength of their outcomes.
Crucially, high quality is not about selectivity or league tables. The Secretary of State is rightly clear in her ambition for all young people to have a wide range of excellent options across different institutions, levels and qualification types. But this choice needs to go hand-in-hand with quality, which is why we need baseline expectations across all institutions and swift regulatory action where these standards aren’t met.
If the sector embraces greater scrutiny in this way, then metrics must be robust, transparent and fair. Streamlining and clarifying processes should reduce duplication and burden, while maintaining a strong focus on enhancement.
The regulator has both carrots and sticks at its disposal. While it is positive to see an intention to reward high-quality provision, benchmarking that obscures excellence could inadvertently punish those delivering the strongest outcomes – surely not the government’s intention.
Particularly worrying is the idea that the OfS could start deriving overall ratings from a lower individual aspect rating. This compresses results and risks obscuring examples of high-quality provision, adding little value for students. Even more concerning is the proposal to reclassify the Bronze ratings as a trigger for regulatory intervention. This could redefine the baseline for compliance as a form of failure in quality, and blur the line between judgements of excellence and regulatory compliance – a muddled message for providers and confusing for students.
Ultimately, the goal must be a more outward-facing quality model – one that strengthens public and ministerial trust, reinforces the UK’s global credibility, and upholds the reputation for excellence that underpins our higher education sector.
By positioning higher tuition fees as one side of a “deal,” the Government is challenging the sector to demonstrate, clearly and confidently, that students are receiving both a high-quality experience and high-quality outcomes in return. That deal will only be credible if quality is defined fairly, measured transparently, and assessed in ways that support enhancement as well as accountability.