perhaps phillip augar has got it right.ntly this review is not all about university but about other choices for students post 18 and he is talking about more money going into the further education sector. and skills provision, which makes the economy future proofed, if you like. is that going to work better, do you think, for people going down that route? that is not my area of expertise but certainly when you look at this, i know phillip augar has been very keen to look at the further education sector. we do focus on the 50%, usually the more affluent sector, who go to university and not the 50% who don't. 0ne sector, who go to university and not the 50% who don't. one could argue that those who go to university have a state subsidy and the others don't. what he is trying to do is to make lifelong learning easier and these proposals aim to do that. i don't claim to have the expertise to be able to judge that in a way that ido be able to judge that in a way that i do student finance, but certainly from talking to him, that

findings of a long awaited report into higher education funding in england by the businessman phillip augarn 2016, should be brought back, and students should have longer to pay back their loans, up to a0 years rather than the current 30 years. the point at which you start paying back your loan should be lowered from a starting salary of £25,000 to £23,000. the review also calls for more support for those wanting vocational training, or those going into higher education later in life. universities have expressed fears about the cuts to fees, saying it could lead to bigger class sizes, poorerfacilities, and less money to support students. theresa may said she supported the call to reintroduce maintenance grants for students from low—income backgrounds. nobody should feel they have to go to university, and that applies to children from middle—class backgrounds just as much as anyone. nor should anybody feel because of who they are or where they are from the world of higher education is not open to them because it would cost too much. thanks to this government, universities are legally require