People at "prestigious" universities who don't want student number caps so "working class" students can get in are basically saying that they want widening participation only so long as it also involves £££ for their institutions - they don't want caps & contextual admissions.

It always baffles me because as well as crappy it's naïve - do you really think that your institution is going to rush through a load of permanent or even FT hires because of one year's recruitment? It'll be overflow rooms for classes & hourly paid tutors & you know it.

Being taught by an HPL often means being taught by a great teacher ofc - but the more HPLs, the less access students have to support, mentoring, personal tutoring. And of course the small matter of staff exploitation, which is apparently acceptable to many HEC members.

A snide aside (asnide?): I was educated & have taught at prestigious universities & now work at a less prestigious one. All - ALL - my bad teaching examples & anecdotes come from the prestigious ones. At my current one, a lot of those wouldn't have been allowed to happen.

There are good and bad teachers at all institutions of course. But in post-92s we consider "widening participation" not just a cute thing to do but something we couldn't survive without. We need non-traditional students & that's reflected in the efforts made to support them.