Two months of Labour in government and the “change” it promised is looking pretty lack-lustre. Despite the word having been plastered across every red election poster, the Westminster status quo seems to have weathered the transfer of power, taking only minor casualties. One welcome development, though, has been the shift in government rhetoric on higher education: the Tories’ blind anti-intellectualism appears to have been replaced by a genuine will to protect and promote the sector.

That can only be a good thing. The previous government’s attacks on our universities were rarely made in good faith, usually being little more than lazy barrages in the culture wars. However, on the issue of valueless “Mickey Mouse” degrees, I’m going to say that the Tories had a point. (Bear with me.)

There’s nothing wrong in principle with wanting to ensure that university offers students value for money. In this country, the government (so, the public) writes off the debt of students who do not benefit financially from their studies. If you don’t earn enough after uni, you don’t pay for it. Simple. But that does surely mean the public has a right to expect that the degrees they’re stumping up for are worth the investment.

“Surely if a degree isn’t value for money the taxpayer shouldn’t be expected to foot the bill”

The problem with the right is that they understand “value” too narrowly. For the Tories and co, any degree that won’t guarantee you a well-paid career is a Mickey Mouse degree. But economic value isn’t the only value there is. Even if it’s not a golden ticket into the job-market, a good university education can still benefit students academically or artistically. Look, I do Philosophy, so obviously I’m biased, but I do think academic and artistic value are just as real as economic value. As such, they’re worthy recipients of taxpayer cash.

But surely if a degree isn’t value for money, even when “value” is understood more broadly, the taxpayer shouldn’t be expected to foot the bill. Especially when money in the university sector is as tight as it is now. The OFS expects 40% of UK universities to run budget deficits this year, while the UCU has warned of hundreds of academics facing imminent redundancy.

Higher education needs more money, and forcing up course standards could be a way to make that money available. Imposing minimum entry requirements on all university courses would perhaps be the simplest way to do this. Otherwise, the government could beef up the Office for Students, allowing them to vet individual courses as well as the institutions who offer them. However it’s done, raising standards should mean fewer un-repaid loans and less strain on the higher education budget, as fewer students enrol on subpar courses they’re unlikely to ever pay for.

Bar raising taxes on the wealthiest (chance would be a fine thing), this would be one of the fairer ways to raise funding. The alternatives are far less egalitarian. The government could make student loans even more punishing for graduates than they already are, just like the Tories did last year. Or, our top universities could carry on down the path of covertly lowering entry-requirements for overseas students. With internationals paying up to £38,000 in annual fees, this would be a great revenue raiser. It should also mean more places for home students. Great. But is it fair? No, of course it’s not. Forcing domestic applicants to jump through more hoops than rich international students to get into uni—just because they aren’t rich and international—hardly screams “breaking the class ceiling”.

“Should we be surprised if school leavers see university as a loan with a degree attached?”

But what, I hear you ask, gives me the right to deny others the uni lifestyle? University gave me the opportunity to leave home at eighteen, move to an exciting new city surrounded by people my own age, and drink 24/7. Am I really comfortable telling people they shouldn’t benefit from the same opportunities I have?

Of course not. All I can say to you is that I don’t think that the ‘uni lifestyle’ should be the sole preserve of university students. If taking out a maintenance loan is the only way young people can afford to live in cities away from their parents then that’s a much wider public policy failing. Rents are soaring and the cost-of-living crisis is still being felt. Should we really be surprised if school leavers see university as a loan with a degree attached, rather than the other way around?

There’s nothing wrong with clamping down on Mickey Mouse degrees per se. If the left refuses to take the initiative on this issue, the right will keep using it as a stick to beat the arts and humanities. For many right-wingers, ‘namby-pamby’ degrees like English and Sociology will never represent value for money. Just look at Nigel Farage’s pledge to get rid of tuition fees for STEM and STEM only. It’s important, then, that ministers do not simply disregard the option of improving course standards as they consider how best to rescue universities from financial ruin. At the very least, a crackdown on Mickey Mouse degrees should be on the table.