Skip to main content

Leading Universities out of Dependency

Sometimes headlines seem like an endless succession of repeats- a kind of Groundhog Day from a 24 hour media with little short-term, let alone long-term, memory. This morning we have had the annual complaint from Universities- not co-incidentally just ahead of the annual budget discussions they must have with the Education ministry- that they are in a "crisis" that will lead to unimaginable cuts.

Now, I am not one who imagines that all is rosy with the universities in the United Kingdom. Far from being the ivy-clad, ivory tower of cliche, many of Britain's higher education establishments are actually quite squalid places. While many uncomfortable, inappropriate buildings are being replaced, the fact is that the new buildings are expensive and as a result, the temptation of University administrators to overcrowd facilities has become overwhelming.

The basic problem is not so much that budgets may be cut and policies changed, but that they are changed erratically and with little notice. The government sees two valuable aspects of University life: the value that they have in improving the quality of the workforce in the longer term (and also reducing youth unemployment in the shorter term) and the distinctly lesser value of primary research. Yet, while many Universities regard research as their primary goal, the government regards teaching as the Universities primary role. Nor is this a feature of the Labour government. Conservative governments too have upgraded formerly teaching-led institutions such as the Polytechnics and central institutions into fully fledged, chartered Universities. The idea behind this was to eliminate a snobbishness about Polytechnics that meant that even a brilliant Poly had less status than a poor University.

The result has been that research funding now has to feed a much larger number of mouths, and expensive research- like physical sciences- inevitably struggles to gain critical funding for expensive laboratories. This is one reason why science teaching has gradually lost out to the cheaper teaching of humanities, because the scientific research side is not able to offer the right facilities. This in turn has reduced the number of graduates who can teach scientific subjects in schools and so reduces still further the pool of students opting to study sciences at Universities. This process has been going on for several decades, and has been a significant distortion of the British labour market: we have too few engineers and too many sociologists. The failure of governments to understand the links between primary research and undergraduate teaching has had significant consequences.

However, as the public sector funding crisis gathers momentum over the next few years, Universities are going to have to face new choices- and so are undergraduates. The levels of funding are going, inevitably to fall under two pressures: the pressures on government expenditure and the falling domestic undergraduate intake as result of demographic pressures. Many Universities have already responded to these by increasing their intake of international students. These overseas students pay full fees, and as a result they help subsidise the domestic students who do not. Yet domestic students, beyond their fees being paid, have increasingly less access to overall funding- the days of fully funded student grants are at least two decades gone. The result has been that students have opted to study closer to home, taking advantage of proximity to parents in order to reduce their bills.They have also increasingly taken part time work in a way that would have been surprising to the generation of 1960s and 1970s whose left-wing nostrums would have regarded such industriousness as class betrayal. Nevertheless, students have adapted to the sharp reduction in government funding.

Universities too must now try to take their lives back from government control. Some Universities are wealthy enough to escape government control by charging full fees but funding poorer students with bursaries which they can fund from their large endowments. Those Universities that are not wealthy are seeking to increase their independent endowments and also to focus their attention on a narrower, more specialised subject range. Others have created community out reaches to attract local students, including mature students form their immediate area. Yet others, by contrast, have sought to expand their overseas activities, including developing campuses overseas. All are perfectly rational, indeed commercial responses to the inadequacies of government funding. Yet- so far- only one University, the University of Buckingham, has opted entirely out of the government system, and this has been as much a matter of right wing ideology as of genuine need. Nevertheless, it is only going to be a matter of time before a major University decides to go it alone.

Yet all of this is happening without significant debate. Most politicians do not like to offend articulate students or their families directly, and as a result the debate has been extremely low key- no discussion of "hard choices" is made when those choices create significant resistance within the heart of the political establishment. Nevertheless, the time is drawing closer when a banal slogan like "Education, education, education" will need something real behind it. University reform is inevitable, they question is what form this reform should take in order to maximise the benefits to society as a whole and increase the quality of research in particular.

The annual media groundhog day of University funding discussions may be changing into a substantive debate about what we as a country want out of our University system and how best the Universities themselves can adapt to provide this- including a dramatic increase in self-funding.


Bernard Salmon said…
A couple of other points you haven't mentioned. Firstly, I think the Labour Government's absurd target of having 50% of youngsters going into higher education should be abandoned, as it is unnecessary, is potentially damaging the quality of teaching and ignores the very real need to improve the UK's skills in other areas. Secondly, UK universities do need to take a large step towards trying to match their American counterparts in terms of the amount of money they raise from their alumni.
Cicero said…
Yes and not having to conform to government policy is part of the benefit of leaving government funding. Clearly there is much that can be done to improve University funding- and certainly Aberdeen Uni has become quite active in asking me for money!
Eben Marks said…
I think alumni fundraising is going to have a way to go. Universities are certainly increasing their efforts by expanding their alumni relations offices, hiring in experts from the charity sector etc, but to get to the stage where graduates are as used to donating to their university as to charities is going to take a while. People who went to uni when it was fully-funded just aren't used to paying for uni, and my generation are pissed off that we were the first to go to uni after the introduction of to-up fees and have graduated into such a bad job market. £9-10000 might not be the full cost of a university education, but it feels like we've already paid our dues compared to people who paid only £3000 or nothing at all.

In the USA people are at uni for longer, doing four year undergrad course and two or three year grad courses and the massive role university sports play there means they keep a sense of loyalty about their university for life. We don't have anything comparable here.

This isn't to say universities can't raise more of their own money, but it's going to take a fairly long time until they can raise the amounts that will be needed to be less dependent on the government.
Anonymous said…
"Yet, while many Universities regard research as their primary goal, the government regards teaching as the Universities primary role."

Were that only true, we would have much less of a problem Cicero. However, the government regards research as more important than teaching, so university budgets are determined by their research profiles through the five yearly RAE, not their teaching capacity. This is one reason why it is more and more difficult to see lecturers if you are a student - especially at Russell Group universities.

As an aside, your solution of full independence might work for Oxford and Cambridge. I do not think there are any others wealthy enough to manage without effective government support. Even with the changes you outline, such a scenario is still decades away.

That is why these huge cuts really do matter, and why for once I find myself agreeing with the Vice Chancellors of the Russell Group.

Popular posts from this blog

Post Truth and Justice

The past decade has seen the rise of so-called "post truth" politics.  Instead of mere misrepresentation of facts to serve an argument, political figures began to put forward arguments which denied easily provable facts, and then blustered and browbeat those who pointed out the lie.  The political class was able to get away with "post truth" positions because the infrastructure that reported their activity has been suborned directly into the process. In short, the media abandoned long-cherished traditions of objectivity and began a slow slide into undeclared bias and partisanship.  The "fourth estate" was always a key piece of how democratic societies worked, since the press, and later the broadcast media could shape opinion by the way they reported on the political process. As a result there has never been a golden age of objective media, but nevertheless individual reporters acquired better or worse reputations for the quality of their reporting and

We need to talk about UK corruption

After a long hiatus, mostly to do with indolence and partly to do with the general election campaign, I feel compelled to take up the metaphorical pen and make a few comments on where I see the situation of the UK in the aftermath of the "Brexit election". OK, so we lost.  We can blame many reasons, though fundamentally the Conservatives refused to make the mistakes of 2017 and Labour and especially the Liberal Democrats made every mistake that could be made.  Indeed the biggest mistake of all was allowing Johnson to hold the election at all, when another six months would probably have eaten the Conservative Party alive.  It was Jo Swinson's first, but perhaps most critical, mistake to make, and from it came all the others.  The flow of defectors and money persuaded the Liberal Democrat bunker that an election could only be better for the Lib Dems, and as far as votes were concerned, the party did indeed increase its vote by 1.3 million.   BUT, and it really is the bi

Media misdirection

In the small print of the UK budget we find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer (the British Finance Minister) has allocated a further 15 billion Pounds to the funding for the UK track and trace system. This means that the cost of the UK´s track and trace system is now 37 billion Pounds.  That is approximately €43 billion or US$51 billion, which is to say that it is amount of money greater than the national GDP of over 110 countries, or if you prefer, it is roughly the same number as the combined GDP of the 34 smallest economies of the planet.  As at December 2020, 70% of the contracts for the track and trace system were awarded by the Conservative government without a competitive tender being made . The program is overseen by Dido Harding , who is not only a Conservative Life Peer, but the wife of a Conservative MP, John Penrose, and a contemporary of David Cameron and Boris Johnson at Oxford. Many of these untendered contracts have been given to companies that seem to have no notewo