We’re going to halve the national debt by 2013. And, naturally, during this period of economic disaster, commerce and industry demand an increased supply of well-qualified job applicants. So it remains Government policy to cram more and more students into higher education.
At the same time, there’s a huge crisis in university funding which is going to get worse. Business Secretary Peter Mandelson (St Catherine’s College, Oxford), who is responsible for the universities, has announced cuts of £2.5 billion – a third of their annual spend.
In December, the Government announced a reduction of £600 million by 2013, on top of asking for £180 million in efficiency savings by 2011 and an additional £135 million required by Lord Mandelson. Just how bad is it going to get?
Is there room for further “economies” in the HE sector? Can the shortfall be made up by private sponsorship and research commissioned from industry, commerce and the military? And how can we demonstrate the ideal of disinterested scholarship without raising the spectacle of payers specifying
the pipers’ tune? Fees now stand at £3,225 a year, but will probably rise to around £5,000 – thus putting higher education out of reach
for many.
At the same time as universities vigorously recruited to increase the number of applicants in order to boost income, staffing was cut while student-staff contact hours increased – as did the numbers attending lectures and seminars. Students on “full-time” courses were working part-time – sometimes as much as 20 hours a week. Thus we’re expected to accept the contradiction between taking a full-time degree while working your way through college.
Applications were encouraged from fee-paying overseas students, especially for post-graduate courses, often resulting in students having difficulties following teaching in English. Additional funding, it was hoped, would come from research awards, endowment and commercial, industrial and military sponsorship. Information technology was supposed to deliver what the traditional system was failing to offer. This produced a world energised by benchmarks, targets, league tables, quality assessment, inspections, research exercises and an unmistakable air of Stalinism.
Despite much official self-congratulation, these reforms have brought terrible strains to the system. On more than one occasion, I’ve been at an examiners’ meeting where we were told to increase the number of first-class degrees we awarded if we were ever to realise the hope of ascending the league table. Lecturers were frequently under pressure to ensure improved grades were awarded to overseas students who might otherwise be deterred and apply elsewhere. This has been resisted by some academics. There have even been instances of staff resigning over the issue.
The case of Paul Buckland at Bournemouth University shows how serious the problem of maintaining academic standards in the face of such pressure can be. Professor Buckland resigned in protest after being required to raise student marks by up to 6 per cent, saying: “If you don’t make a stand somewhere, you might as well start selling the degrees on eBay, because that’s all they’re worth.” In February, his case reached the Court of Appeal where it was ruled the university had undermined his status and he had been constructively and unfairly dismissed.
There’s talk of cramming three-year degree courses to two. It’s rumoured that some of the “new” universities might go to the wall and the elite Russell Group may go it alone. Tory leader David Cameron (Brasenose College, Oxford) and Michael Gove (Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford), his education spokesman, have proposed that only graduates with a lower-second degree or higher will get funding to enter the teaching profession. Chris Patten, the Chancellor of Oxford University, wants to restore the old distinction between universities and polytechnics.
So what can be done? One modest proposal would ensure the traditional breadth and depth of the traditional British three-year, full-time degree course. We go over to the United States model of cumulative grade qualification, with students living locally and taking college courses in unit form while they work part-time.
This may sound like a throwback to Green Shield stamps, but it works. I saw this for myself when teaching in the Mid West. Students pick and mix, taking units as and when to suit their needs. Courses are run by local colleges all over the state and monitored by local and regional universities.
How would things work in this country? Take Hampshire. Winchester, Portsmouth and Southampton Solent universities could share the regional overseeing role – validating, monitoring courses and examining students. Teaching could be shared among other colleges throughout the county. Grades would be transferable. While you might start your degree units in Hampshire, if you had to move, you could continue accumulating course units elsewhere. Students would take their courses over the years while they work part-time. People could take their units to suit themselves and their employers before finishing up as, say, a lawyer. It might be possible for students to transfer to an elite university at some appropriate stage.
This might provoke accusations of elitism, but what’s wrong with an elite? No one seems to mind some football clubs being elite. And let’s remember that Richard Nixon worked his way through college. He began his undergraduate studies at Whittier College, California, but graduated from the Law School at the prestigious Duke University. Who needs St Catherine’s College, Oxford?
