Business firmly woven into the fabric of new framework - Comments

There is much in this that is of the current "historical moment" - if we might call it that (ie. of the period in which we are living). But the statement "outcomes . . . that are important for young people" goes well beyond that moment, the event of current political and social policy. This is a statement of universal and long term importance. It is this Lord Mandelson should be brave enough, and informed enough, to speak about clearly. It is this that lies at the core of Higher Education, of higher learning. It is this "government" (of whichever party, in whatever period) should be skilled enough to address. If what I read above is part of a so-called "long awaited strategy", then it shows many elements of short-sightedness, along with elements of dubious political expediency, and because of that we should not be satisfied with it. Not at all. Not now. Not ever.

Hand on heart, are universities offering value for money for the student and the taxpayer? No, they are not. They are too often designed around academic staff individual preferences to be able to offer either economies of scale or consistent quality to the student. Did universities engage quickly with this well-trailed issue and sort it out themselves? No, they did not. Therefore a draconian external solution has been put in place which will probably not work as well as universities sorting themselves out would have worked, but which has become perforce a necessity. Are universities as ashamed as they should be that things have come to this pass ? No, not really. If we don't engage with the game except for questioning the ref's authority, then we can't complain about the result.

What's a "good job"? A mate of mine became a monk after completing a DPhil in History. It suits him, but it'd bring down the average salary for his cohort of history graduates.

@Mcdonagh. What a load of tosh. Universities and academics have responded to government direction since the 80s. The UK university sector is one of the highest performing in the world by almost any measure and at a smaller % of GDP than many western competitors. The RAE came in and that forced everyone to focus on research. We all know the importance of funding so we all try to bring in contracts. We teach large classes of masters students and have increased undergraduate numbers. I am not sure what universities you are talking about but your comment is so off the mark as to be laughable. You compare the cost paid by students attending a Russel group uni with that paid by a student going to a good private school or at a good US university. Honestly do your homework.

Mcdonagh, you're repeating yourself and you haven't answered any of the criticisms made of your daft ideas on the other thread either.

Lord Mandelson appears to have an fine head on his shoulders, and I hope universities will pay attention and mend their ways. What will not continue, even with a change in government, is the habit of academics to whinge while continuing to take the taxpayer for a ride.

The academics who don't whinge have already gone

Dr. Truth. You do not talk truth. You spout meaningless rhetoric. Get the facts and grow up. I work hard at teaching and have won awards for it. I work had at engaging with industry and have won 7 figure contracts. I have grants form the research councils and I write papers. If you want to argue with me or anyone else get some facts and construct a reasoned argument. If you don't know how to do that, go to your local uni,, sign up for a course and learn!

I didn't have you in mind; I was referring to the other 99.999% of your academic colleauges. Have they too got great awards and enormous contracts?

Actually, I can speak for my colleagues in my dept and for colleagues in my subject in other universities and I can say that I am not particularly exceptional. The evidence for that is to look at the accounts for various universities. You can see how much they get from HEFCE grants and how much they spend overall. At my university HEFCE pays for less than half of the costs. UK universities are tremendously engaged with industry. I do not think there is any university sector in the world which is as engaged. Certainly not the US by the way. Of course everyone in every field can do better, every business in the world can do better. I just get ticked off by people who decry the achievements made so far! Go away and do the research. Go to the Russel Group unis, check the accounts and see what % comes from HEFCE. Please do your homework and submit it online by 9 am Monday please....;-)

@Old lang: you are wasting your time, I'm afraid, with this so-called Dr Truth clot. We had the same rubbish on another thread yesterday or thereabouts. For "whinge", read: make articulate and argued objections to policies imposed (undemocratically) by governments which will caus elasting damage. For Dr Truth, read: Dr Chip-on-Shoulder.

Why are there always people spouting Daily Mail mantras in the absence of facts. If UK Universities are so bad, then why are they No.2 in the international league. If UK Universities are so bad, then why do overseas governments, and parents fund their kids to be educated by them. And this on the back of one of the lowest proportions of GDP spend - so beleive it or not, as a measure of productivity we do okay. And another little contempary fact; Mandelson's Government has committed the UK tax payer to £200bn of debt to support a business structure that still hasn't dealt with its underlying issues, and over the same period UK Universities will provide a net contribution to the UK of £20bn. I've only recently come to the sector after 20 years in the private sector, and while it isn't perfect it is a damn sight better than its given credit for.

The reason why UK universities have some cachet for international students is simply that you can get a 3 year honours degree and a one year masters. Try that anywhere else. You are looking at a few extra years (and a significant financial investment). Needless to say, the 'quality' of those qualifications is ... in a word ... shit. Now, I simply ignore anyone with a view on HE in the UK who has not worked in at least one overseas institution. Shrug. There is still some merit (for academics) in doing a few years in the UK to impress those who have not gotten the memo, with a few choice tidbits to throw on a CV, before moving on to other countries. This latest farrago of f'kin BS has already inspired many of my colleagues to either make plans to leave the UK or in some cases the HE sector. Just don't make any plans to move to say, California however ...

Old Lag exclaims, "Go to the Russel Group unis, check the accounts and see what % comes from HEFCE.". Russell Group unis are ok, which is why they should get the lions share of all funding. It's the other alleged universities that are a worry; and Lord Mandelson's suggestion would help them while also ensuring that they give value for money.

"If UK Universities are so bad, then why are they No.2 in the international league." Which league would that be? The joke that THES is about to change? In any case, that would just be a few universities. What about the sinks for public funds that call themselves universities but can't be found in any table even with the help of a high-powered microscope? It is those that require urgent reform of the type being proposed.

The facthat they have millions of happy customers all over the world is proof of the high quality of their food.

The odiously effete Mandelson and the wonker Willets will continue to debase the value of UK Higher Education. The reality is that the rot set in with Keith Joseph, the cuts of the 1980s, the end of the UGC, the Jarratt report, and the Polytechnisation of the old Universities in 1992/3. The cultural heritage of UK HE is still powerful, but it is being eroded by the instrumentalism of successive governments and their corporate friends. It is absurd to let today's employers determine which skills are useful for students who may well live another 80 years. In fact every hour that is taken up focusing on the skills agenda is an hour less that can be spent on the activities that will really be useful for individuals - developing their critical faculties so they have the capacity to function as thoughtful independent individuals able to stand up to bullies and careerists like Mandelson, Willetts and the entire membership of the CBI. These people see no future beyond making a success of their own careers. Every step we take in the instrumentalist direction makes HE less valuable. Those people who look to the league tables for comfort are suckers for the same nonsense as Mandelson proposes - a nonsense that focuses minds on looking good rather than being good. We should end government intervention in Higher Education - the contract is with society not government.

@UK universities - a sham Well. I do take my hat off to you. You are sufficiently experienced to pass such a judgmental eye over the whole sector. Wow, you can judge arts, sciences, humanities at all universities. You are, I assume making an analytical judgement or are you just making a crass sweeping generalization that is devoid of analysis and critical judgement? My second year students would not do that! No wonder you can't get a job in the UK. Oh, and before you ask I have taught in overseas universities and regularly lecture in Canada and the USA.

@UK Universities - a Sham: I've lectured in a range of continental universities and in fact, they don't seem so different from ours. They do some things better, some worse. No great surprises then. Post-docs from leading universities on the continent want to come here. You imagine this is so they can spice up their CVs: but our colleagues abroad are not necessarily as uninformed as you suggest. Oh: and just where overseas have you worked (expressive shrug)?

"We should end government intervention in Higher Education - the contract is with society not government". Just as soon as you stop taking government money. The free ride is over. When will academics join the real world of the 21st Century? Let's all stop whining and do the needful for the hardworking taxpayer.

Dr Truth: why must you constantly rant about public money? Do you take the same line on hospitals, defence, roads, schools? What is your mythical "real world of the 21st century"? Is there, anywhere in the world, a completely private university system where no public money at all is used? Do Ivy league universities not take research funds from e.g. the NIH? Signed: A Hardworking Taxpayer.

Wow. I'm a truly shocked. For a bunch of academics some of you certainly know how to dodge the facts and sling those baseless opinions. I quoted some stats in my initial post. Okay, so you don't agree with them. Fine. But where are your supporting arguments. And remember consulting your 'gut' doesn't count as a sound methodology to apply. I'm not saying it's all rosy in UK HE, but it certainly isn't bad, and on a Value For Money socrecard it looks damn fine to me. I haven't taught anywhere apart from the UK. But I spent the last 15 years of my career in senior exec positions for a number of global organisation where I was based in various countries, and my experience; mirrored by the feedback from the recruiters I worked with is that UK graduates are the best in the world.

"I haven't taught anywhere apart from the UK" AND "UK graduates are the best in the world". SIGH.

@Dr Truth: You may have returned, which is frankly a pity, but your level of argument doesn't get any better. You object because someone says: "I haven't taught anywhere apart from the UK" and "UK graduates are the best in the world". This not a non sequitur but no-one claimed it as a sequitur either. Do I have to have cooked at Burger King and La Tour d'Argent to know that one sells garbage in a bun (though with considerable financial success) and the other sells high-quality food (at admittedly huge cost)? I'd have though eating the food not cooking it is the point (the proof of the pudding and so on). I should add that I've eaten in neither establishment, before you start in on me for having too much taxpayers' money to spend. @UK Universities -- a success story: I'm not sure a lot of the commentators on the THE pages actually are academics.

You are Dr Terence Kealey and I claim my five pounds.

Dr Truth Returns@ And if you'd read my comment in the correct context you might understand my weariness. I have no experience of TEACHING overseas. However I do have a substantial amount of experience WORKING alongside students who were educated in countries all over the world and that was the basis of my comments and my comparison. Unfortunately I can't submit pictures here so this is as simple as I can make it for you.

There are a number of conclusions one can draw and questions one would like to ask after reading this article and the follow up discussion. 1. UK universities are good and European universities are inferior. If this is the case then why are European economies run by inferior graduates are doing better than ours? 2. Are UK universities popular with overseas students because they are superior, or because like US or Australian universities, they teach in English and their degrees are shorter? 3. Is the role of the UK universities to serve short term government policies, or provide groundbreaking research and uphold intellectual freedom? 4. If the recent removal of the scientific advisor on drugs is a symptom of the new policies, then should we expect that British universities to be run on the Soviet model i.e. useful research minus independent views plus centralized command system ? 5. It appears that in the 1970s Peter Mandelson was a committed socialist and admirer of the Soviet system. Then he had a colourful career as a spin doctor. Now he would like to marry universities with private businesses. Should we hold Oxford University, his former alma mater, responsible for the damage he has done so far and the damage he is planning to inflict in the future?

Dr truth - what government money? - they haven't got any.

@Dr truth. The money the government has is our money - the government is merely a custodian. It is you, Dr Lie, who need to join the real world.

The government is acting on behalf of taxpayers, of which academic are only a very tiny minority.

@Dr Truth, Yet Again, of the many facile and silly things you spout this "The government is acting on behalf of taxpayers" has to be the winner.

Sorry for missing your comments on the earlier thread but the thread seems to have disappeared. Anyway, where were we? Ah yes. Forget the taxpayers for a moment and back to the student. There has been a lot of kneejerk sniffiness about employability as a goal even if (especially if) it's what the students want from a course. But it seems to me we could do better by the students to help them be happy in their working life and make a contribution and that there is nothing demeaning about doing so. Universities can be poor at producing anyone employable in any other field except academia because old-fashioned teaching (not practised by anyone on these pages of course) creates people who are critical not creative, copies not originals, problem identifiers not problem solvers, prima donnas not team players. Yes, changing teaching for better outcomes would be instrumentalist, but it would be good instrumentalist. why not?

"The government is acting on behalf of taxpayers" ...like abbatoir workers act on behalf of their charges.

Times Higher, thanks for producing a (sadly rare) article that shows that this is in the main a strategy for English universities.