For more on Lord Mandelson's speech, make sure you pick up your copy of Times Higher Education this Thursday.
Skip to [ Story Content and jump story attachments ]
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Click on images
-
-
Main Page Content:
Mandelson says universities ‘are not factories for producing workers’
27 July 2009
First Secretary aims to reassure sector in first major speech on higher education. Phil Baty reports
Lord Mandelson, the First Secretary, has promised support for universities pursuing knowledge as “an end in itself” amid concern that the Government sees higher education solely in terms of delivering economic outcomes.
In his first major speech on higher education since taking responsibility for the sector under the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills remit, Lord Mandelson stressed the role that universities must play in building a stronger UK economy, but he made clear that delivering economic outcomes was not the primary function of a university.
“I recognise that bringing university policy into a department with ‘business’ in its title has not thrilled everyone in the university world. But it really puts universities at the heart of policy on our future growth and prosperity.
“I need to be clear that I do not believe that the function of a university is limited to – or even primarily about – economic outcomes. They are not factories for producing workers. Defining the skills that directly underwrite many skilled jobs in the UK is not the same as defining useful and necessary knowledge. The case for a higher education system that invests in everything from Classics to quantum physics is a compelling one.
“I say this not just because the utility in knowledge is often impossible to predict. It is because knowledge is an end in itself; because historical awareness and critical thinking are part of the inventory of a rounded human being.”
Speaking at Birkbeck, University of London, on 27 July, Lord Mandelson confirmed that he had delayed publication of the Government’s framework on higher education, which was due this month, until the autumn.
A central plank of the framework would be to ensure that universities can turn “more of the knowledge that is generated in UK universities into jobs and growth, especially by bringing businesses and universities together to collaborate”, he said.
“There is a need for a collective strategic vision for the sector and its role in our national economic life. That is the balance we will aim to strike in the Higher Education Framework.”
Although Lord Mandelson said he would not pre-empt the review of tuition fees due to begin later this year, he stated that their introduction had been a success. “We have instituted a fees system that has, in my view, been a radical and signal success in strengthening the resources available to universities without sacrificing accessibility to students.
“But we are obviously facing an incredibly difficult decade of rebuilding growth and future strengths in Britain. There are tough decisions ahead. Our graduates face the toughest job market for years. And ultimately those big 20th-century higher education questions are still with us: For what end? For whom? Paid for how?
“I do not believe that we can separate the issues of fees, access and student support. Any institution that wants to use greater costs to the student to fund excellence must face an equal expectation to ensure that its services remain accessible to more than just those with the ability to pay.
“Whatever funding mix for higher education we develop, there must always be a link between what an institution charges and its performance in widening access and supporting those without the ability to pay.”
What Mandelson said:
On the economy
The challenge is to “turn more of the knowledge that is generated in UK universities into jobs and growth, especially by bringing business and universities together to collaborate”.
There is a need to “equip people as rounded intellectual beings but also giving them the skills they will need in a global economy”.
On widening access to university
“We are doing better, but not well enough. I am impatient about this progress... I think we have to ask: why, for all the work in the sector and all the seriousness with which it has tackled this question are we still making only limited progress in widening access to higher education to young people from poorer backgrounds – especially at our most selective universities”.
On admissions
“As well as the usual criteria of standardized testing, there is a strong case for using other more contextual benchmarks for talent spotting that look at the way candidates have exploited the opportunities open to them in their lives. Some universities in the UK are using these approaches. There is good evidence that they work. And any vice chancellor that takes a broad and innovative approach to identifying talent will have the firm backing of the government.”
On tuition fees
“I have no intention of pre-empting the independent fees review… but I would make a simple point… I do not believe that we can separate the issues of fees, access and student support. Any institution that wants to use greater costs to the students to fund excellence must face an equal expectation to ensure that its services remain accessible to more than just those with the ability to pay.”
On postgraduate education
“It is a major export earner for the UK, and one which we have perhaps taken too much for granted. For that reason, I have decided to launch a review of postgraduate provision in Britain… to report back in early 2010.”
On delivery
“There is a clearly a place for the conventional, campus-based, full-time, away-from-home model of study… but we need to keep encouraging the alternatives that are springing up: two year honours degrees, part time modular degrees, modular programmes that don’t have to lead to a full degree.”
On university teaching
“We need to look for ways of incentivising excellence in academic teaching”
On the Research Excellence Framework
“We need to keep looking for innovative ways to bring businesses and researchers together, including incentives for collaboration in the new REF”.
On the international student market
“We will throw our weight behind UK universities looking to export their brands globally”
phil.baty@tsleducation.com
Prettier in print
-
Readers' comments
Why is this mans tenicles so wrapped around the present and future of the UK.He is an unelected failed disgraced politician who's only aim is to further his own nest and an hidden agenda that probably means Blair's future presidency of an unelected EU dictatorship. Why is nobody interested in democracy any more.
Victor is absolutely correct Mandelson is an un elected dictator ,with no prospect of raising chilldren - so what does he care for the ever increasing burden on them or their parents! Even worse will they use the Scottish MPs to force this UNILATERAL INCREASE through the UK parliament on the hapless English people AGAIN ?
Glad to see Tory trolls Victor and Jeremy are quickly in on the action... Personality aside this is an interesting speech as much for what it doesn't say than for what it does. It left me wondering are 160 HE Insitutions sustainable in the face of almost certain cuts to the HE budget, no matter the colour of the next Government?
Trolls they may be, but Andy and Victor are right to say that Peter Mandelson is unelected. This is a simple matter of fact. I also remember that once upon a time, he was widely regarded as being disgraced.
The important fact is that he is Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, and as such will be driving University funding at least until May 2010 ( assuming he is not disgarced again of course). The really interesting question is how much damage can he inflict in that time?
Victor and Jeremy are free to express their views and the pathetic comments by those who dislike anyone who expresses their views at variance with theirs is typical of the mindset of the majority of academics we have. Mandelson is a spin doctor and is brought to prop up Brown, pure and simple. Whether he inflicts damage in his time or not cuts are inevitable in HE sector whichever party comes to power in 2010. I personally think we have too many universities, so called new ones, who should have been left as polytechnics to train students for vocational jobs where we have clear shortages and not in business studies as Mandelson dept seems to be convinced.
Sanderson thinks that we should have retained "polytechnics to train students for vocational jobs where we have clear shortages" I'd love him to tell the rest of us where these 'clear' skill shortages are, apart from the obvious government response of STEM jobs. (However, many engineers & IT people are also out of work in this recession so that disproves that one.) As we have a shortage of doctors & other medical staff, perhaps we should move all such clearly vocational degrees to the old Poly/New University sectors & offer Humanities & non-vocational degrees from universities?
To careers-adviser From a new university? Your ignorance-filled response shows this. You have to know a bit more, if you have to be any good in your work. Can we start with power engineers and technicians for a start. Do some research on these technician engineers. What kind of IT? can we get enough cobol programmers and people with old DB work which are still maintained by insurance and industries in this country?. There is excess supply of doctors with doctors from Indian subcontinent who arrived in tens of thouands are still looking for work. What kind of advice you give, if you do not know these details much. Do you know how many British medical graduates are unemployed or part-employed? Wonder whether you have any technical qualification or you are a mere admin paper pusher with a nice title like careers-adviser that these new universities seem to create every year.
I agree that 160 HE institutions is perhaps too many, but it does not necessarily follow that we should return to a dual system of unis and polys. Quite a few of the new universities do rather well - as well as, or better than old universities - in the Humanities, for example. They produce research of the highest quality (admittedly, the quantity is often smaller) and deliver excellent teaching. Why should these institutions not be universities? Incidentally, several old universities are now teaching subjects/courses which have traditionally been associated with the newer institutions (Reading University, for example, offers PG courses in Careers Education) - does this mean they should lose their titles? I'm not sure Sanderson's comments hold up all that well...
Actually Sanderson you blanket dismissal of what you sneeringly call the "so called new universities" is typical of the mindset of an ignorant propogator of culture wars who hasn't got a clue of the realities of excellence spread throughout the entire sector. There will be cuts in HE, whichever colour the next government. I can assure you however that a Cameron government will not revert to a binary system despite the rabid longings of people like you. He knows where his votes come from.
"Actually Sanderson you blanket dismissal of what you sneeringly call the "so called new universities" is typical of the mindset of an ignorant propogator of culture wars who hasn't got a clue of the realities of excellence spread throughout the entire sector." No one need to propogate anything . Just read the news of the wrong kind so often coming from the new universities which count nonexistant students ,univrsities where plagiarism is rampant and universities which admit just about any human being, illiterate the better by running clearing.. The Cameron govt has to do nothing, these universities are in terminal decline, and it is only a matter of time before mergers will occur and their numbers will be very much down. There is already a binary system-the top 50 in the universties league table are the pre-92 universities and the ones that follow are the old polys whatever they call themselves now..
Sanderson, I am an undergraduate student in a small department in a former polytechnic, where there are only three full-time lecturers; a fourth is being hired. Their academic backgrounds: an American with a PhD from Lancaster, an Englishmen who received his masters and PhD from Sheffield, and a Scot with a masters from Dundee and PhD from Liverpool. My lecturers were taught at respectable institutions, and received excellent RAE results recently too. I am taught in a small class, and receive good guidance. I will agree that the standard of student is generally lower; something that annoys me, and has an influence on my education. But I fail to see why the university is in "terminal decline". It has not stopped me achieving responsible results: the department expects me to graduate with a first, I was recently long-listed in the Guardian's international development journalism competition, and I will almost certainly continue my postgraduate studies at a top ten university. Please do not tar everyone with the same brush; it is about averages nothing more.
@Whippet: Why are you using my posting name? Can you not think of one for yourself!
@Richard Armstrong: If your current department is in your view so outstanding and staffed by pucka academics, why would you not stay on to pursue your Ph.D.?
Richard Armstrong . Forget the bogus RAE 2008 results which is social engineering by Brown. The world knows without the RAE which academics are good and which are bad, who populate in majority in former polytechnics. Wonder which former polytechnic you study and also wonder why those well qualified academics you mention have come to this place, including an American as if America has no positions for this person. Americans who migrate across the pond to here are invariably of leftist disposition and argue more fervently about socialism than the Brits do. Wonder why you chose to go to this place. I had a lot of respect for polytechnics, they did a very good job until they metmorphosised into "universities". If you think the dept in which you study is so good , why not stay and why do you want to go to a top university which is awalys a post-92 university, thus proving my point and whippet's. You are concerned about your qualification now and hence the migration to a top university.
It's been generally accepted for years that there are too many Universities. It's also generally accepted that it is too much of a hot potato politically to do anything directly about it, particularly as a large part of the problem is in Greater London. Consequently governments of both colours have been content to let natural attrition take its course (London Met, Univ of Manchester, Univ of Cardiff). It's very possible with the public spending squeezes to come that this will accelerate things. The main danger to that type of policy of course is that the wrong institutions may end up going to the wall. Financial stability and academic excellence do not necessarily go hand in hand ( eg, Univ's of Bristol, Edinburgh and Cambridge in the 1990's)
Sanderson and whippet, there are two reasons why I will not continue my studies with the university. The department is part of a rural campus, and does not run postgraduate courses in the subject. If I wanted to study a masters at the university then I would have to transfer to the city campus; this does not interest me. Secondly, it is not concern per say but I would like to see what a 'better' university is like, where the standard of student is higher. I did not suggest, however, that the department was outstanding but merely highlighted that the lecturers were of decent quality, received decent RAE results and that my own experiences were fairly good. I was trying to get you to quantify exactly which aspects make former polytechnics so bad, Sanderson.
To Richard Armstrong We undertstand the usual excuse for not continuing in a new university despite its wondeful RAE results which are farcical at the most. So you want to go to a "better" university an euphemism for pre-92 university. Is this " better" university in a rural setting? As far asking any one why a former polytechnic is not preferred, you have given the reason in your posting itself (" What a "better " university is like, where the standard of student is higher").
Fred the Shred Many of us have no problem tp "let natural attrition to take its course" in respect of the first university you list and others in this class.
@Richard Armstrong: Best of luck with your studies....
Richard Armstrong: A poster has already answered!
The natural attrition in these cases involved mergers (Guildhall with North London, Univ of Manchester with UMIST and Cardiff with UWIST). If you mean Bristol, Edinburgh and Cambridge, while they had their hiccups in the 90's, their financial stability improved considerably as a result.
The first merged institution is in the news in all kind of ways, putting it down is the best option and it will happen. The U of Manchester , Edin and Cam are flagships.
Start with Greater London and rationalise the number of new universities and if they protest close them.
My word, some of you are a vitriolic bunch! Why are some so threatened by the post 92's? Some comments suggest to me that you are simply worried for the status of your own institutions/departments/careers and are scapegoating other institutions for political/economic fallout. It might be worth remembering that a substantial amount of public service education, services we all use, irrespective of pre or post 92, elitist, ivory tower, Russel groups - whichever you prefer to choose, originate from such institutions. It is the public good that such institutions serve, where the values of services are questioned and developed, and it is worth considering that our public service colleagues are struggling to ascertain their integrity of purpose in light of crippling resourcing constraints. What many post 92s do is to educate public service workers to be informed and critical about the political climates within which they work - where else would they have the space to do so - certainly not int heir own organisations. it is worth considering what post 92s, and many pre, do, before you write them off. They have a very clear function - like it or not. it might be different, or sit side by side to you - but are needed in a more valuable sense than strands of argument suggest. At the lowest possible demoninator - if you wish to remain elitist!
To hee: what are you trying to say? University education is elitist if you ask my council refuse collector. Everywhere in the public sector there is crippling resource constraints, universities , particularly post-92s are no exception.
No argument re resource constraints. A number of points really. 1) at a superficial level - getting rid of post 92's isn't going to solve the issues some commenters seem to be concerned with. Such institutions have a purpose, and if they didn't exist, some of those (public) functions would fall to the remaining. Reading some views, i am not sure that some (emphasis on the some) would wish that to happen; 2) Post 92s are i nvolved in the education of our basic public services - we all benefit from those, and yes, some post 92s, as well as pre, will struggle because commissioning will inevitably change - but that is not because what many do isn't good, but simply because funding has changed in line with gov strategy, cutbacks etc; 3) Post 92s are not primarily concerned with instrumental training, but with the underpinning knolwedges that informs disciplines, as well as services and practices. It strikes me that some dismiss the nature of knowledge of some pre and post 92s; 4) Do some think that professional/vocational workers not worthy of university education? And you're right, a refuse collector may think all universities are elitist - but that is not always the case. There are many that have benefitted from 'new universities' who would have previously considered uni ed as elitist, and flourished personally, economically and enjoy contributing to society enabled because thy had opportunity to attend a uni. I for one, am happy to be part of that.
To hee Don't mix the pre -92 and post-92 universities. The latter were polytechnics, recruited locally, educated people like our refuse collector if they wanted technical education to change their career to improve their quality of life. They did it by educating them part-time. But they pressurised stupid Major Govt, branded themselves universities, threw away the ethos which stood them in goodstead for decades, went for fancy degrees, directors became VCs paid themselves huge salaries, boasted that their "universities" extend the access by so saying filled their classes with students who were prooly qualified to go to universities , many cases not qualified at all, appointed agents globally and brought in just about any one saying that they will help the economy of this country and these students brought minimal funds as they wanted work here and not education. The disappearing overseas students, the dropouts in home students, the cheating of HEFCE and getting funds for the students who do not exist, the dumbing down on the whole of degrees.. these are the contributions of the majority of post-92 " universities". The Mets and the Banks as polytechincs did pretty good job. These " global brands", the post-92s VCs should say that to get salaries that they as directors of polytechnics could only dream. Time for mergers and rationalisation of these so caled universities. If a student is acdemically able and qualified, he/she has no problems in getting into one of the 50 pre-92 universities. background does not matter these days Bring on mergers and rationalisation of these post-92 universities and the rest of them should be rebranded as polytechincs to restore the good work they were doing.
@To hee: I agree with most of your post, I do not know people like 'hee' can defind these institutions. The kids who manage to aviod dropping out of these places often receive (I execpt that there my be the odd exception) a second class education, and a degree that is practically worthless because employers and proper universities know this all to well - our kids deserve better and shame on all those how think otherwise.
not to mention the trade in back-door degrees franchised out by outwardly respectable unversities to FE colleges to deliver...
Whippet: What is "(I execpt that there my be the odd exception)"? Also any idea what this means ":shame on all those how think otherwise". . You call yourself academic in a pre-92 university? Ever considered not good enough?
Whippet was muttering about pigs, and some one suggested him contracting swine flu! He would say he is doing what you do. But then he forgets that those live in glass houses... But his vocabulary despite errors has expanded. He has written 5 lines of sentences!!!!!
What Sanderson is not platable but true; it is time for the other commenter and the entire UK to stop burying heads in sand. UK education pre 1990 used to be the gold standard in the world; now it is more of a laughing stock. Since 1990 I have not recommended any of my overseas friends to study here as they would get better value somewhere else.
@lanchiao. We have certainly devalued our brand by the rapid and ill-conceived extension of our university sector, but there are still excellent world leading universities here.
@ 'Too hee' Thanks for the history lesson, but I knew all that anyway, some of which I'd agree with, and some I'd question as idle gossip. @ 'whippet' Not defending, just stating the post 92's have relevance in today's ed system. But perhaps if some commentators were open to constructive, rather than defensive and obtuse dialogue, we might understand a little more about the similarities (of which there are many) and differences between pre and post 92's, .... it seems to me that some are so bound in their own little microcosms that they struggle with different considerations.