Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Business firmly woven into the fabric of new framework
5 November 2009
The Government's long-awaited strategy for the sector is out at last. Melanie Newman reports
Funds may be siphoned away from courses from which graduates fail to obtain good jobs and redistributed to those geared more towards business needs, under plans outlined in a long-term strategy for the future of higher education.
In the long-delayed framework for higher education, Higher Ambitions: The Future of Universities in a Knowledge Economy, the Government outlines a raft of proposals to align university activity with the needs of the economy.
The document, published on 3 November, says that funds will be diverted "away from institutions whose courses fail to meet high standards of quality or outcome".
Speaking before he unveiled the ten- to 15-year strategy, Lord Mandelson, the First Secretary, said it was "reasonable for the Government to use public funds to incentivise the outcomes they think are important for young people but also for businesses". He added that one outcome of importance to students was previous graduates' success in "moving on to good occupations".
The framework says all universities will be expected to explain how they improve graduates' career opportunities and to educate students in workplace skills.
Institutions will receive cash incentives to train students in STEM subjects (science, technology, engineering and maths) and will also be encouraged to provide courses that meet the needs of key sectors of the economy, identified in the Government's New Industry, New Jobs paper in April.
Other areas of skills shortages are to be identified by a committee of universities, employers, the Higher Education Funding Council for England and the UK Commission for Employment and Skills.
The report adds that there will be "a greater element of competition for funding, with the winners being those who can best respond to these evolving economic challenges".
The framework is explicit about the financial constraints that universities will be under, and says that they should be more focused in their activities and stop working in areas in which they do not excel.
"Very few English universities will be able to achieve excellence across the full range of university activity," the framework says, noting that withdrawal from less productive activities may involve "painful and locally controversial decisions".
Competing for funds
The Government commits itself to the current block grant system of university funding but says it wants universities to compete for more funds than they do at present and to consider alternative funding models.
The framework refers to the Government's matched funding scheme, under which institutions bid for state cash to match donations in one of three tiers, each with different caps on the sums available. Universities decide which tier to enter based on how much they think they will be able to raise.
"We will ask Hefce to lead a debate with institutions about such alternative funding options," the document says.
At a time of belt-tightening, the framework says that the universities most likely to succeed will be those with "strong leadership that has the confidence to challenge vested interests". It goes on to order managers to control costs, including the wage bill, to be flexible in pay arrangements and to "promote career paths that span business and academe".
It also acknowledges Hefce's role in monitoring the financial health of universities and "offering support where necessary".
It adds that the likelihood is that the number of universities will decrease rather than increase and says "there may be a case for public investment to support mergers".
In addition, the framework sees a greater role for private providers with degree-awarding powers, and says the role that businesspeople play "as members of university boards of governors, advisory councils and in influencing course provision" should also grow.
Lord Mandelson said he wanted businesses to be more involved in designing university courses as well as funding them. He said: "Universities are not islands ... They have to respond to the needs of the society and the economy."
melanie.newman@tsleducation.com
HIGHER AMBITIONS, WIDER TARGETS
Alongside plans to harness higher education for the country's economic prosperity, the framework sets out proposals affecting research, teaching, widening access and internationalisation. Times Higher Education staff report
Teaching
The Government calls for a "strengthened" Quality Assurance Agency, and claims that the sector "can appear complacent" about concerns over standards.
Following recent allegations about "dumbing down", it says the QAA will have "a more proactive role in ensuring that complaints about standards are properly investigated, and either upheld and enforced or demonstrated to be unjustified".
"A poor-quality service to students by any institution should not be tolerated," it says.
Universities too often provide insufficient information to potential students about courses, the framework says. It sets out "tough new expectations" of universities to increase the transparency of the services they offer students, and says they must publish more consumer-style information about courses.
A standard set of information will include details about what students on individual courses have done after graduation, the amount of contact students can expect with academic staff, how and what students will learn, what that knowledge will qualify them to do, whether they will have access to external expertise or experience, the amount of independent learning required, what facilities they will have access to, and any opportunities for international experience.
"Well-informed student choice will be the most powerful force for change over the next decade," it says.
The introduction of top-up fees "has rightly sharpened attitudes to the value for money higher education represents as a personal investment", it adds.
The Government also says that the use of technology in teaching is too often left to individual pioneers, and calls for greater leadership in this area. It also supports plans to strengthen the external examiner system.
Research
Research should become "more, not less" concentrated across the sector, "especially in high-cost scientific disciplines", the Government says.
"Not every institution should feel that maximising its success in the research assessment exercise/research excellence framework is central to its mission."
However, it stops short of formally designating "research" and "non- research" institutions or shifting from the principle that excellence is the "defining basis" for allocating research funding.
It proposes greater collaboration as the way forward for the "pockets of research excellence" identified across a wide number of institutions following RAE 2008, which saw a dilution in the concentration of research.
The strategy's overarching theme on research is around creating incentives to encourage institutions to deliver research impact, though not at the expense of blue-skies work.
There is also a focus on broadening links with businesses and research users.
"Those institutions that can demonstrate a track record of delivering impact from their research will be rewarded," it says.
Support is also offered for the idea of institutions publishing annual statements on how their research benefits the wider world.
The Government commits itself to maintaining the so-called "dual support system" of research funding to universities and to keeping the Research Capital Investment Fund for research infrastructure.
On intellectual property rights, it encourages universities to avoid deals that may maximise their income but prevent "potentially mutually beneficial" collaborative relationships with business.
Widening access
The Government claims in the framework that its 50 per cent target for university participation was "never meant" to refer to school-leavers.
While insisting that it remains committed to the goal, it says this "has never meant that 50 per cent of the population should enter higher education directly from school to study on a conventional three-year degree programme".
Instead, it aims to increase the number of adults at university, as recommended in the 2006 Leitch review of skills, encouraging alternative and flexible modes of study such as work-based learning, part-time study, foundation degrees, studying from home and courses co-funded by employers. The distinction between part-time and full-time study should become "increasingly irrelevant".
The framework says that the strong correlation between university participation and parental wealth is a key concern, and urges all universities to consider using contextual data in the admissions process.
While universities have "shown creativity and enterprise" in addressing the question of wider and fairer access, it admits that "progress has fallen below the Government's ambition, and is highly uneven across the higher education sector, especially at our most selective institutions".
Sir Martin Harris, director of the Office for Fair Access, has been asked to consult vice-chancellors and advise the Government by the spring on what further action could be taken on this, including whether money spent on bursaries and access could be more effectively targeted.
Internationalisation and e-learning
Universities are to compete for funding to initiate partnerships with the private sector to provide online education abroad. The announcement follows the Government's appointment of a task force to help UK institutions become world leaders in e-learning.
Identifying a "unique opportunity", the framework says "the potential to develop international education through partnerships with broadcasters and internet service providers is considerable".
Universities are also told to encourage their students to learn foreign languages and to study abroad, alongside other elements of their international strategies.
One option raised is for universities to provide language modules in a wider range of courses, and the framework says institutions "should instil a sense of internationalism in students by teaching European and global perspectives".
Readers' 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.