The government’s higher education white paper – and the legislation that will follow – redraw three fundamental relationships that have defined higher education in the UK for 100 years: with the state, students, and research.
The assumptions shaping these relationships have been taken for granted for many years and were undoubtedly overdue for an overhaul. Yet, the laudable aim of the white paper to address these relationships and create a more accessible, accountable, and relevant higher education system also brings real dangers of unintended consequences.
Some universities could fail.
Universities have long enjoyed benign government sponsorship through predictable and steadily rising grant funding. They have had assured student numbers and protection from competition within a regulatory regime that they have largely designed and operated for themselves.
However, the shift to funding through student tuition fees and the lifting of student quota controls has begun to expose universities to something approaching open market competition. The white paper extends this process, encouraging new and alternative higher education providers and accepting that this could be at the expense of established institutions.
This is causing at least some universities to reexamine their offers and ways of working. But a significant number of institutions are already struggling to recruit enough students and cover their costs. The white paper makes clear that there will be no bail-outs for failing institutions, whose exit would be welcomed as a way of freeing up room in the market for more entrepreneurial and innovative new entrants.
This stance is based on faith that private providers, and the investors behind them, will rush to fill any void left by failed traditional institutions. The reality is that the struggling institutions are most likely to be found in socially deprived areas and focused on recruiting among disadvantaged populations, with courses heavily geared to lower-paid occupations in healthcare and public services.
By contrast, private providers have concentrated on what their critics would call cherry-picking, focusing on business and professional studies courses leading to high-paying careers for home and international students in London and other prosperous locations.
This will make it hard to reconcile the government’s ambitions for improved opportunities for disadvantaged students with the forces of sink-or-swim provider competition.
The Tef will be misleading.
The white paper seeks to empower students as paying consumers of higher education services and pressure universities to enhance the quality and value of those services. The principal vehicle for this will be the much-anticipated Teaching Excellence Framework (Tef).
The intentions driving these reforms are good. Despite numerous attempts to improve the transparency and accountability of universities’ deal with students, the system remains heavily weighted towards academic paternalism and institutional bureaucracies. There is also a grain of truth in ministerial assertions that student interests are often subordinated to staff preoccupations with research and personal agendas.
The problem is that the new approach risks homogenizing and oversimplifying the diversity and complexities of higher education and learning. The great strength of the higher education system has always been the diversity of opportunities that it provides. The very nature of higher education varies hugely between disciplines, from intensive lab-based science projects to one-on-one tutoring for aspiring artists and musicians. Standardized metrics cannot capture this diversity, and we must hope that the new Office for Students will be enabled to supplement the Tef with more nuanced judgments of quality.
Universities could ditch research.
The third key reform in the white paper is to uncouple the link between higher education teaching and research. Almost every university claims that research is central to its mission and puts research aspirations at the heart of institutional strategies. Even though research income represents only a small part of most universities’ revenues, all would claim that their research culture and capabilities are crucial.
In many ways, these reforms extend a process unfolding for some years, as research funding has become concentrated among a few Russell Group universities, and policy has increasingly focused on major national centers like the Crick Institute and the Joint European Torus. Nonetheless, the implications are significant. The prospect of teaching-only universities, still regarded by many academics as an oxymoron, will become a real prospect, as will the emergence of research-only institutions along the lines of the German Fraunhofer Institutes.
If they happen – and the white paper makes them quite likely – these changes will differentiate the UK higher education system from every other system in the world. But the implications, for students and universities remain to be seen.