MY DETRACTORS have said that if our villainous Provost were to rescue a child from a burning building I would accuse him of taking a dangerous step in an over-populated world. So what I am about to say will surprise my regular readers; when Professor Grant wrote in The Guardian that there is “no collective desire to meet the additional expense” of higher education when set against the need to fund schools and hospitals, I agreed with him.
There. I said it. The Provost is correct.
Grant, in response to a report claiming that most university heads would like to see a cap on tuition fees, bemoaned the fact that taxpayers don’t want to see the universities funded by their money. He may have a point, but what does he expect when he himself has never made the case for government funding? If the head of one of Britain’s top universities won’t speak up, how can the general public be expected to back higher education? And why has Grant never made the case? It is rather like the English cricket team giving back the Ashes before the game has even started. The Provost’s strategy (some call it a dereliction of his duty) has left him isolated and unpopular amongst senior academics. Several members of staff even suspect that Professor Grant is scared of losing influence in government circles by criticising government policy. This is all eerily familiar; it seems that while Tony Blair plays poodle to George Bush, Professor Grant plays poodle to Tony Blair.
Dereliction of duty
The Provost may like to claim poverty when arguing the case for fees, yet University College, a large and dominant provider of research, has a strong negotiating position. Academics believe UCL could use this to acquire more money from the gov- Washington.
Malcolm Grant’s article called for “a more sophisticated approach” to the issues facing university funding. The whole thing was high on rhetorical value yet short on detail; perhaps David Cameron has been on hand? Grant did not actually tell us what he believes should happen to higher education funding except that “we [members of the Russell Group] shall be working closely with the government and potential private funding sources to devise an approach that is fair”. But remember that Professor Grant is essentially a politician and to expect him to publicly nail his colours to the mast before he has sniffed which way privatisation of research (a Grant option) would put academic integrity in jeopardy. Private funding brings with it a minefield of pressure for research results that will aid marketing rather than ethics and integrity. Research free from outside influence is a core function of academia, no matter whether that research is popular, profitable or commercially viable. Academics believe that is an axiomatic truth.
Professor Grant may pay lip service to concepts such as “widening participation” and the idea that universities “can bring enormous lifelong benefits”. Yet he seems to ignore the report from University College’s own Department of Economics which pleasant reading. That, alongside an above expected drop in numbers entering university in 2006 (as collated by UCAS), show that there is little room for complacency.
Market problems
So while Professor Grant is not yet advocating higher fees (at least not publicly) there are general concerns amongst staff and students that that is where his subservient ambition will take him. “Malcolm has conceded the ground on the funding of higher education. He has accepted that the market has a role to play,” sniffed one senior academic. Moreover there are fears that the introduction of variable fees and the removal of the cap which limits them to £3,000, would “let the market rip” with dire consequences for students’ education and research. Broadly speaking, a vast majority of academics are against removing the cap (according to the UCU, the union which represents academic staff, and backed up by Mister Chatterbox’s findings) because it would lead to a two-tiered education system and a “march towards mediocrity”. “It would make the present 15% cuts look like a quaint parlour game,” worried one lecturer.
UK universities are already feeling the effects of tuition fees. Colwyn Williamson of the Council for Academic Freedom and Academic Standards has claimed that cash-strapped universities are being encouraged to pass students who should not be passed. Admittedly, many strange things happen in Wales but there was a well-publicised case of this at Swansea University. More disturbingly, Mister Chatterbox is able to confirm that there have been reports of wealthy parents putting pressure on University College to upgrade degree awards for their stupid children. The changing financial relationship between students and their institution is creating this possibility and that is a scandal which fails all students.
The tipping point
Furthermore removing the cap would provide each course or department with a “tipping point” for how much they could charge. So medical students could expect to pay more than, say, English students. “This is fair enough until one looks at the consequences; courses unable to charge exorbitant amounts would be under-funded.” Should these departments get into debt, they would certainly close. But what would happen if UK applicants are not prepared to pay these prices? Would overseas students fill the places? Would we be educating overseas students while neglecting UK residents? While no enlightened individual objects to overseas students studying here, it would be folly to put the need for their money before the needs of society as a whole to educate its citizens. And with the student as client, there would be huge pressure on academics to provide easier and less challenging courses, after all the students are paying for a service, a degree and the prospect of job, not a challenging education. One member of staff told Mr Chatterbox: “Malcolm knows this of course. He’s no fool.” So expect to see more vocational and fashionable training courses geared towards getting a job rather than a rounded, highclass education. And while the fashionable soon becomes out of date, “The trouble with fashion victims is that they soon become anorexic,” said an academic wag.
Monopoly man
The Provost is a shrewd man playing a sinister, Machiavellian game; it is not what he says that matters, it’s his strategy and tactics that are interesting. As chairman of the Russell Group of universities, it seems he is trying to move on the agenda and chivvy other elite universities, such as Oxford and Cambridge, to create a consensus for higher fees, so that UCL Plc can introduce them. Back to the rampant market-driven, Thatcherite state. Do not pass “Go”. Do not collect your student loans.
There is a history here. When University College and Imperial were discussing “merging” a few years back, they were also proposing to charge fees of around £13,000 to £15,000. Commenting on the fact that this went against the College ethos of access for all based on ability, not wealth or background, one professor said that University College should be an elite university for the masses – not the other way around. This sentiment was supported by the majority of his peers. And still is. Of course, the “merger” would also have created a big university; but as Imperial College’s rector Richard Sykes admitted, with all the subtlety of an elephant dancing in cha-cha heels, it would not stay big for long.
Maybe the expansion of higher education will be seen as the 21st century’s great social change. But can it be at the expense of what that education provides? Where Macbeth hath murdered sleep, Malcolm will murder education. He overlooks the benefits that a general degree can bring, not just for the individual but for society as a whole. The siren calls for higher fees ignore the fact that not only do UK universities have to compete against each other but they are competing against international universities: while American universities may charge fees, universities in Scotland, Ireland and France do not, even for overseas students. UK students could equally take their degrees there…
Parlez-vous Français, chers lecteurs?