Last month UCL and the Institute of Education, the largest education research body in the UK, entered negotiations to merge. The IoE will follow other institu- tions such as the School of Pharmacy and SSEES which have been gobbled up by UCL.
At the time of the announcement, Provost Michael Arthur attempted to allay fears of asset stripping and future staff redundancies, partly due to the IoE’s prime location in Bedford Way. Current- ly the IoE has a 999 year lease from the University of London on the building, which would no doubt help UCL with its chronic shortage of teaching space.
In recent weeks, however, staff at the Institute have expressed their fears over the merger. Miriam David, Emeritus Professor of Education at the Institute, wrote in the Times Higher Education that the merger was like an arranged marriage, with the Institute bringing a healthy ‘dowry’ to UCL in the form of property and research and valuable as- sets. She questioned what UCL brought to the table, however, claiming its new role as protector of the Institute in ‘the big bad world’ was overplayed.
This role used to be carried out by the University of London, of which the IoE is a constituent college, but its colleges and institutions are no longer treated as equals in the competitive world of higher education. This increased role of the University as a managerial body shows in the wrestling of ULU out of student control, and the hard-line taken on stu- dent protestors at recent demos (see CGs passim). David told The Cheese Grater that ‘we need to change the rules of the game towards a more inclusive and egali- tarian approach which does not embrace hierarchies and league tables.’ She claims the driving force behind the merger is the misogynist attitudes prevalent in higher education today, which have arisen from an ‘international race for the best stu- dents’.
One former Director of the Institute, Professor Geoff Whitty, has come out in favour of the merger, noting that the plans go back over a decade. He insisted that ‘in principle, a merger need not be a threat to the vision and mission of the Institute of Education.’ Professor An- thony Finkelstein, Dean of Engineering at UCL, said he was looking forward to working with the Institute to further ‘something which I care deeply about: education’.
When The Cheese Grater asked Fin- klestein about the University of London’s role he responded that ‘I don’t think it’s made sense for twenty years… There are no meaningful relationships brokered by the University. The only thing keeping us there is proximity and historical affec- tion. I think it is slowly dying.’ Recent rumours of stripping power from UCL’s Academic Board (see page 4), however, will do little to assure staff and students at the Institute that they aren’t simply pawns in a London wide game of academic chess. The results of the consultation will be revealed in May.