It is rare that governments get to do exactly what they want. Opposition parties, the judiciary and others have traditionally also wielded significant influence, tempering the more extreme ideas of those in power and highlighting the pitfalls of proposed policies.
This era of moderation is, however, coming to a close. Those who once held our governments to account are being systematically declawed.
Politicians who deviate from their party line are subjected to torrents of abuse and the threat of deselection. The House of Lords, with its essential powers of scrutiny, is ridiculed as stuffy and out of touch. And then there’s the Labour party, which is currently offering as much opposition to the Government as a hermit crab would to an Apache helicopter gunship.
The saving grace in all of this has been our universities and their academics, who have argued consistently on the side of reason and reasonableness.
But now our universities, too, are under threat.
It started with the gradual move – in which we were, sadly, complicit – from government funding to student tuition fees, turning higher education from a public into a private good and unleashing market forces into a domain in which they do not belong.
But it did not stop there. The new sector regulator, the Office for Students, has lost the policy-setting powers of its predecessor. The Prime Minister has launched a review of higher education funding that has more ‘red lines’ than a London bus map. And Vice Chancellors, who are forced to bear the brunt of this onslaught, have been demonised by MPs and the media for their salaries and expenses.
Whether or not this represents a concerted effort by the Government to emasculate our universities, the effect is the same. And we risk losing some of the last sane voices in the debate of our lives.
We have long been the party of thinking people, of academics and of students. We messed that up with our ill-advised coalition capitulation on raising tuition fees. But it is not too late to make amends.
So what should we do?
Firstly, we must recognise that universities do more than simply educate the next generation of graduates. Judging them solely on how happy their current students are is imprudent and short-sighted.
Secondly, we need a clear higher education policy framework, rather than a market-dominated free-for-all. It’s a fine balance, though, as we also need to protect universities’ autonomy from excessive regulation and government meddling.
And finally, we need a stable funding regime that reflects the partnership that our universities represent between students, academics and society. Some kind of graduate tax combined with funding from general taxation would fit the bill, but I’m sure there are other answers, too.
Our universities play a vital role in maintaining the health of our democracy and of our society. We need to protect their freedom to perform it well. It’s not a simple task. And there are no easy answers. But we are up to the challenge.
* Simon Perks is a writer, political philosopher and Liberal Democrat campaigner. He blogs at simonperks.com.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Joy of Six 1530
The shame of Liverpool Labour councillors taking their allowances but not turning up to do the work
Should Labour reconsider the Brexit red lines?
Raising a flap about letterboxes
Restrained
Chase Park fair photos
Rob Heale
Kira Collins
Nonconformistradical
Tom Bailey
Katharine Pindar
14 Comments
Surely if the Office for Students has lost policy making power that’s a sign of less interference in universities not more.
And do you really think there should be no criticisms of the extraordainary salaries paid to vice chancellors of indifferent universities?
Firstly, we must recognise that universities do more than simply educate the next generation of graduates. Judging them solely on how happy their current students are is imprudent and short-sighted.
Indeed. We should judge them on how well they educate their students. Which suggests to me that their final exams should be set and marked by someone other than the universities themselves. To leave such things to the universities themselves is to put them in an invidious position.
‘Secondly, we need a clear higher education policy framework, rather than a market-dominated free-for-all. ‘ Absolutely agree and we should not be fixing the problem of tuition fees until this is done.
‘Some kind of graduate tax combined with funding from general taxation would fit the bill’ Hypothecated taxation seems like a technical and political mine field to me. Every part of my liberal gut screams ‘NO’. No in principle and no as a political move for the Party.
@Simonmcgrath
Thanks for your comment. I see quite a significant difference between, on the one hand, the existence of an intelligent and enlightened policy framework that ensures that universities work in the public interest and, on the other, a complete free-for-all that leaves universities focused on their short-term survival. We used to have the former and it worked (usually) quite well. We’re moving now firmly towards the latter. This is already having a negative impact for academics and students. The new regulator’s new role is likely to be more about correcting the imperfections in this approach, such as protecting students in the event of a university collapse. I would much prefer it if we had a system that did not contain these imperfections in the first place. I admit readily, though, that those who have more faith than I do in the power of free markets may have a very different view.
@ad
I agree that we should judge the teaching activities of universities by how well they educate their students, while also recognising that part of the value of a university education is about other things, such as the skills that students develop and the relationships/networks that they build.
The problem with independent setting of university exams, however, indicates that we’d need some kind of exam board (like for GCSEs and A Levels) and some level of uniformity in the nature and content of individual degree courses. This seems, to be, an overly complicated step and one that is perhaps not entirely compatible with the notion of academic freedom. It would also be a bureaucratic nightmare.
Overall, I think that the current system of independent review of universitys’ exams, marking and degree results by external examiners from other institutions works quite well. I agree, though, that we need to be wary of grade inflation, as this could quickly undermine the value of a degree qualification. But it’s not thusfar been a huge problem.
@P.J.
I’m glad that we agree about the need for a decent policy framework. On the issue of funding, I’m not arguing for explicit hypothecation of a graduate tax, as that’s the start of a slippery slope. I’m merely suggesting that we fund higher education from general taxation and that graduates pay slightly more income tax than non-graduates. We have to then trust the government of the day to fund higher education properly, just as we trust them to fund the army, the NHS, etc. And them hold them to account if they don’t.
@Simonmcgrath
In response to your point about Vice-Chancellor salaries, I have no objection to these individuals being held to account for the remuneration that they receive. And I would agree that the process by which this remuneration is set is frequently somewhat opaque. I’m sure, though, that with a bit of effort, I could summon up figures to show that most VC’s are not paid excessively high amounts of money for what they do, even if there have been a couple who may have been taking the p**s. My bigger concern, though, is that we really have much bigger fish to fry and that tarnishing (unjustly, in my view) the reputation of VCs is just making it harder for the sector to stand up to the government at a point in time when standing up is most required. Rant over 🙂 (Sorry)
Well said Simon. There is a lot to discuss but, as someone who has spent a lifetime in secondary, further and higher education, I am absolutely in agreement with the main tenor of your comments.
@Jean Evans
Thank you, Jean. I agree that my article really just skims the surface and that there is so much more to discuss. But it’s a discussion that is very worth having.
I perceive the “university problem” to be about post-16 and post-18 years age education. It isn’t much about silly pay and privileges for vice chancellors and other university managers — even though those factors are a problem.
Once upon a time, university education was a way for men and women to signal that they were a bit different from the norm. University education was elitist. Local authorities — county and city councils — provided grants to local lads and lasses, who also competed for charitable funds for education. That turned into a formal funding system — maintenance grants — which allowed c.10% of young adults to attend higher education, not necessarily a degree course.
At the same time, post-16 years age education offered other options. A young person could start off on a City & Guilds course as an apprentice, go for an OND, next for an HND. The further step from an HND or the like is to satisfy the demands of a professional body — ability beyond a degree certificate. Elite engineers and scientists sometimes came up the hard way.
But we — culturally — are obsessed with degrees. We only see one way for a bright 16 year old to progress.
The university campus must be preserved as the pivotal resevoir of free speech. Those who come to them must know that they will be able to conduct debate free of any hinderance. This must proceed hand in hand with our teaching, research and professional expertise. And as this is a public service, it must be suitable reimbursed.
Simon please see the comments by Peter and these add to your missing these aspects in your very sensible piece.
We can reclaim students and academics if we show we did try to ensure fairer access in fees for poorer students, and we are not politically correct supporters of no platform or worse, shout down movements. We more than Tories but with some of them by nature must stand for freedom of speech. There is a real problem in us uk universities of victimisation of students who are not the majority , based on antisemitism, anti liberalism, pro one size fits and actually does not fit, same-ism !
@Phil Beesley
You’re spot on, Phil. A degree course is now pretty much the only ‘acceptable’ option for school leavers, despite the fact that university courses were never designed for this. They were routes into academic research. We really do, as you say, need a broader range of pathways for post-16 education and training. And we need to make sure that they’re all seen as equally valuable options.
@Simon Perks: “And finally, we need a stable funding regime that reflects the partnership that our universities represent between students, academics and society.”
The word “funding” is a challenge. I’ve known academic departments which maintained an undergraduate course, something about credibility, in order to recruit MSc and PhD candidates. A few lads and lasses get to university because a few academics keep a course running. That is not the ideal way.