University autonomy: UK swims against the European tide

With the publication of its report into Students and Universities, the Westminster Innovation Universities, Science and Skills Committee, chaired by Phil Willis, underwent some violent death throes on Sunday and made certain that no one in the sector would fail to notice its passing. The Committee's report and its recommendations made something of a media splash and were covered by The Sunday Times, The BBC, The Telegraph, The Observer amongst numerous others. Whilst the media predominantly focused on the rising numbers of firsts awarded and the comparability of qualifications from different institutions,the UCU issued a statement welcoming the recommendations on bursaries.

The Russell Group, however, appeared most affronted by what the report had to say and announced it was "dismayed and surprised" by the Committee's "outburst". By contrast the 1994 Group was more diplomatic, welcoming the "challenging and wide-ranging report", whilst labelling the proposals for a national bursary scheme "a mistake." Whether for strategic reasons or otherwise, Million+ chose not to offer any comment .

The report's 166 pages make for interesting reading, but anyone in the sector will get a good sense of why it caused such ructions from skimming the two page Summary at the start and the Conclusion & Recommendations (p. 136ff). The dominant theme I took away from the document was its determination to measure the sector against the implicit ideal of a coherent and structured collection of homogeneous and directly comparable universities. Whilst never explicitly articulated, it is this desire to bring order and political control that seem to underpin the proposals for national oversight, for a national bursary scheme, for comparability and for a "compact" between the sector and the state.

It is this same theme that appears to have so irked the Russell Group, most notably in the following passage from its response to the report:

The world class reputation of Russell Group universities depends on maintaining excellence. But universities are not schools. An essential feature of a university is its academic freedom and autonomy, with the responsibility to award degrees and uphold standards. While our institutions are working hard to provide more information on what students can expect from their courses, introducing a university equivalent of ‘Ofsted’ will only add another layer of bureaucracy.

The report's discussion of autonomy and the its suggestion of a more tightly regulated relationship with the state echoes some of the work of the Joint Future Thinking Taskforce in Scotland. The Taskforce's report, published late last year, sought to establish the Scottish Funding Council as an ‘agent of change’, allocating part of its funding (the 'Horizon Fund') to provide incentives to universities in order that they deliver on government priorities.

The apparent desire of UK politicians to curtail universities' autonomy, runs counter to the dominant mode of thought elsewhere in the EU. In 2006 the European Commission called for "modernised universities" and sought to build on the Glasgow Declaration by proposing that EU members:

Allow universities greater autonomy and accountability, so that they can respond quickly to change. This could include revising curricula to adapt to new developments, building closer links between disciplines and focussing on overall research areas domains (e.g. renewable energy, nanotechnology) rather than disciplines. It could also include more autonomy at individual institution level for choosing teaching and research staff.

Three years on, other EU states continue to look to the achievements of more autonomous institutions in the UK and the USA and seek to reduce state control in universities. The most notable of a series of reforms across Europe have been those in Germany. Increased autonomy from the state and other elements of the "Anglo-Saxon" model of higher education have been pushed through as part of significant reforms to the sector.

If the Committee's recommendations find favour with UK ministers, England may join Scotland in swimming against the European tidal flow. If so, UK universities could find their competitive advantage eroded as the freedoms that have hitherto enabled them to remain fleet of foot and to compete effectively in an aggressive international market ebb away.

10,000 additional places in England - will Scotland follow Mandelson's lead?

Peter Mandelson yesterday announced an additional 10,000 places for full-time undergraduate students studying at English universities this autumn. A "good news" announcement, it would seem, particularly as it hasn't required additional cash, but has been financed by "re-prioritising existing budgets." The reaction of the sector, however, makes very clear that the devil is most definitely in the detail.

A BBC article described the additional places as "part-funded: universities will get students' tuition fees but not grants for teaching and other support." It's this "part-funding" that is the key to understanding the sector's less than ecstatic reaction. The fact that these places are to be focused on science, technology and maths (STEM) subjects, will mean the "part-funding" received in student fees will, in most cases, very definitely be the smaller part: the HEFCE grant funding universities would normally receive for many STEM students is significantly greater than the £3,145 tuition fee the students themselves pay. Under yesterday's announcement English universities will miss out on this larger element of their normal income per student and only receive the annual fees paid directly by the student for the duration of their course.

This absence of the larger slice of the funding per student, plus the need to still find funds to offer bursaries to many taking up these extra places, is what lies behind the lack of enthusiasm for Lord Mandelson's announcement. Whilst Million+ welcomed the news as a campaign victory, they must surely have hoped for more than this in making the sector's case. The Russell Group, the 1994 Group and the UCU were all far less up-beat and variously voiced concerns about the impact education "on the cheap" might have on the quality of the student experience, on staff workloads and on the long term financial health of universities. Student Groups were similar non-plussed,. The NUS noted that "thousands of people who have applied to study non-STEM subjects are still going to be without a place in the summer" and expressed disappointment that the student loan “repayment holiday” will be reduced to two years as part of the re-prioritisation to find funding for these extra places.

But what might this announcement mean for Scotland? Back in February, UCU called for additional funding for the Scottish higher education sector in recognition of the increased numbers of university applicants resulting from the economic downturn. Can we now expect Fiona Hyslop to accede to the Union's demands and follow Lord Mandelson's lead?

Last month, the Scottish Government announced investment of £16.1 million in places at Scotland's Colleges, along with a further £12 million investment to improve the institution's estates infrastructure. In light of this, it might be that the Scottish Government has made its move, and chosen to spend its money to alleviate demand caused by the downturn by supporting Scotland's colleges, rather than its universities.

However, even though the additional places in England are cash-neutral, some additional funding may yet come the way of the Scottish Government via the Barnett formula which is used to allocate funding to the devolved nations. If this is the case, then Universities Scotland will almost certainly look to lay claim to any such funds in order to assist the sector with the increased level of undergraduate applications. However, as was the case in England, any available funds may have to be stretched much more thinly than institutions might like if the government is to be able to announce an additional number of places which looks newsworthy and appears to go a reasonable way towards meeting the significantly increased demand.