Passing the buck

Civitas, 4 November 2010

The final outcome of the Browne Review should please no one. The universities themselves are going to face a far tougher time, tutors can no longer be assured of their value and woe betide anyone wanting to do a ‘socially useless’ humanities degree. This time, government really has gone too far.

Education for its own sake might always have been an illusionary if romantic concept, but now any pretences of this are gone. The Universities Minister, David Willetts, wants degrees to be graded according to the success their graduates achieve in finding a job. Rather than learning a subject, higher education will become a method of teaching a relevant skillset for work – a pragmatic enterprise. There are even plans for degree courses to be ‘kite-marked’ for relevance to employment. If it wasn’t so tragic, this would be hilarious – the last kite-mark I saw was on my rugby boots studs.

Willett’s attitude though overlooks the indirect skills a non-vocational degree does teach. History graduates, that most unemployable breed, come out with abilities to digest masses of words, communicate efficiently and reason logically (not to mention the development of a more well-rounded character). To suggest certain subjects teach this more effectively because the skills are more explicit is narrow-sighted.

The focus on ‘useful’ degrees in the science and mathematics sector is misplaced. It is not the number of graduates here that needs to be increased, but the numbers staying on for advanced research and who use their qualification vocationally which need to be raised. Britain may require engineers, but most currently go into the City, effectively wasting their degree and the same goes for many other subjects the Government wants to promote.

Throwing money at the subjects to increase their availability will only exacerbate the problem. If the Government really wants to make vocational use of degrees attractive, these have to be incentivised far more than is currently the case.

The ‘elephant in the room’ question is does this matter: do universities exist to add to our national culture and knowledge, however intangible, or are they required to contribute directly to society? Moreover, if pursuing ‘how many angels on a pinhead’ questions of philosophy, should the state be funding this? According to this Government, the answer is clearly ‘no’ and the ends only justify the means. Oxbridge requires large funding but receives it due to the calibre of employable graduates it produces.

This mercenary attitude is untenable. The ability of the best universities doesn’t rely on the courses they teach but on those doing the teaching. If British universities become mere ‘exam factories’, so the academic becomes just an aggrandised teacher. Britain may still be world-class at the moment, but there are many other universities internationally that offer more to their faculty members, not least better pay. Creating a culture assessing subjects on economic worthiness and dismissing some will push our best academics abroad, lowering the overall quality of universities. By the time a £9,000 tuition fee can only get you a polytechnic quality degree, perhaps the Government will see the error of its ways.

In addition, universities are going to be forced to deal with contradictory government policies. The tuition fee rise will now be capped at £9,000 but institutions that fail to increase their places for disadvantaged students will be penalised. To most, it would appear logical that a rise in fees will dissuade many from even applying to uni, let alone the most expensive ones (as inevitably Oxbridge and Russell Group universities will be). The Government’s proposals are not meritocratic but the institutions are left to deal with the mess.

The elite universities are being forced to accept 300 more disadvantaged students a year. This suggests not enough is being done, but experience shows otherwise. Oxford colleges, for example, host numerous events for underprivileged children to inspire them to apply, employ people specifically to deal with outreach and provide generous bursaries that could cover most costs while fees were set at £3,900.

If universities fail to take the allocated number of disadvantaged students, their budgets will be cut. This is a reckless move that will undermine their ability to maintain academic quality. If this declines and demand for places also falls, then a spiral of punishing cuts will erode the institutions in the long-run. The Government is risking all in their manoeuvre, but the wager of quality teaching for all is not theirs to play.

This is inexcusable – the Government is shirking its own responsibility and forcing the universities to square the circle it has created through the fee rise. In addition, the fault for failing to attract underprivileged applicants cannot be the universities’ alone. Poor schooling, underachievement and an anti-intellectual culture all contribute to and aggravate this problem.

The Government deserves a Third-class degree (without Honours) for their university plans. They have not thought enough about the effects their proposals will have on the long-term viability of our university system.