Not stupid by any means! I've read a lot more that aligns with your suggestion in recent weeks. The prospect of a new direction in Government in England also seems to be encouraging the sharing of different ideas. The market-driven model has dialled out most of the sector's individualisation and the UK is poorer for it.
Really interesting article. I think the diagnosis is stronger than the prescription, but it's exactly the sort of contribution that is worth debating. There are a couple of separate points that I have as bees in my bonnet… current arguments have conflated the funding system and balance between state and individual investment with overall importance and purpose of universities, and I fear that ‘public engagement’ has largely failed. Universities are very low down the list of public priorities, and we’ve missed such a huge open goal there.
Those aside for another day, I agree with much of your analysis. The financial model is under severe strain, institutions are making individually rational decisions that don't necessarily add up to a healthy system, and there is a genuine absence of a coherent, long-term view of what the UK university sector should look like. Long-term also needs to consider the demographics – there is a strongly downward trend in the number of 18-year-olds coming and the UK birth rate is below replacement. We have just had a demographic bulge in 18-yos that's led in part to the HE sector expansion in England. [related - South Korea is closing universities at a rate of knots]
The biggest issue for me is that universities are autonomous legal entities rather than parts of a centrally managed public system. Government can shape incentives, but directing institutional missions is a very different proposition. Central planning also assumes that government or its agencies have better information and know-how than we do… I don’t think they do.
Another fly in the ointment is finance. Many universities have substantial commercial borrowing secured against assumptions about student recruitment, income streams and estates. Around a third of the entire HE sector income is borrowing (£15bn). If government effectively redesigns an institution's mission, what happens to lender confidence and loan covenants? Unless the state is prepared to underwrite those risks (it isn’t), I think this becomes the deal-breaker. If banking finance dries up, it's a disaster (that's why the SFC underwriting of the University of Dundee is so large). One of the drivers for making polytechnics into universities was to shift the cost from the public to the private sector, and with that cam the ability of autonomous private sector organisations to borrow.
I also wonder whether asking institutions to focus on a small number of disciplines risks freezing today's strengths rather than allowing tomorrow's combinations to emerge. Some of the most successful research and innovation comes from unexpected disciplinary intersections that are difficult to plan centrally. Perhaps the issue isn;t centralisation, but the inability of universities to change quickly - in part, it's impossible with teaching to make rapid changes, and in part, universities are just not structured to be 'agile'.
All this said, I think you've put your finger on something very important and definitely not stupid. The question may not be how government allocates disciplines to universities, but whether we need a much more explicit national conversation about the capabilities the UK needs to retain, where they should exist, and how government creates incentives for autonomous institutions to provide them.
Thank you. So many good points there including future student numbers, and finance. All of these things are important to throw into the mix. While I don't think anyone has better information or know-how, I think government or its agencies have the ability to co-ordinate in a way in which we can't or don't. 'Freezing today's strengths' is a real risk, but I hope mitigated by not locking HEIs into only doing the agree disciplines but for it being a short-term suggestion and not long term solution. But thank you - some really great food for thought.
Not stupid by any means! I've read a lot more that aligns with your suggestion in recent weeks. The prospect of a new direction in Government in England also seems to be encouraging the sharing of different ideas. The market-driven model has dialled out most of the sector's individualisation and the UK is poorer for it.
Thanks Alasdair. Yes, the new government might be an opportunity to grasp the nettle (or some similar phrase!).
Really interesting article. I think the diagnosis is stronger than the prescription, but it's exactly the sort of contribution that is worth debating. There are a couple of separate points that I have as bees in my bonnet… current arguments have conflated the funding system and balance between state and individual investment with overall importance and purpose of universities, and I fear that ‘public engagement’ has largely failed. Universities are very low down the list of public priorities, and we’ve missed such a huge open goal there.
Those aside for another day, I agree with much of your analysis. The financial model is under severe strain, institutions are making individually rational decisions that don't necessarily add up to a healthy system, and there is a genuine absence of a coherent, long-term view of what the UK university sector should look like. Long-term also needs to consider the demographics – there is a strongly downward trend in the number of 18-year-olds coming and the UK birth rate is below replacement. We have just had a demographic bulge in 18-yos that's led in part to the HE sector expansion in England. [related - South Korea is closing universities at a rate of knots]
The biggest issue for me is that universities are autonomous legal entities rather than parts of a centrally managed public system. Government can shape incentives, but directing institutional missions is a very different proposition. Central planning also assumes that government or its agencies have better information and know-how than we do… I don’t think they do.
Another fly in the ointment is finance. Many universities have substantial commercial borrowing secured against assumptions about student recruitment, income streams and estates. Around a third of the entire HE sector income is borrowing (£15bn). If government effectively redesigns an institution's mission, what happens to lender confidence and loan covenants? Unless the state is prepared to underwrite those risks (it isn’t), I think this becomes the deal-breaker. If banking finance dries up, it's a disaster (that's why the SFC underwriting of the University of Dundee is so large). One of the drivers for making polytechnics into universities was to shift the cost from the public to the private sector, and with that cam the ability of autonomous private sector organisations to borrow.
I also wonder whether asking institutions to focus on a small number of disciplines risks freezing today's strengths rather than allowing tomorrow's combinations to emerge. Some of the most successful research and innovation comes from unexpected disciplinary intersections that are difficult to plan centrally. Perhaps the issue isn;t centralisation, but the inability of universities to change quickly - in part, it's impossible with teaching to make rapid changes, and in part, universities are just not structured to be 'agile'.
All this said, I think you've put your finger on something very important and definitely not stupid. The question may not be how government allocates disciplines to universities, but whether we need a much more explicit national conversation about the capabilities the UK needs to retain, where they should exist, and how government creates incentives for autonomous institutions to provide them.
Thank you. So many good points there including future student numbers, and finance. All of these things are important to throw into the mix. While I don't think anyone has better information or know-how, I think government or its agencies have the ability to co-ordinate in a way in which we can't or don't. 'Freezing today's strengths' is a real risk, but I hope mitigated by not locking HEIs into only doing the agree disciplines but for it being a short-term suggestion and not long term solution. But thank you - some really great food for thought.