Waterloo Worries: public perception of Browne

I’m sitting on a train to Waterloo. In the seats beside me are three young guys. One from New Zealand, one Irish and one from the south of England. They are discussing the Browne Review and I guess that they are around 22 years old. Why? “I was in the first year that top up fees were introduced,” says the English one as he attempts to explain the British HE funding system to the New Zealander.

The conversation continues. Here are a few of the statements:

“The Government has removed the cap on top up fees.”

"Any university can charge anything, I reckon not more than £10,000 for a degree.”

“Cambridge will probably charge more like £12,000.”

“The maintenance grant will cover it if you’re parents earn less than £30,000.”

“At least we are turning it into a business like America!”

This dialogue, combined with large chunks of the media coverage of Browne’s review is worrying me.

What if these three disparate people represent the average semi-informed view of the debate? There was no mention of the Browne Review directly; no mention of the Liberal Democrat’s backtracking on their fees pledge and no mention of David Willetts’ statement that the cap will not be unlimited. They have confused shock coverage of the Browne Review recommendations with Government decree. What if they represent the majority?

The NUS and UCU Demo-lition march will be taking place on 10 November 2010 but the question that I keep coming back to is ‘why?’

The demo was arranged months before Browne and the CSR (for economic context). Posters were designed and petitions were sent out in a time of relative uncertainty over the future of the ‘valley of death’ facing the HE sector. But it was based on little concrete evidence.

A large number of students, sector workers and many ‘lay people’ will be descending on London. All for a variety of different motives ranging from philosophical ideology to job security and personal finance.

My worry is that the vast majority of those protesting (and those watching at home) do not understand enough of the complex detail to have an informed opinion. I’m concerned that the decision to protest has been built on a foundation of emotive language gleaned from activists and the headlines which were ultimately based on Browne’s recommendation rather than what the coalition has actually said.

Headlines and campaign activists skirt effortlessly over the recommendations of Browne and the context of the CSR to galvanise support – everyone political is guilty of it. The rhetoric of engagement may not be wrong, but it can paint a biased picture of a vastly complex issue.

Unintentionally the NUS/UCU are misleading people. The education of what Browne’s recommendations may mean for the sector has been literally shouted down by the emotive cries of the seasoned protester.

If these three guys sitting next to me are anything to go by, then this protest and the resulting coverage may be doing more damage for the cause, the student stereotype and the general wellbeing of the HE sector than good.

The march in 2006 didn’t stop fees.

The Liberal Democrat pledges didn’t stop them being broken.

Will this one be any different? I doubt it. So why are they bothering?

Danger, danger! A warning on underestimating the HE vote

Guest blog for PlatformTen:

On Tuesday morning Lord Browne’s Independent Review of Higher Education Funding will be released. On Tuesday a storm unlike anything that we have seen will be unleashed upon the coalition.

The National Union of Students has already set a date for a protest mach to Downing Street on November 10th – but it won’t just be students at the rally. Politicians, academics, ‘lay’ people will all be joining tens of thousands of young people/future voters in expressing their outrage at whatever it is that Lord Browne will be advising.

Aside from the mild point that the review has yet to be released to the wider public, hay is already starting to be made from this debate on both sides of the house. Ed Milliband is rumoured to be biding his time to hear the coalition response on the potential raise in tuition fees. The reason for his silence? This is one of the most fractious areas of the Coalition Agreement, with the Liberal Democrats having signed pledges both before and following the election vehemently refusing to implement a hike in fees. For Labour it could simply be the case of waiting for the Coalition to tear itself apart.

I am confident that the dexterity the Conservatives have thus far displayed in navigating through the mire of negative press over the child benefit cuts can be easily deployed for this similarly disruptive issue. Though this, as ever, relies on clear communication which in turn is dependent on a firm political line from the Government.

An ICM survey for The Sunday Telegraph found that 61% of voters supported a graduate tax, compared with 29% who would rather see higher tuition fees. This is in contrast to David Willetts, universities minister, who is clearly opposed to a pure tax and Vince Cable who argues that something more ‘progressive’ than it must be proposed. It’s easy to see why the public want students to pay – so they don’t have to! But with past data showing that students won’t run for the hills following a fees hike, is there any political reason not to?

Yes. There are over 481,854 students in Britain. Most of whom can vote. Therein lies the danger for the Coalition. Not only are the Lib Dems already being lambasted for a colossal U-turn, but if the Conservatives miscommunicate their motives behind whatever Browne’s review contains then the rancour of students, and thus middle-class voters, will haunt the Conservatives for many general elections to come.

University funding is turning out to be the one of the key debates that will determine the shape of the next general election. The student and youth movements are powerful and should not be underestimated, if only because one day they will be the middle-class tax-paying voters. Grudges are hard things to shake.

One hymn sheet?

The sector, as ever, is facing a threat to its very existence. Sounds like something out of a Batman script, but despite the melodrama I don’t think I’m too far off.

HEFCE funding is in the process of being reduced and restricted to only those universities that meet its stringent guidelines. Private investment in HE is practically non-existent, though success of spin-out companies has been growing in recent years. Industry research partners are similarly starting to walk away.

This is just a cursory look at some of the funding issues facing us in the months and years to come.

Universities are losing the public perception battle. We have been collectively damaged by a lack of unity in our funding arguments, being portrayed by media and civilians that the sector is full of egotistical academics and money-grabbing management consultants.

To survive the ‘valley of death’ scenario we need to collectively start to justify the value of investment in Higher Education. American’s invest above the global average in their HEI’s. The European average is still more than the UK injects into research. The more we fight over the same few inches of resource, the less likely we are to get any of it.

David Willetts has been hinting for a while now that universities must start to specialise in what they offer to prospective students and industry – this is only one way in which a coalition of leading universities can make a progressive impact on the HE cuts agenda.

Saying it is easy. Getting the mission groups together to negotiate a position is the hard bit. UUK; Russell Group; 1994 Group; University Alliance and Million+, together in one room to work out a unified plan of defence.

General consensus is that it can't happen. I wish we could prove the cynics wrong. A progressive sector that isn't afraid of working together for the benefit of the whole - idealistic but essential.
__________________________________

Following this posting a further thought has occured to me:

The individual mission groups are undeniably doing some sterling work promoting and stating the funding cases for their individual institutions. But the posturing and perceived petty battle between them are compromising their effectiveness in leading the way to a solution for the sectors future.

I therefore call upon respected bodies with a vested interest in HE - the CBI, CIHE etc. - to join forces to lobby the mission groups to work together for a solution. To come up with one resounding and unanimous approach for all UK HEI's to support. One loud voice for Willetts - one that he cannot ignore.

I suggest an independent and impartial representative such as Reform to chair and co-ordinate the meetings.

We will all lose out if this doesn't happen. HEI's will close unecessarily; industry will walk away from the sinking ship, and students will enter Higher Education without the proper tools and expectations of what can be gained from the experience.

Forget idealistic. This IS essential.

Butter scraped over too much bread: globalisation vs. resource

Last week I attended an event hosted by The Chronicle of Higher Education which centred its theme on global positioning in HE, using American and British case studies.

Whilst listening to the distinguished panel wax lyrical about the virtues and difficulties in the area of global relationship development and collaboration, my mind began to wander to a crucial question: why are we bothering with it at all?

As a sector, our resources are being stretched very thinly indeed. Martin Rees, President of the Royal Society on Friday warned that Britain’s meagre spending of £3.5 billion a year on science could be cut by up to 25% leading to a “game over” scenario for science funding. The FT followed this with a consequential warning of HEI’s having to double tuition fees simply to keep research innovation afloat. Today’s Guardian offers a simple visual guide to the cuts, but sadly offers no comfort and merely compounds the evidence.

All this is common knowledge. One thing that we cannot access is the inner thinking of the coalition and Lord Browne. That will be revealed in time. HEI’s must continue to plan for the dreaded Noah’s Ark scenario and prepare for the harshest austerity drive imaginable. Not only will tuition fees have to increase, but other desired arenas for HEI expansion must also be curtailed for the institutions (and indeed the sector itself) to survive in the long term.

Prof. Glynis Breakwell, vice chancellor of the University of Bath, attacked the cuts as ill-thought out for quick gain: "Short-termism is a fundamental, potentially fatal error," she said. But are we taking this far enough? Continuing her logic, is one such area the pursuit of internationalisation?

Research partnership and professional collaborations overseas are crucial to the development of academic innovation, goes the argument. But when internal engagement with the home institution is at an all time low, and national support for universities is at rock bottom, our limited resources should logically be diverted internally. Towards the student experience, teaching, staff engagement and domestic research resource.

Domestic support and unification of institutional purpose is essential and of paramount importance. Forget creating links with foreign universities – we have no money. The foundation of many of our institutions is very weak indeed, and according to Research Fortnightly it is only going to get weaker. UEA’s QR is being cut by 22%; Reading by 30%; St George's by 56% and London Met (not surprisingly!) by 100% to name a few.

We must return our gaze, resources and attention back to Britain; strengthen the base of our institutions and restore public confidence in universities. If we overstretch our reach internationally without having the major funds required to resource them we will, at best, tear a muscle, at worst be building upon severely shaky foundations.

My worry is that the latter situation is already on the way. Not now, but in 10 years time we will regret the way we are currently supporting the base for the future. Unintentionally we are letting academic ego’s and a desire for global recognition get in the way of future sustainable HE growth.