Radical assessment: avoiding the production line mentality

New post for WonkHE discussing the mentality surrounding production-line education.

Radicals of Goldsmiths: the illogical controversy

There are times when we should be proud of our largely world class research and inspirational teaching. But yesterday I was shocked (but sadly not surprised) to learn that lecturers came together with students to attack Goldsmiths College. The reason? Goldsmiths had the tenacity to propose an increase of its tuition fee level to £9,000 – in line with 11 other University of London colleges.

Goldsmiths was “following the crowd” said Des Freedman, media academic and part of the angry mob. Hard to prove and even harder to deny, what can be viewed by some as sheep-like obedience can very easily also be taken to be prudent and cautious competition planning.

This is something that appears to be currently missing from the debate. HEIs have, for a long time now, been run as businesses. Whilst the professionalism and lacklustre sector ruthlessness may occasionally come into question, they are all organisations that are required to make profit for the ultimate benefit of its shareholders. They raise funds through research grants; spinout successes; tuition fees; donations and a host of other income streams. The reason for this is simple: to generate high quality academic research and teaching. This in turn leads to highly desirable graduates. We sometimes are guilty of forgetting that Higher Education is not run simply on a love of learning. Sad as that may be to admit.

Increasing fees to £9,000 is a logical step for most universities under the current capped system. Indeed, hundreds of sector observers predicted that this would happen even before Lord Browne finalised his report. In reputation speak, ultimately HEIs have little choice in the matter.

Universities are right to claim that eventually those cheaper institutions will be seen as the bargain basement option. We all know that if we could afford it then we’d all go for Heinz Baked Beans and shirk the less glamourous ‘Basic’ range. Although the principle of this crude metaphor is sound, with higher education we must reiterate that it isn’t only for the wealthy.

James Haywood, a spokesman for Goldsmiths Students’ Union said: "We were hoping Goldsmiths would listen to their students and staff more than to the Government. It is a shame because we market ourselves as radical, but despite that we took the easy option."

In once sentence he acknowledges a core contradiction in their argument: “we market ourselves as…”

Goldsmiths does have an excellent reputation for attracting out of the box, non-traditional students and academics. But this has to be crafted, maintained and supported by a strong team of expert staff. ‘To market ourselves’ takes a lot of work and relies on a whole host of factors.

Mr Haywood et al want to have their cake and eat it. Not only do they actively promote the pride in their radical roots but they don’t seem to grasp that it comes at a cost.

True strategic reputational management comes from aligning with competitors. To be defined as a truly ‘radical’ college, Goldsmiths has no choice but to raise fees in line with those advocated by its competitors as far as the current system allows.

As with most access packages, Goldsmiths has been praised by its rebellious staff. If they understand that the bursary and scholarship offerings are excellent then why are they sabre-rattling? Behaviour like this undermines the credibility of the sector, scares and spreads disinformation to prospective students and generates largely unfounded paranoia about the value of a higher education.

Goldsmiths has made tough choices, as have most HEIs. And they should all be praised for trying to do what is best for the long term wellbeing of their research and teaching.