UK Universities Unchained?

 

Stefan Collini's opinion piece on how the Covid-19 pandemic lockdown is focusing attention on the parlous state of UK universities, after "10 years of calamitous reform", is thought provoking (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/aug/31/english-universities-peril-10-years-calamitous-reform-higher-education). Although I find much to agree with in his account, I probably come to the debate following a radically different experience from his (I was the archetypal working class, Secondary Modern boy who just failed to pass the 11+ twice- for reasons we won't go into- who found just getting into a university in the 1960's something of a trial). I agree with Collini's view that making universities into 'businesses' with 'customers' was a misstep too far. It is inappropriate for Vice-Chancellors to function (and be paid) like the CEO's of major companies. To act like companies, the universities clearly need lots of money. This is why funded research has always been more attractive to university leaders than teaching quality (in spite of league tables). Relying too heavily on the fees of overseas students is now clearly highly problematic with the dual effects of Brexit and the pandemic reducing this source of funding. Some institutions might well run out of money. I agree that Higher education (HE) should be there to 'stretch' the students and give them insights they would not have got if they hadn't gone to university (not to give the customer what he/she wants in terms of content as well as an 'acceptable' degree grade). It is, unfortunately, true that, in today's world, the only thing a university degree can guarantee many graduates, is an initially increased tax bill. I also agree that university entry should be on merit, so we need to do something about the many financial devices used by people to improve their children's access to 'the best' universities. Collini's point that HE has to involve some hierarchies is well-made (it is difficult to know how a 'comprehensive' university could actually function). I feel, however, that too rosy a view of universities prior to the 'reforms' persists. It was clearly true that educational 'success' was always facilitated by money and connections. It is actually difficult to come up with a system (and I don't think 'A' levels are it) which admits students on merit or aptitude alone. I think that, in those earlier times, many people with high potential simply missed out (I would not have gone to university, if grants had not be available). Also, in the 'old days' there was a tendency for some academics to be highly resistant to change (and they could be in place for decades). The HE sector needed reform- it just didn't need that reform!