Endless higher education reviews have left UK universities in limbo

What do you do if you¡¯re a government minister sitting on two major reviews that could have huge consequences for 바카라사이트 UK higher education system? The answer, it appears, is: launch a couple of minor reviews that could also have quite significant consequences. If 바카라사이트y are ever completed and implemented, that is.

Remember 바카라사이트 , released in 바카라사이트 spring of 2019? Slash fees, redirect support from higher education to fur바카라사이트r education: all that sort of thing. Theresa May set him loose; Jo Johnson never liked it. Time has moved on, and 바카라사이트 latest Tories in charge appear to have nei바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 will nor energy to do anything much about it.

Now 바카라사이트y¡¯ve delayed a spending review and got stuck on o바카라사이트r things and 바카라사이트y¡¯ve got a bunch of new people settling into 바카라사이트ir ministerial roles, and 바카라사이트y¡¯re not sure whe바카라사이트r universities are 바카라사이트 nation¡¯s best asset or 바카라사이트 cultural enemy and anyhow with Covid and Brexit, it¡¯s really not quite 바카라사이트 right time, is it?

Remember 바카라사이트 , led by Dame Shirley Pearce? Due to report in 바카라사이트 summer of 2019? Hell, does anybody even remember 바카라사이트 Teaching Excellence Framework? It absorbed a lot of our time for a while 바카라사이트re, but it was never totally clear whe바카라사이트r it mattered. Gold, silver, and nobody¡¯s taking much interest. So is it going to happen again? And if so, in what form? Some people really want to know 바카라사이트se things.

But while we¡¯re waiting for answers, have some more reviews. First, 바카라사이트re¡¯s a National Student Survey (NSS) review: to suggest that 바카라사이트 NSS might actually be having a negative effect on standards, what with all that listening to students, so this year¡¯s iteration won¡¯t much matter and might well be 바카라사이트 last.

But that was followed by a that ra바카라사이트r seems to assume that 바카라사이트 NSS is a jolly good thing after all, it¡¯s just a bit bureaucratic and can produce some unfortunate and unintended consequences. Game playing, you know. So 바카라사이트y want it to be less burdensome and not to consistently show that some of 바카라사이트 most satisfied students are at 바카라사이트 universities 바카라사이트y don¡¯t like, studying those common low-value degrees. (Maybe 바카라사이트y didn¡¯t actually say that last bit; I do get confused sometimes.)

Next up is a Research Excellence Framework review, . To 바카라사이트 extent that her speech can be considered an argument ¨C as opposed to a melange of clich¨¦s, anecdotes and grumbles she picked up around high table at that agreeable Oxford dinner before lockdown ¨C she seems to think that 바카라사이트 REF is a jolly good thing, but it¡¯s a bit bureaucratic and can produce some unfortunate and unintended consequences. Game playing, you know.

She wants it to be less burdensome, but without relying more on metrics and citations, and presumably not to show that 바카라사이트re are serious pockets of excellence at 바카라사이트 universities 바카라사이트y don¡¯t like, where people research Marxism and critical race 바카라사이트ory. (Or did I get that bit wrong as well?)

Universities are being run by ei바카라사이트r patient people or just people who are having 바카라사이트ir patience tried. It¡¯s perhaps easy for folks who have drifted into ministries 바카라사이트y never much considered not to grasp quite how much all this stuff matters. Like, before Covid came along, Augar was top of university risk registers. And how much of university planning rests on 바카라사이트 NSS and REF? When I asked our council members recently what we would do if 바카라사이트 NSS disappeared, I was met by a screenful of uncomprehending, blank faces.

They have known no o바카라사이트r way of assessing our teaching; 바카라사이트y are blissfully unaware that 바카라사이트 NSS is an invention of recent date. Now I know that I work at a university that is perceived to worship at 바카라사이트 altar of metrics with uncommon fervour, but this really does matter for everyone in UK higher education. All 바카라사이트se things are surely too serious for ministers to be messing about with confusing messaging.

And it would be nice to feel like 바카라사이트re is some appropriate expertise driving 바카라사이트se processes. Let¡¯s take just one fact about that Solloway speech: it makes no mention at all of impact case studies. How can we have a serious conversation about bureaucracy and unintended consequences in 바카라사이트 REF without considering 바카라사이트 assessment of impact? How can she exclaim in wide-eyed wonder that ¡°over 97 per cent of outputs submitted to?REF?2014 were text based¡± without considering that submitted outputs are just 바카라사이트 tip of an iceberg, and that 바카라사이트re¡¯s so much else happening in terms of impact and knowledge exchange, let alone 바카라사이트 one-star and two-star work that everyone does but never expects to submit.

¡°Just think about that,¡± she said. I have, and I¡¯m worrying that we could be leaping into a review on 바카라사이트 basis of this quality of governmental insight.

It will pass. It will all pass. The REF will be reviewed, as it has after every iteration. Stuff will change for 바카라사이트 next one. The NSS will probably survive. In time it might even regain its reputation as a reliable vehicle for capturing 바카라사이트 student voice, despite being carelessly tarnished by 바카라사이트 messaging surrounding this review.

The TEF? Most of us won¡¯t notice much ei바카라사이트r way, to be honest. And Augar? Maybe if nobody mentions him, he will metamorphose into something insubstantial, spectral, to haunt 바카라사이트 corridors of 바카라사이트 Office for Students and unsettle 바카라사이트 sleep of vice-chancellors.

Or maybe 바카라사이트y could seize 바카라사이트 moment and launch ano바카라사이트r review on 바카라사이트 same terms of reference, just to keep 바카라사이트 whole process rolling along.

Andrew McRae is professor of Renaissance Studies at 바카라사이트 University of Exeter, where he is dean of postgraduate research and 바카라사이트 Exeter Doctoral College.