Higher education Green Paper: have universities really neglected teaching?

The government¡¯s Green Paper on higher education, Fulfilling our Potential: Teaching Excellence, Social Mobility and Student Choice, has been published, and you could be forgiven for thinking that it does not have much to say about research (although 온라인 바카라 did a good job of highlighting 바카라사이트 headlines).

However, a closer reading reveals that 바카라사이트 Green Paper makes three bold assertions about 바카라사이트 balance between research and teaching that should not pass without critical scrutiny. It says in 바카라사이트 first paragraph of 바카라사이트 executive summary, for example, that UK research is world-class. I¡¯m not going to argue with that; indeed, I¡¯d even agree that this reflects, at least in part, 바카라사이트 fact that successive governments have had ¡°a consistent focus on stimulating and supporting research excellence¡±, as 바카라사이트 paper also states.

It also says that a series of proposed changes in higher education architecture ¨C including 바카라사이트 abolition of 바카라사이트 Higher Education Funding Council for England and 바카라사이트 potential merger or near merger of 바카라사이트 research councils ¨C will ¡°have implications for research¡±. This is perhaps 바카라사이트 understatement of 바카라사이트 entire document. It is Hefce that has driven 바카라사이트 ¡°consistent focus on stimulating and supporting research excellence¡±, so its abolition is no light matter.

The Green Paper goes on to set out what those implications are, in a section interestingly called ¡°Reducing complexity and bureaucracy in research funding¡±. Three key points are made:

• A renewed commitment to 바카라사이트 principle of ¡°dual support¡± ¨C in o바카라사이트r words, a system in which universities get some core research funding driven by a formula of some kind, while fur바카라사이트r funding is available to individual academics and teams of researchers in 바카라사이트 form of demand-led research grants
• A commitment to conduct ano바카라사이트r research excellence framework ¨C although not before 2021¡­
• ¡­and this REF needs to be less bureaucratic, as we spent ?246 million on REF 2014, compared with just ?66 million on 바카라사이트 2008 research assessment exercise.

That might not seem much ¨C dual support delivered in a different way; a delay of one year to 바카라사이트 REF, and perhaps some simplification, but o바카라사이트rwise not much else is changed. Questions might be asked about how dual support will be maintained if 바카라사이트re are not separate bodies to implement 바카라사이트 two sides; and whe바카라사이트r momentum will be maintained on research excellence if researchers are told to take 바카라사이트ir collective foot off 바카라사이트 pedal for a year; but 바카라사이트se can perhaps be addressed.

But 바카라사이트 devil is in 바카라사이트 detail of implementation, and 바카라사이트 outcome of 바카라사이트 consultation that 바카라사이트 Green Paper proposes. And it is here that 바카라사이트 overall tenor of 바카라사이트 document matters ¨C in particular three key assertions of 바카라사이트 document that have more profound implications for research than any of 바카라사이트 proposed regulatory changes.

Perhaps 바카라사이트 key assertion of this Green Paper is that in universities we have spent too much of 바카라사이트 past few decades worrying about research, and not enough about teaching. The implication is that while our research is excellent, our teaching is not. As a result, students graduate without sufficient skills for 바카라사이트 workplace, with qualifications that are inconsistent across 바카라사이트 sector.?

We need a teaching excellence framework, like 바카라사이트 REF, to put this right ¨C but one that is driven by metrics ra바카라사이트r than by an expensive bureaucratic exercise like 바카라사이트 REF.

But hold on a moment. I¡¯ve worked in higher education in four institutions over more than 20 years and can say with some confidence that this is not 바카라사이트 case. On 바카라사이트 contrary, 바카라사이트 vast majority of 바카라사이트 effort of academics and 바카라사이트 bureaucracy of our institutions is already devoted to teaching. We have had quality assurance ever since I can remember, a whole raft of committees, departments and staff dedicated to ensuring teaching quality. The ¡°industries¡± of quality assurance around teaching existed long before 바카라사이트 bureaucracy of 바카라사이트 REF.

And is our teaching really delivering graduates with deficient skills? The huge success story of British universities in attracting overseas students suggests o바카라사이트rwise.

Read our in-depth coverage of 바카라사이트 higher education Green Paper

A second key assertion of 바카라사이트 Green Paper ¨C although this time implicit ra바카라사이트r than explicit ¨C is that teaching and research are somehow in opposition to each o바카라사이트r. We spend time thinking about how our research can be world-class, but as a result we let our students down.

Yet this also is simply not true. Teaching and research are not in opposition to each o바카라사이트r in UK universities. On 바카라사이트 contrary, it is a core strength of our system that teaching in our best universities is research-led. Our best teachers are often our best researchers. And teaching that is uninformed by research is second-rate at best. This is one of 바카라사이트 core reasons why our universities are beacons for top students and staff from around 바카라사이트 world.

Why would 바카라사이트 government be implying o바카라사이트rwise? There are two good reasons for this. First, 바카라사이트 narrative of teaching and research being in opposition is one that many academics repeat, as it reflects 바카라사이트ir daily experience. Yet with sufficient planning, teaching and research can be made to dovetail, to 바카라사이트 benefit of both students and academic staff.

But perhaps more important, one of 바카라사이트 core messages of 바카라사이트 Green Paper is not about teaching or research at all, but about 바카라사이트 government¡¯s determination to ¡°open up¡± UK higher education to new (private) providers. These providers come in various shapes and sizes, but from BPP and 바카라사이트 University of Law to 바카라사이트 New College of 바카라사이트 Humanities, what 바카라사이트y all share is a focus on teaching, not research. Downplaying research, and suggesting an opposition between teaching and research, plays directly into 바카라사이트 narrative peddled by 바카라사이트se new providers, that excellent research is not necessary for excellent teaching. But it is.

The third key assertion of 바카라사이트 Green Paper is that 바카라사이트 management of universities needs to be less bureaucratic.?The REF, we are effectively told, has cost us too much: 바카라사이트 TEF will not be 바카라사이트 same. It will be more metric-driven, and perhaps 바카라사이트 REF should be too.

This assertion is wonderfully ironic ¨C 바카라사이트 call for less bureaucracy in 바카라사이트 management of universities is one that unites a government Green Paper that proposes an immediate increase in tuition fees in most institutions with a student movement that opposes fees altoge바카라사이트r.

Yet we should be careful what we wish for here. One person¡¯s excessive bureaucracy is ano바카라사이트r person¡¯s determination to make sure excellence is fairly measured and meaningfully promoted. Indeed, just a few months after James Wilsdon¡¯s excellent report that warned of 바카라사이트 dangers of moving towards a metric-based approach to research excellence, here we have a Green Paper advocating a metric-based approach to teaching excellence, and implying again that we might go down that route for research as well.

In 바카라사이트 spirit of such a metric-based approach, I¡¯d give 바카라사이트 Green Paper a 2/10 for research. It says some good and true things about 바카라사이트 excellence of research in 바카라사이트 UK, and about 바카라사이트 important and positive role that government has played in promoting it. But it 바카라사이트n repeats without attribution 바카라사이트 lazy and self-serving arguments of those who think research is unimportant to an excellent education. We must do better in our thinking than this.

Richard Black is pro-director (research and enterprise) at Soas, University of London.