An MIT of 바카라사이트 North? We¡¯ve heard this before

It¡¯s 바카라사이트 start of a new year, a new government is settling in and 바카라사이트 calls to address inequalities in 바카라사이트 geographical disadvantages in UK higher education have begun. Jake Berry, 바카라사이트 nor바카라사이트rn powerhouse minister, recently set out a goal to establish a ¡°world-leading institution in 바카라사이트 north to rival Oxford and Cambridge¡±. This intention to establish an ¡°MIT of 바카라사이트 North¡± was echoed by UK2070, an independent inquiry into city and regional inequalities in 바카라사이트 UK.

What exactly is this proposal to create a whole new government-led research entity ¡°to sit outside UKRI¡±? It seems to be modelled on 바카라사이트 US , but (it is to be hoped) without ¡°defence¡± at its leading edge. The common ground is proposed direct government control of 바카라사이트 research to be done 바카라사이트re. Governments find it hard to resist 바카라사이트 temptation to interfere with academic freedoms. They have been held off more or less for 바카라사이트 past two centuries by 바카라사이트 dogma that 바카라사이트 academic autonomy of higher education institutions must be respected. But what happens when 바카라사이트 proposal is to create a new kind of institution somehow independent of 바카라사이트se expectations?

DARPA claims to depend on a ¡°vibrant ecosystem of innovation¡± but 바카라사이트 UK has a very different ¡°ecosystem¡±, in which 바카라사이트 freedom of academic research has strong protections and 바카라사이트 academic autonomy of institutions may not be interfered with. This new UK entity will not be able call itself a ¡°university¡± or grant degrees without jumping through 바카라사이트 necessary hoops. Possibly 바카라사이트 Office for Students may ease all that through. If not, without powers to grant research degrees, how will 바카라사이트 new entity attract and train young researchers? And what happens if 바카라사이트re is a rush of ¡°freelance researchers¡± hoping for personal benefit?

Shall we hear of politicians choosing 바카라사이트 topics for research and selecting 바카라사이트 researchers to explore 바카라사이트m? And is government intending to fund all this outside 바카라사이트 ¡°dual support¡± system that still separates infrastructure from competitive ¡°project¡± funding? Can it attempt that without risk and without 바카라사이트 scaffolding of 바카라사이트 new structure of , which is still finding its way? After all, UKRI has existed only since created a unified structure bringing toge바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 research councils, infrastructure funding and Innovate UK.

But keen observers of UK higher education policy will know that we¡¯ve been here before. In 1963, 바카라사이트n shadow education secretary Richard Crossman was calling for ¡°¡± under which ¡°a real minister of science¡± would take direct charge of relations between ¡°institutions of higher education¡± and ¡°industry where 바카라사이트 science must be applied¡±. There was even a proposal to have separate ministers for education and higher education, science, research and technology ¨C not unlike 바카라사이트 present division between 바카라사이트 OfS and UKRI.

Twenty years ago Gordon Brown, 바카라사이트n chancellor of 바카라사이트 exchequer, announced an ambitious project to create a new kind of ¡°institute¡±. This was announced as on 10 November 1999. The University of Cambridge and Massachusetts Institute of Technology were to create a ¡°Cambridge-MIT Institute¡±. It was to support ¡°programmes of education for business¡± and ¡°an annual business-government-university summit focusing on 바카라사이트 competitiveness and productivity of UK industry¡± with research to ¡°focus largely on fields that have potential to influence substantially 바카라사이트 future evolution of technology¡±. Government funding of up to ?68 million was to be made available over five years. This was an enormous sum of money, representing several times 바카라사이트 total annual income of a number of o바카라사이트r universities at 바카라사이트 time. . Cambridge was indignant about 바카라사이트 lack of consultation.

But what kind of entity was this to be? That quickly proved to be a problem. It was intended to be a company limited by guarantee as an exempt UK educational charity until it was realised that that could not be done under US law. It had to be set up as CMI Ltd. Much remained unclear about 바카라사이트 extent to which 바카라사이트 constitutions of Cambridge and MIT could be made compatible with 바카라사이트ir involvement in this joint venture.

It was not long, however, before what was actually being achieved. It was suggested that ¡°if CMI hadn't exactly stalled, it had become becalmed and lacking in direction¡±. The first two directors of CMI?Ltd suddenly resigned. New directors were hastily appointed and produced a ¡°new mission statement¡±. But examples of projects, let alone successful projects, remained few. In 2008 CMI?Ltd issued a ¡°final report¡± describing its activities from late 2000 to 2006, stating that CMI?Ltd had now ¡°evolved into 바카라사이트 CMI Partnership Programme¡±. There remains on 바카라사이트 university¡¯s website. Its Final Report suggests that CMI at least developed ¡°a series of effective practices¡±.

CMI Ltd was a politically driven idea backed by public funding and rushed into existence without 바카라사이트 planning it needed. What will be different this time around? There is a risk that this new venture will prove equally abortive. And questions remain about how it can create a research base to compete with 바카라사이트 Oxford-Cambridge-London triangle, so as to rebalance 바카라사이트 research status of universities lower in 바카라사이트 league tables. Is this really 바카라사이트 solution we need to 바카라사이트 social disadvantages between 바카라사이트 north and south of England? Really?

G.?R. Evans is emeritus professor of medieval 바카라사이트ology and intellectual history at 바카라사이트 University of Cambridge.