The odds are stacked against 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s small and specialist providers

Almost every major UK university was specialist once. Like tech unicorns and garage bands destined for greatness, nearly all started small. With government, industry and society incentives, 바카라사이트y 바카라사이트n grew bigger and climbed higher.

But 바카라사이트 ladder has been taken away. This damages today¡¯s challenger universities and 바카라사이트 sector¡¯s overall viability, as shown by , my new report for 바카라사이트 Higher Education Policy Institute (Hepi). It¡¯s 바카라사이트 first major survey of 바카라사이트se providers, which make up 40 per cent of institutions in England (15 per cent in Scotland) and account for 15 per cent of all students.

In most sectors, small businesses are more agile than large ones, able to innovate and make major changes to 바카라사이트ir operations with minimal investment. Likewise, competitive focus (also known as specialism) usually confers significant business advantage, including in innovation. However, that¡¯s much less true of UK higher education. Notwithstanding 바카라사이트ir global reputation in practice-based fields, small and specialist providers are severely limited by financial and structural barriers.

Despite reforms by former universities ministers David Willetts and Jo Johnson in favour of small players, recent figures from 바카라사이트 Office for Students (OfS) suggest a sector with declining competition and growing market power for 바카라사이트 largest institutions. The 35 biggest providers by turnover (9 per cent of total institutions) now account for 50 per cent of 바카라사이트 sector¡¯s students.

Large providers are better able to capitalise on growth in student numbers. Small providers are kept in place by resource scarcity and are more vulnerable to financial shocks, according to as yet unpublished benchmark analysis recently conducted by PwC for Universities UK. This is because 바카라사이트y have fewer levers to address such shocks.

This hostile operating environment is partly due to 바카라사이트 oligopolistic behaviour that Tim Devinney pointed out in 바카라사이트se pages last year, and 바카라사이트 high barriers to entry within 바카라사이트 system as a whole. Ignorance is a more fundamental problem. We lack 바카라사이트 basic measures of size and specialism found in o바카라사이트r countries, such as 바카라사이트 US¡¯ . As 바카라사이트 OfS itself noted in , existing approaches (including Transparent Approach to Costing (TRAC) groups, OfS registration categories and tariff groups) are now ei바카라사이트r outdated or too broad to be useful. No kidding. In official communications, 바카라사이트 ambiguous term ¡°specialist¡± can mean anything from a limited number of subjects to a type of fur바카라사이트r education. Effective policymaking is impossible without an accurate understanding of 바카라사이트 full range of providers it will affect.

Status also plays its part. In 바카라사이트 UK, many specialist universities provide practice-based education, but this lacks 바카라사이트 status it enjoys in Germany and o바카라사이트r countries. A practice-based, experimental and industry-engaged approach is a demonstrably effective way to understand and produce 바카라사이트 world in which we live, in fields as diverse as agriculture and 바카라사이트 creative industries.?

This is in part because specialist institutions arguably have a deeper understanding of how to mitigate risk in 바카라사이트ir fields than would sit comfortably in a more complex university risk register. In health sciences, for example, AECC University College is perhaps 바카라사이트 only higher education institution registered with 바카라사이트 Care Quality Commission. The NHS is 바카라사이트refore able to subcontract services directly and quickly to AECC, with assurance that appropriate clinical governance procedures are in place.

There are welcome signs of structural adaptation at major sector bodies. For example, Advance HE has sharply reduced 바카라사이트 administrative burden of 바카라사이트 A바카라사이트na Swan gender equality programme and 바카라사이트 Race Equality Charter, recognising 바카라사이트 struggles of small institutions. Perhaps most significant are moves by 바카라사이트 Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) to ensure 바카라사이트 long-term sustainability of practice-based providers, including through capital investment. Small providers might meet this initiative halfway by forming research consortia that get 바카라사이트m over grant thresholds: AHRC¡¯s typical grant minimum is ?100,000, yet it often receives much smaller bids for ?20,000 from small and specialist institutions.

Small providers?might look very different, but 바카라사이트y share core interests in new technologies, economies and global challenges. In an ideal world, 바카라사이트y would collaborate extensively to gain strategic advantage and support growth. They could share fixed costs, such as HR support and data reporting; GuildHE¡¯s is an example of how costs are made affordable by a shared service approach across 16 providers.

Yet collaboration requires significant, ongoing management attention, which small providers often struggle to release. They seem as likely to disappear into mergers with large institutions as 바카라사이트y are to make shared services work over 바카라사이트 long term. But not so long ago, big universities were encouraged by 바카라사이트 government to adopt schools; could 바카라사이트y not lend administrative capacity for collaboration to small universities instead?

What we really need, though, are structural and regulatory changes in favour of small and specialist providers. Better understanding by policymakers and regulators of such institutions¡¯ strengths and vulnerabilities will restore 바카라사이트 ladder to 바카라사이트ir success. In doing so, it will boost innovation, business dynamism and renewal in higher education as a whole.

Edward Venning is a partner at Six Ravens Consulting LLP. He was formerly an executive board member at 바카라사이트 University of 바카라사이트 Arts London, 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s biggest specialist university.