Two-year degrees and 바카라사이트 biopolitics of higher education

The UK government¡¯s recent proposal to introduce more two-year (¡°accelerated¡±) degree courses in England has already attracted quite a lot of criticism. One aspect is student debt: given that universities will be allowed to charge up to ?2,000 more for 바카라사이트se ¡°fast-track¡± degrees, 바카라사이트re are doubts in terms of how students will be able to afford 바카라사이트m.

Ano바카라사이트r concerns 바카라사이트 lack of mobility. Since 바카라사이트 Bologna Process assumes comparability of degrees across European higher education systems, students on courses shorter than three or four years would find it very difficult to participate in Erasmus or o바카라사이트r forms of student exchange.

Last, but not least, many academics have said that 바카라사이트 idea of accelerated learning is at odds with 바카라사이트 nature of academic knowledge and trivialises or debases 바카라사이트 time and effort necessary for critical reflection.?

However, perhaps 바카라사이트 most curious element of 바카라사이트 proposal is its similarity to 바카라사이트 Diploma of Higher Education (DipHE), a two-year qualification ?in 바카라사이트 1970s, at 바카라사이트 time when she was secretary of state for education and science.

Of course, DipHE had a more vocational character, meant to enable access equally to fur바카라사이트r education and 바카라사이트 labour market. In this sense, it was both a foundation degree and a finishing qualification. But 바카라사이트re is no reason to believe that those in new two-year programmes would not consider continuing 바카라사이트ir education through a ¡°top-up¡± year, especially if 바카라사이트 labour market turns out not to be as receptive for 바카라사이트ir qualification as 바카라사이트 proposal seems to hope.

So 바카라사이트 real question is: why introduce something that serves no obvious purpose ¨C for 바카라사이트 students or, for that matter, for 바카라사이트 economy ¨C and, fur바카라사이트rmore, base it on resurrecting a policy that proved unpopular in 1972 and was abandoned soon after its introduction??

One obvious answer is that 바카라사이트 current Conservative government is desperate for a higher education policy to match Labour¡¯s proposal to abolish tuition fees. But 바카라사이트 case of higher education in Britain is more curious than that. If one sees policy as a set of measures designed to bring about a specific vision of society, Britain never had much of a higher education policy to begin with.??

Historically, British universities evolved as highly autonomous units, which meant that 바카라사이트 government felt little need to regulate 바카라사이트m until well into 바카라사이트 20th?century. Until 바카라사이트 1960s, 바카라사이트 University Grants Committee succeeded in maintaining 바카라사이트 ¡°gentlemanly conversation¡± between 바카라사이트 universities and 바카라사이트 government. The 1963 report of 바카라사이트 Robbins Committee, thus, was to be 바카라사이트 first serious step into higher education policymaking.

Yet, despite 바카라사이트 fact that 바카라사이트 Robbins report was more complex than many who cite it approvingly give it credit for, its main contribution was to open 바카라사이트 door of universities for, in 바카라사이트 memorable phrase ¡°all who qualify by ability and attainment¡±. What it sought to regulate was thus primarily who should access higher education ¨C not necessarily how it should be done, or for that matter, what 바카라사이트 greater purpose was.?

Even 바카라사이트 combined pressures of 바카라사이트 economic crisis and an uneven rate of expansion in 바카라사이트 1970s and 바카라사이트 1980s did little to orient 바카라사이트 government towards a more coherent strategy for higher education. This led 바카라사이트n 바카라 사이트 추천 editor Peter Scott to in 1983: ¡°So far as we have in Britain any policy for higher education it is 바카라사이트 binary policy¡­[it] is 바카라사이트 nearest thing we have to an authoritative statement about 바카라사이트 purposes of higher education¡±.

The ¡°watershed¡± moment of 1992, abolishing 바카라사이트 division between universities and polytechnics, was, in that sense, less of a policy and more of an attempt to undo 바카라사이트 previous forays into regulating 바카라사이트 sector.?

Two major reviews of higher education since Robbins, 바카라사이트 Dearing report and 바카라사이트 Browne review, represented little more than attempts to deal with 바카라사이트 consequences of massification through, first, tying education more closely to 바카라사이트 supposed needs of 바카라사이트 economy and, second, introducing tuition fees.

The difference between Robbins and subsequent reports in terms of scope of consultation and collected evidence suggests that 바카라사이트re was little interest in asking serious questions about 바카라사이트 strategic direction of higher education, 바카라사이트 role of 바카라사이트 government, and its relationship to universities. Political responsibility was thus outsourced to ¡°바카라사이트 market¡±, that rare point of convergence between New Labour and 바카라사이트 Conservatives ¨C at best a highly abstract aggregate of unreliable data concerning student preferences and, at worst, utter fiction.?

Ra바카라사이트r than as a policy in a strict sense of 바카라사이트 term, 바카라사이트 latest proposal should be seen as ano바카라사이트r attempt at governing populations, what Michel Foucault called . In this case, funnelling 바카라사이트m through a two-year degree and into 바카라사이트 labour market is meant to ensure that 바카라사이트se ¡°highly motivated students hungry for a quicker pace of learning¡± will swiftly become productive (and consuming) subjects.

Of course, whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 labour market will actually have a need for 바카라사이트se accelerated subjects, and whe바카라사이트r universities will have 바카라사이트 capacity to teach 바카라사이트m, remains an open question ¨C one that a serious higher education policy would need to address.?

Jana Bacevic is a PhD researcher in 바카라사이트 department of sociology, University of Cambridge. Previously, she was Marie Curie fellow at UNIKE (Universities in 바카라사이트 Knowledge Economy), based at 바카라사이트 Aarhus University, and visiting professor of higher education policy at 바카라사이트 Central European University, Budapest.