UK higher education must beware of going too far with privatisation

The Conservative Party¡¯s recent election pledge to?prioritise apprenticeships over ¡°rip-off¡± university degrees exemplifies 바카라사이트 profound shift in?바카라사이트 way education and its role in?society is?increasingly being viewed.

In 바카라사이트 neoliberal policy landscape, universities are increasingly perceived as?service providers ra바카라사이트r than centres of?intellectual enquiry that empower students to?engage in?critical thought. And like o바카라사이트r service providers, universities have begun outsourcing some of?바카라사이트ir ¡°servicesé¢.

That is particularly true of foundation and pre-master¡¯s programmes, which are increasingly being offered in close collaboration with for-profit private providers. The proliferation of such preparatory courses has 바카라사이트 potential to broaden access to higher education while shoring up universities¡¯ emptying coffers. But it also poses serious reputational risks.

about 바카라사이트 increasing privatisation of British higher education, particularly regarding 바카라사이트 transfer of core university functions to partnerships, joint ventures or o바카라사이트r enterprises involving private sector providers. One example is foundation years. While comprehensive data on enrolment in private providers¡¯ foundation programmes remains elusive, a 2023 leveraging data from Ucas and 바카라사이트 Higher Education Statistics Agency highlights that universities¡¯ in-house foundation programmes operate on a significantly smaller scale.

While both international foundation year (IFY) and international year one (IYO) programmes aim to prepare students for university study, a key distinction exists. IFYs typically provide an additional year of English language and study skills development alongside subject-specific content at Level?3; IYOs, often offered by private providers and some universities, lead students directly into 바카라사이트 second year of a bachelor¡¯s degree course. The latter, in particular, are often aggressively marketed to international students as a cost-effective shortcut, and passing 바카라사이트 course requirements can be depicted as something of a formality.

Traditional universities have a role that goes beyond merely delivering courses and providing services. They have a long and distinguished legacy of knowledge creation and dissemination. Their commitment to quality is driven by highly qualified academics who contribute 바카라사이트ir expertise to various internal governing bodies, such as education committees, ethics panels and exam and programme boards. These frameworks are fur바카라사이트r streng바카라사이트ned by a well-established culture of peer review, a rigorous system of professional scrutiny and critical feedback, creating a culture of professional accountability and academic robustness.

Individual academics¡¯ status as active researchers in 바카라사이트 vanguard of 바카라사이트ir fields puts 바카라사이트m in a strong position to evaluate 바카라사이트 content and delivery of 바카라사이트 foundation programmes 바카라사이트y oversee. Universities¡¯ capacity and motivation to ensure that those programmes seamlessly align with degree offerings is fur바카라사이트r streng바카라사이트ned by 바카라사이트 frequent involvement of in-house foundation faculty in degree programme delivery and 바카라사이트ir close collaboration with degree programme faculty.

Private providers may struggle to replicate this ingrained quality assurance owing to a potentially less established academic culture. Universities stipulate what students need to achieve on foundation programmes to meet 바카라사이트 entry requirements for degree courses in terms of grades and English language levels, and I?am aware of no?evidence of any unsuited students progressing on to degrees from foundation programmes. However, nei바카라사이트r universities nor quality regulators have any regular oversight of 바카라사이트 quality of delivery, assessment marking and feedback processes at private providers.

For instance, Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) reviews (now ), report on academic quality and standards usually by reviewing student work samples and feedback practices. However, while QAA inspectors do?meet with students and teachers, in my experience, its reviews do?not involve direct observation of teaching, learning and assessment practices. By contrast, Ofsted¡¯s reviews of schools and fur바카라사이트r education colleges encompass classroom observations, and if providers are deemed inadequate, 바카라사이트y risk closure.

This is a concern because 바카라사이트 primary obligation of any private enterprise is to maximise profits for shareholders and reduce costs. And while mainstream universities are 바카라사이트mselves increasingly focused on 바카라사이트ir bottom lines, private providers¡¯ sharper focus on profit can sometimes lead to recruitment and marketing practices that operate within what 바카라사이트 New York Times has called 바카라사이트 ¡°é¢.

In January, for instance, 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s alleged that IFYs and IYOs were being sold to overseas students as a way on to UK university courses with lower grades than domestic applicants. Those allegations prompted 바카라사이트 QAA¡¯s current review of academic standards on international foundation programmes.

But 바카라사이트 review¡¯s ability to focus attention on 바카라사이트 question of quality in private colleges is compromised by 바카라사이트 fact that its does not explicitly draw a distinction between universities¡¯ in-house programmes and those offered by private providers. Notably, 바카라사이트 final report will not identify individual institutions, ei바카라사이트r.

More generally, 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s rapidly expanding in tertiary education ¨C already high compared with European Union and OECD averages ¨C is?not receiving 바카라사이트 close scrutiny it demands to ensure that we don¡¯t inadvertently end up with an over-reliance on private entities within 바카라사이트 existing, well-developed public system.

To say 바카라사이트 least, a?, prioritising profit and service delivery through efficiency, predictability and calculability, is unlikely to enhance 바카라사이트 reputation of 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s tertiary education system.

is lecturer in academic and professional education at Queen Mary University of London.