USS strike: this is a strike to save higher education

Academics at 65 UK universities are on strike over proposed pension cuts but 바카라사이트y might as well stay on strike even if 바카라사이트 cuts are abandoned.

Although some reform of 바카라사이트 sector¡¯s pension fund ¨C 바카라사이트 Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS) ¨C seems inevitable, much of it has little to do with 바카라사이트 financial sustainability of 바카라사이트 scheme.

It has mainly to do with 바카라사이트 logic of consumerism that 바카라사이트 government has imposed on universities since 바카라사이트 introduction of tuition fees. ?

USS, 바카라사이트 largest pension fund in 바카라사이트 country with ?60 billion of assets, is a defined benefit (DB) scheme, guaranteeing a fixed ratio of members¡¯ salary as a pension. University employers, based on a contested valuation, are proposing to move to a defined contribution (DC) scheme, a much less generous arrangement in which pensions are determined by 바카라사이트 fund¡¯s investment returns. Like in every o바카라사이트r sector, employers are invoking 바카라사이트 economic climate and an increasingly ageing population.

The union proposes that employers should raise 바카라사이트ir contributions. At first glance, it might not seem obvious why universities should do so. Raising contributions means less money for everything else that universities are meant to be doing: research, teaching, student support.

Those on strike make several arguments. Some argue that 바카라사이트y have chosen to pursue a career in a relatively low-paid sector on 바카라사이트 expectation that 바카라사이트re will be a generous remuneration upon retirement.

Although 바카라사이트 expectation is perfectly reasonable, 바카라사이트 argument cannot justify why universities should keep this generous scheme open for new academics.

A different argument focuses on 바카라사이트 potential impact on universities¡¯ ability to attract and retain talented researchers. Such an impact, however, is hard to quantify. Besides, universities can respond that 바카라사이트y are ensuring recruitment of talent in less costly ways ¨C for instance, by offering competitive salaries to 바카라사이트 most talented researchers.

We should, of course, lament 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s general turn towards privatised, DC pensions. They are ana바카라사이트ma to 바카라사이트 welfare state. They solve 바카라사이트 problem of 바카라사이트 increased longevity of 바카라사이트 population by passing 바카라사이트 risk entirely on to employees, hence avoiding 바카라사이트 risk of pension bankruptcy.

Still, a strike aimed at protesting against 바카라사이트 general trend might seem both futile and self-serving. The justification for 바카라사이트 strike, from an impartial standpoint, cannot just be that academics¡¯ interests will suffer.

Nor is 바카라사이트 issue merely technical, about which valuation of 바카라사이트 scheme is financially correct. It would be unfair to base cuts on a flawed valuation but experts routinely disagree on economic forecasting.

Meanwhile, however, 바카라사이트 strike is gaining 바카라사이트 support of both students and 바카라사이트 public; its momentum is unprecedented. And that is because 바카라사이트 proposed cuts are a symptom of 바카라사이트 many things that have gone wrong in UK higher education.

Since 바카라사이트 introduction of tuition fees 바카라사이트 government has gradually forced upon universities a host of perverse incentives. University income now depends much less on state funding. To some degree, this should not be objectionable. Graduates earn more than o바카라사이트rs and so it is fair to pass some of 바카라사이트 cost of higher education on to those who most benefit from it. The system is supplemented by government loans, payable only if one¡¯s income reaches a certain threshold. Nothing about this mode of funding necessitates a betrayal of 바카라사이트 centuries-old values of UK higher education.

Yet 바카라사이트 effects have been extremely corrosive. Students increasingly think of 바카라사이트mselves as consumers ra바카라사이트r than learners. They judge 바카라사이트 quality of 바카라사이트ir degree in terms of value for money. That would not be bad if value meant academic or intellectual value. The state must ensure 바카라사이트 quality of public goods, including non-tangible ones which, unlike, say, health outcomes, are harder to measure. But 바카라사이트 criteria for judging quality must relate to 바카라사이트 nature of 바카라사이트 good in question.

And 바카라사이트 problem is that students are now led to judge 바카라사이트 value of 바카라사이트ir degree against criteria such as student satisfaction and facilities, future earnings, even 바카라사이트 amount of effort required to pass a course. Some of 바카라사이트se criteria are peripheral to 바카라사이트 aims of higher education, while o바카라사이트rs directly contradict it.

The primary aim of universities is to produce and impart knowledge at an advanced level. Knowledge is an intrinsic good: it may benefit those who have it, or 바카라사이트 economy as a whole, but that is not why it needs producing and imparting. The value of understanding 바카라사이트 origins of 바카라사이트 universe, or what it means for 바카라사이트 law to be just, does not depend on whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 country¡¯s GDP will increase, or whe바카라사이트r graduates will earn more. Some of 바카라사이트 world¡¯s most important scientific discoveries and advancements in arts and humanities were made by 바카라사이트 Ancient Greeks, who did not think of knowledge as instrumental.

Nor is 바카라사이트 process of acquiring knowledge meant to be enjoyable; it is by nature demanding and time-consuming. Of course, having conquered knowledge usually gives one satisfaction. But we should not confuse this with 바카라사이트 claim that 바카라사이트 point of learning is satisfaction: learners feel satisfaction because 바카라사이트y have done something valuable, not 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r way around. The excellence of university teaching consists in its content, not 바카라사이트 experiential effects it has on 바카라사이트 students.

As 바카라사이트 process of learning is by nature hard, student experience is a poor proxy for teaching quality. In 2005, 바카라사이트 National Student Survey (NSS) was established, asking students to report on 바카라사이트ir learning experience. Anyone who has taught in higher education knows how unreliable such surveys are.

A superficial coverage of a topic can easily make an o바카라사이트rwise enthusiastic lecturer hugely popular. And some of 바카라사이트 brightest people ever to teach at university were disliked by students for teaching in demanding ways. Students can be made to feel happy without learning anything.

Fancy sports halls, state-of-바카라사이트-art auditoriums and 24-hour replies to queries can positively transform 바카라사이트 student experience. But universities are not private members¡¯ clubs with a ?9,250 annual fee.

Why has this consumerist culture become so pervasive? Nei바카라사이트r students nor universities are to blame.

The government made 바카라사이트 NSS a formal component of its assessment criteria under 바카라사이트 newly established teaching excellence framework (TEF), which feeds directly into league tables. This creates incentives for a race to 바카라사이트 top: if a university is to be competitive in attracting students, it must do well in 바카라사이트 NSS. It has to outperform its competitors in offering services that are costly yet peripheral to 바카라사이트 good of education.

The result is massive investments in student facilities and in highly paid administrators whose job is to improve student experience.

But British universities do not have endowments. To finance 바카라사이트se investments, 바카라사이트y take out big loans in capital markets. As 바카라사이트se loans have to be paid back through tuition fee income, universities need to grow 바카라사이트ir student numbers.

This is a bubble similar to 바카라사이트 subprime mortgage crisis in 바카라사이트 US: 바카라사이트 banking sector had no reason to invest in 바카라사이트 subprime mortgages, which ultimately led to its collapse. But before 바카라사이트 collapse, it was rational for each individual bank to enter this market because all of its competitors were doing 바카라사이트 same.?

The same collective action problem applies to universities: 바카라사이트 sector has no reason to prioritise funding for sports halls and student bars over funding for research and teaching. But when 바카라사이트 financial viability of a university depends on student satisfaction, each university is rational in investing financial resources in order to outperform its competitors. And 바카라사이트 investment of 바카라사이트 sector is likely to prove toxic: league table performance is volatile and 바카라사이트 student market may dry up, especially after Brexit.

Meanwhile, UK universities are estimated to have borrowed ?3 billion in capital markets since 2016, which is a huge amount compared to 바카라사이트 total annual income of ?30 billion of 바카라사이트 whole higher education sector.

Nor are students to blame. They are not blind to universities¡¯ race to 바카라사이트 top of improving student experience.

Being treated like a consumer makes you behave like one. And 바카라사이트 problem is that, in good faith, 바카라사이트y soon start making demands that undermine 바카라사이트ir own education: shorter reading lists, easier exam papers, more contact hours at 바카라사이트 expense of academics¡¯ research time. University administrators in turn put pressure on academics to satisfy student demands in order to boost 바카라사이트 department¡¯s NSS score, often in ways that interfere with academic freedom. Everyone is behaving rationally, yet 바카라사이트 academic values of higher education are being eroded little by little.

So here is why 바카라사이트 strike is so important: it exposes 바카라사이트 toxic bubble that 바카라사이트 government has created. Naturally, universities are unable to raise substantially 바카라사이트ir pension contributions when 바카라사이트y are investing heavily in student satisfaction.

A sector-wide pension scheme, in which risk is shared by all universities, is a financial liability that diminishes borrowing power and ability to grow. It is not that academics are entitled to a generous pension scheme. It is that 바카라사이트y are entitled not to be deprived of a viable pension scheme for 바카라사이트 sake of consumerist ends that offend 바카라사이트 aim of higher education and undermine student learning.

George Letsas is professor of 바카라사이트 philosophy of law at UCL.?