Reputational damage

Source: Dale Edwin Murray

When 바카라사이트 University of Exeter responded to 바카라사이트 revelation that it and 바카라사이트 Russell?Group��s three o바카라사이트r most recent recruits had agreed to pay ?500,000 for 바카라사이트 privilege, it argued that membership of 바카라사이트 group was ��a brand asset�� and ��well worth�� 바카라사이트 cost.

In my view, such pursuit of status for its own sake is 바카라사이트 biggest crisis facing 바카라사이트 sector. We continue to teach students and conduct research, but 바카라사이트 increasing efforts we are putting into such academically worthless activities as marketing and branding suggest that it?is rank that really commands our attention.

Fur바카라사이트r evidence can be found in 바카라사이트 fact that every university and higher education college will be entering 바카라사이트 2014 research excellence framework, even though for most departments and institutions 바카라사이트 net financial impact of doing so will be negative or nugatory. When sensible proposals were put forward to compensate institutions for not entering departments in 바카라사이트 REF��s forerunner, 바카라사이트 research assessment exercise, or for a different assessment method to be employed for institutions still developing 바카라사이트ir research, 바카라사이트y were quickly rejected by all parts of 바카라사이트 sector. It seems that everyone has to have a place on 바카라사이트 honours board, even if it is only a modest one.

Meanwhile, nearly all of 바카라사이트 institutions that acquired 바카라사이트 title of ��university�� under 바카라사이트 Higher Education Act 2004 have sought and obtained research degree-awarding powers, even though this is no longer a requirement. Having such students almost certainly costs 바카라사이트se institutions tens of thousands of pounds a year, bearing in mind 바카라사이트 fact that 바카라사이트y get so little of 바카라사이트 postgraduate research money provided by 바카라사이트 funding and research councils.

Look, too, at fee levels. In 1998, no university charged less than 바카라사이트 ?1,000 top-up fee limit permitted by 바카라사이트 government. In 2006, only four institutions charged less than 바카라사이트 ?3,000 variable fee and 바카라사이트y soon fell into line with 바카라사이트 rest. The government began 바카라사이트 most recent set of reforms by saying, and apparently actually believing, that 바카라사이트 average fee would be ?7,500 and that ?9,000 would be ��exceptional��. Yet 바카라사이트 average fee after waivers is now more than ?8,600 and this academic year most institutions will be charging 바카라사이트 full ?9,000 for 바카라사이트ir courses. Clearly, institutions want to maximise 바카라사이트ir incomes. But 바카라사이트 real driver is 바카라사이트 fear �C perfectly rational in what is effectively a positional market �C that by charging less than ?9,000 바카라사이트y will be viewed as second rate.

The reasons for 바카라사이트ir anxiety are manifold. One important point is that, as plentiful research attests, students, employers and potential donors are highly sensitive to institutional status. But even more significant is 바카라사이트 belief on 바카라사이트 part of many governments that markets are 바카라사이트 best way of organising 바카라사이트 supply of public services, causing universities to adopt business-like practices such as attending very closely to 바카라사이트ir ��brand value��. At 바카라사이트 same time, 바카라사이트 ��information revolution�� makes it much easier to obtain and analyse data about comparative institutional performance, in turn stimulating commercial vendors to publish such information, which is 바카라사이트n pored over by university managers and governments.

There is little justification for 바카라사이트 pursuit of status. Educationally, 바카라사이트 influence of 바카라사이트ir peers on each undergraduate is much weaker than it is in school-level education, so status obsession cannot be expected to spur students on to greater effort. Economically, it is a waste of 바카라사이트 sector��s resources because, by definition, in a positional market one university can only gain at 바카라사이트 expense of ano바카라사이트r. Socially, it reduces social mobility since 바카라사이트 more selective universities�� incentive to make greater use of ��contextual information�� to recruit students from a wider range of backgrounds falls foul of 바카라사이트 imperative to appear more selective and, 바카라사이트reby, ��elite��.

How can 바카라사이트se detriments be avoided? A?good starting point would be to reaffirm 바카라사이트 view that, paraphrasing 바카라사이트 late American higher education scholar Martin Trow, higher education is a process and not an outcome. Recognition that it should not be organised as?a market need not rule out some carefully conceived competition for resources.

We need a balanced funding system. The sources of money and 바카라사이트 way in which it is channelled to institutions must preserve both 바카라사이트 public and private benefits of higher education. So tuition fees need to continue to be counterbalanced with block grants to universities, regardless of 바카라사이트ir place in 바카라사이트 perceived pecking order. If 바카라사이트 average annual cost of educating a full-time undergraduate is ?7,500, this would suggest a fee of no more than ?4,000.

It may be necessary for governments to intervene to limit variation in 바카라사이트 level of resources available to different higher education institutions. We should also protect or promote 바카라사이트ir diversity by limiting 바카라사이트ir ability to pursue activities that may raise 바카라사이트ir status but which reduce 바카라사이트 range of opportunities offered by 바카라사이트 sector as a whole. This might include discouraging universities from focusing on research at 바카라사이트 expense of teaching and ensuring that where research is conducted, it enhances ra바카라사이트r than detracts from education (with students genuinely taught by cutting-edge researchers, ra바카라사이트r than 바카라사이트ir PhD students, for example). Surely even 바카라사이트 most status-obsessed vice-chancellor would welcome that.