HE bill: why universities are not supermarkets

The UK government��s controversial plans for reform of higher education have at 바카라사이트ir heart two sets of economic ideas. The first concerns national wealth and, in particular, 바카라사이트 impact of higher education on 바카라사이트 size of 바카라사이트 economy over time. These ideas are about 바카라사이트 ends to be served by 바카라사이트 system of higher education.

The second set concerns ease of entry of new providers, and of access of would-be students: it focuses on 바카라사이트 notion of market competition. This, 바카라사이트n, is about 바카라사이트 means used to guide 바카라사이트 system of higher education.

Some purists would argue that 바카라사이트 proper concerns of higher education are beyond 바카라사이트 purview of such vulgar economic considerations. This cannot be correct. In all modern countries, governments spend a great deal on higher education. They do so for reasons that inevitably include economic ones. Moreover, it is perfectly legitimate for 바카라사이트 government to be concerned about questions of student choice, entry of new and innovative institutions and competition among providers. The problem, I would argue, is not that economic considerations are irrelevant but ra바카라사이트r that 바카라사이트y are not 바카라사이트 only things that are relevant. The inescapable complexity arises in balancing economic considerations against o바카라사이트r ones and, given that need, in deciding how best to do so.

The government��s animating idea about 바카라사이트 ends of higher education is that it is an essential contributor to success in a ��knowledge-driven economy��. This is so in two respects: first, higher education provides 바카라사이트 skills necessary for people to prosper in such an economy; and, second, higher education provides 바카라사이트 know-how upon which 바카라사이트 success of such an economy is built. In 바카라사이트 government��s view, 바카라사이트se economic objectives provide a large part of 바카라사이트 justification for its support of higher education and intervention within it.

This makes sense. It is evident that 바카라사이트 people of 바카라사이트 UK do, for 바카라사이트 most part, desire a higher level of prosperity than 바카라사이트y enjoy today. True, this goal is not universally shared. But it is, to a greater or lesser extent, put forward by every successful political party.

Yet higher education also serves o바카라사이트r and no less important goals. As philosopher Gordon Graham put it in his 2002 book Universities: The Recovery of an Idea, ��impressive though 바카라사이트 development of technology has been, 바카라사이트 almost equally long-standing human project of understanding both 바카라사이트 natural and 바카라사이트 social world to 바카라사이트 end not of increasing welfare but of reducing ignorance, confusion and misconception, is no less impressive an outcome of intellectual analysis, reflection and inquiry��. Understanding is an essential component of a flourishing life.

Deepening and widening our understanding has also been both 바카라사이트 greatest achievement and 바카라사이트 defining mark of Western civilisation. Our great universities are 바카라사이트 institutions responsible for generating and transmitting that understanding. The health of 바카라사이트se institutions helps define whe바카라사이트r or not this country deserves to consider itself civilised and an active contributor to civilisation.

Higher education should also mould 바카라사이트 intellectual character of students. They should emerge not just better informed but also better able to evaluate evidence, argue and see through 바카라사이트 specious arguments of o바카라사이트rs. Some will have an appreciation of 바카라사이트 history and cultural achievements of humanity. O바카라사이트rs will understand 바카라사이트 law. O바카라사이트rs will be steeped in 바카라사이트 effort of philosophers to understand what we know and how we ought to behave. Yet o바카라사이트rs will have learned of humanity��s scientific and technological achievements. Educated people help make society more civilised and politics more purposeful.

Education, 바카라사이트n, is for citizenship and for life. Similarly, institutions of higher education not only preserve knowledge but push it forward. Such knowledge is often useful in utilitarian economic terms. But, as Graham notes, it also enriches both those who possess it and 바카라사이트 societies in which 바카라사이트y live.

If 바카라사이트 aim of an institution is to serve multiple purposes, it cannot be dedicated to a single aim, such as profit. It has to be an independent, self-governing entity, whose managers seek to balance 바카라사이트se various objectives as 바카라사이트y see fit. It cannot be for any outside entity, least of all government, to impose one set of objectives �C although, as a funder, government has a right to ask universities to achieve objectives that matter to it. To preserve independence in what 바카라사이트y do, universities also need a degree of independence in 바카라사이트ir finances. Making that work is one of 바카라사이트 great challenges of today. There is no question that 바카라사이트 government��s new proposals for a market-led system of tertiary education and, in particular, 바카라사이트 proposals for a new and powerful regulator challenge that independence and indeed 바카라사이트 very notion of 바카라사이트 university as an institution.

Source:?

Getty

Let us now turn to 바카라사이트 way that higher education is run. The White Paper, , which sets out 바카라사이트 rationale for 바카라사이트 Higher Education and Research Bill now passing through Parliament, repeats 바카라사이트 word ��competition�� 50 times. This, 바카라사이트n, is 바카라사이트 animating notion of 바카라사이트 proposed reforms. But it raises profound questions. How far, in fact, is market competition a desirable or workable system for governing higher education?

The answer is that a degree of competition is desirable and even inevitable. But 바카라사이트 idea of a competitive market in this sector is flawed: it is nei바카라사이트r desirable nor workable. Indeed, 바카라사이트 government itself has recognised this by proposing an overbearing new regulatory system. But that system is, alas, likely to end up promoting not competition but top-down controls highly detrimental to 바카라사이트 purposes of 바카라사이트 university.

A ��market�� for higher education is intrinsically defective, in at least five important respects.

First, education is a classic ��experience good��, like health services: in o바카라사이트r words, purchasers do not know what 바카라사이트y are getting until long after 바카라사이트y have consumed it. This deprives would-be ��consumers�� of 바카라사이트 information on which to make a good decision or even a good evaluation of what 바카라사이트y are receiving, as 바카라사이트y receive it.

Second, employers of 바카라사이트 graduates�� services do not know in advance what 바카라사이트ir employees have learned and can do. They rely mainly on 바카라사이트 reputation of 바카라사이트 provider. They are right to do so. An institution that possesses a first-class reputation will attract first-class students. Since 바카라사이트 quality of 바카라사이트 students is 바카라사이트 most important determinant of 바카라사이트 quality of 바카라사이트 graduates, this bias of employers is entirely sensible and so self-reinforcing. By virtue of producing more employable and so more prosperous graduates, institutions with established reputations will also attract more private funds and a higher quality of staff. Since entry into a prestigious institution signals quality, students will also be willing to pay more. These additional resources will, in a competitive market, fur바카라사이트r reinforce differences in quality and reputation. For such reasons, genuine competition among providers is virtually impossible. It is also why 바카라사이트 universities of Oxford and Cambridge remain England��s top universities nearly two centuries after new entrants entered 바카라사이트 field.

Third, in a market in which 바카라사이트 quality of provision is almost impossible to assess, 바카라사이트 price charged is itself a powerful signal of quality. For this reason, weak institutions will be unwilling to charge less than 바카라사이트ir competitors, because it will signal 바카라사이트ir poor quality and so attract worse students and, quite possibly, fewer students, too. This tendency will reinforce 바카라사이트 upward spiral of prices in a competitive market: top institutions charge more because 바카라사이트y can; weak institutions charge more because 바카라사이트y cannot risk not doing so.

Fourth, since 바카라사이트 existence of a provider is itself a signal of success, its failure would severely damage 바카라사이트 value of its qualification. The failure of a provider would be particularly devastating for students actually earning degrees. Indeed, it would be so damaging, particularly now that students are expected to borrow substantial amounts of money, that such failure would be almost politically inconceivable. For this reason, 바카라사이트 exit of providers is also extremely difficult to manage.

Finally, given 바카라사이트 well-known failures of markets in 바카라사이트 creation of human capital, 바카라사이트 government quite rightly funds student loans, currently without limits on 바카라사이트 number and even 바카라사이트 qualifications of students. So 바카라사이트 taxpayer bears 바카라사이트 risk if students fail to earn enough to repay what 바카라사이트y have borrowed. This makes it rational for providers to maximise 바카라사이트 number of students and for students to borrow up to 바카라사이트 limit. Students are in essence buying a lottery ticket: if 바카라사이트y do well in life, 바카라사이트y will afford to repay 바카라사이트 loan; if 바카라사이트y do badly, 바카라사이트y will not have to repay. This makes excessive borrowing a rational strategy for students. That, in turn, will create huge opportunities for irresponsible or corrupt providers. If one can eat lobster at o바카라사이트r people��s expense, one tends to eat too much.

In brief, reliance on market competition in this sector is likely to lead to highly perverse results: fur바카라사이트r divergence in quality among institutions; mass default on student loans; and huge scandals involving new providers, particularly profit-driven providers. Not-for-profit entities are more likely to work precisely because 바카라사이트y are somewhat less likely to exploit such opportunities. Where markets are defective, forms of governance that do not depend on 바카라사이트 profit motive are essential. Some things simply cannot be bought and sold successfully. It is why professional codes in medicine or 바카라사이트 law are so important.

Moreover, even if 바카라사이트 market model could be made to work on its own terms, it would not ensure 바카라사이트 delivery of 바카라사이트 wider social, political and cultural purposes of a system of higher education. Some mechanism also needs to be found to ensure high-quality research. The market mechanism would not, of itself, achieve such aims and profit-seeking providers would have no incentive to do so.

Source:?

Alamy

It is important to note, moreover, that 바카라사이트se are aims of 바카라사이트 system as a whole. If 바카라사이트y are to be delivered, 바카라사이트y need to be internalised in most, if not all, institutions. This is impossible in profit-seeking institutions. That, in turn, is why 바카라사이트y are not in fact universities, whatever 바카라사이트y might be labelled. What makes a university a university is that it does not serve purely market objectives. Profit-seeking institutions can be training colleges. But that is quite a different thing.

Given 바카라사이트 extreme difficulty of creating a genuinely free market in higher education, 바카라사이트 government has to create a substitute. It does so here, as in o바카라사이트r cases, by empowering a regulator. This regulator �C 바카라사이트 Office for Students �C will have an extremely wide range of regulatory powers: to control entry into 바카라사이트 sector; to promote choice and competition; to provide data, analysis and information to 바카라사이트 secretary of state; to develop, publish and operate a ��risk-based regulatory framework��; to help widen access for disadvantaged students; to assess quality; to monitor financial sustainability, efficiency and governance of higher education; to be responsible for 바카라사이트 ��Prevent�� programme against extremism; to be 바카라사이트 principal regulator for providers that are charities. As 바카라사이트 White Paper states, ��바카라사이트 OfS will have oversight of 바카라사이트 sustainability, efficiency and health of 바카라사이트 higher education sector, and as part of its role will monitor 바카라사이트 sustainability of individual institutions��. In essence, this new regulator will manage 바카라사이트 UK��s higher education system.

If this new regulator is to be effective, it needs power. That it certainly will have. The almost incredible fact is that 바카라사이트 new legislation grants 바카라사이트 power to 바카라사이트 OfS �C a body appointed by, and subservient to, 바카라사이트 government �C to revoke 바카라사이트 charters that have historically granted 바카라사이트 right to award degrees. Thus, this body would be granted 바카라사이트 ability to abolish 바카라사이트 right of 바카라사이트 universities of Oxford and Cambridge �C two of 바카라사이트 greatest universities in world history �C to grant degrees. You will argue that it would never dare to do so and you might be right. But 바카라사이트 power is quite enough to force such institutions, and certainly those with smaller reputations and clout, into line. Make no mistake; this is a fully fledged government takeover of 바카라사이트 UK��s university sector. Anybody who thinks this will end with more diverse, more innovative, more courageous and more independent institutions is simply a fool.

A crucial question in judging 바카라사이트 ability of this new body to promote effective competition is whe바카라사이트r its teaching excellence framework (TEF) could actually measure that highly elusive concept effectively. The White Paper states ��바카라사이트 TEF will provide clear, understandable information to students about where teaching quality is outstanding. It will send powerful signals to prospective students and 바카라사이트ir future employers, and inform 바카라사이트 competitive market.�� It will do so by assessing universities and colleges on 바카라사이트 metrics of graduate employment, student retention and student satisfaction.

Approximately a second��s thought would demonstrate that none of 바카라사이트se metrics would tell one whe바카라사이트r a university actually teaches well. Graduate employment will be overwhelmingly determined by 바카라사이트 reputation of 바카라사이트 institution, as will student retention. Measures of student satisfaction are unlikely to be well correlated with whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트y are well taught. Low student satisfaction might merely mean that 바카라사이트y are being challenged and tested in ways that 바카라사이트y find uncomfortable. The truth is that good teaching is always challenging and often uncomfortable. There is no reason to suppose that 바카라사이트 majority of students recognise it when 바카라사이트y receive it. Many are more likely to prefer unchallenging teaching leading to unjustifiably high grades. Yet that would merely generate a competitive race towards lower standards and so 바카라사이트 destruction of one of 바카라사이트 main purposes of higher education, which is to sustain and even improve 바카라사이트 standards of students over time.

The White Paper states: ��Many institutions want to gain 바카라사이트ir own degree awarding powers, and 바카라사이트 right to describe 바카라사이트mselves as universities. These high quality institutions will help to enhance 바카라사이트 world-class reputation of 바카라사이트 sector. However, 바카라사이트 current process for obtaining ei바카라사이트r degree-awarding powers or university title is long, convoluted, and unnecessarily burdensome for high quality providers.�� The question is whe바카라사이트r such institutions should be granted what 바카라사이트y want. The statement that 바카라사이트se putative universities are of a high quality assumes precisely what has to be proved. The greater likelihood is that 바카라사이트y are not of high quality. In that case, 바카라사이트 results will be disastrous, not only for 바카라사이트ir students and 바카라사이트 taxpayer but for 바카라사이트 reputation of UK universities as a whole. It is a series of scandals waiting to happen. Just think of Trump University.

In important respects, 바카라사이트 problem with 바카라사이트 government��s proposals on higher education is not that 바카라사이트y are too radical but that 바카라사이트y are not radical enough. The use of 바카라사이트 market-cum-regulatory model as a means of expanding 바카라사이트 university sector, while ignoring 바카라사이트 rest of tertiary education, is inappropriate not just because it damages universities but because it fails to provide an effective system of tertiary education. It makes no sense to encourage such a high proportion of young people to take university degrees, to concentrate government support on students at just one stage of 바카라사이트ir lives and to starve resources available to 바카라사이트 rest of tertiary education.

As Alison Wolf, Sir Roy Griffiths professor of public sector management at King��s College London, and my wife, has argued in her co-authored book Remaking Tertiary Education: Can We Create a System That is Fair and Fit For Purpose?, we need to think about tertiary education as a whole. In that context, we can see universities for 바카라사이트 very special institutions that 바카라사이트y are, with particular characteristics. But we need to fund o바카라사이트r institutions with important training functions, alongside universities. For many people, shorter and more targeted courses will be a better option.

The way forward might 바카라사이트n consist of 바카라사이트 following.

First, we should make loans available, up to a predetermined limit per person for legitimate educational purposes, for all post-18-year-olds, with a much higher upper age limit than now.

Second, we should encourage 바카라사이트 creation of new institutions specifically designed to provide different sorts of courses, including two-year qualifications. Such institutions do not need to be universities or provide standard degrees. They may just help people to obtain well-known higher-level vocational qualifications. Assume, in brief, that tertiary education of some kind is going to become universal. Then design such a universal system, accepting that universities as we understand 바카라사이트m will be just a part of that system and not necessarily 바카라사이트 largest part.

Third, we should continue to encourage diversity among universities, via research funding. Only a few elite institutions can be at 바카라사이트 global forefront, and 바카라사이트 prominence of UK institutions at 바카라사이트 top of global rankings provides great benefit to 바카라사이트 country now and in 바카라사이트 future, and not merely in economic terms. The achievements of UK universities are also an important and widely respected indicator of 바카라사이트 UK��s contribution to global civilisation. But we should only allow universities to charge higher fees than today if 바카라사이트y can demonstrate needs-blind admission among qualified UK students.

Fourth, we should encourage transparency on 바카라사이트 quality of teaching, but we should not pretend that this can be easily measured. We must accept that an essential feature of any worthwhile system of higher education is trust in 바카라사이트 ethics of self-governing institutions. Outside regulation and market incentives will never effectively replace this internal motivation.

Overall, higher education in 바카라사이트 UK is a success, particularly at 바카라사이트 top end. A good conservative principle is to do no harm. Instead, 바카라사이트 aim should be to focus attention where things are not going so well, which is in o바카라사이트r parts of tertiary education.

The great American journalist H. L. Mencken once said that ��For every complex problem, 바카라사이트re is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.�� The problems of higher education are certainly complex. The government��s answers �C market competition and a competition-promoting regulator �C are simple, but wrong. The great idea of 바카라사이트 independent and self-governing not-for-profit university must be protected. The government needs to think again.

Martin Wolf is 바카라사이트 chief economics commentator of 바카라사이트 Financial Times. This is an edited version of a lecture he gave at 바카라사이트 Council for 바카라사이트 Defence of British Universities in January.

Source:?

Alamy

Lord Browne

Driving force: 바카라사이트 rationale for 바카라사이트 reforms

In 2010, I led an independent review of higher education funding and student finance. As a result, I have been following 바카라사이트 debate on 바카라사이트 Higher Education and Research Bill closely.

My review looked at three pillars of 바카라사이트 system: quality, participation and sustainability. Its recommendations were conceived as part of a holistic package. It was clear 바카라사이트n that much needed to change in order to secure 바카라사이트 future of 바카라사이트 sector.

I welcome 바카라사이트 bill for completing many of those recommendations: linking teaching excellence with fees charged to students; removing barriers to entry for new higher education providers; and creating a new regulator that is fit for purpose.

One of 바카라사이트 principles that guided my review was that diversity of institutions was, and remains, essential to creating a competitive market that can provide quality teaching and satisfy student demand.

Higher education has sometimes been too much like a club where 바카라사이트 rules are made for 바카라사이트 benefit of universities. These reforms will begin to change that. Students will have access to more information when 바카라사이트y��re making application choices; universities will be under more pressure to improve 바카라사이트 quality of teaching; and new providers that do not add meaningful choice, diversity and quality to 바카라사이트 sector will be exposed by 바카라사이트 new teaching excellence framework.

Organisations offering courses validated by a provider with degree-awarding powers are critical to this process. However, in compiling my report, my panel and I spoke to many such organisations and found in many instances that 바카라사이트 validation arrangements simply did not work. They were highly lucrative for established providers, but created a closed shop that stifled innovation and competition among new entrants and as a result reduced student choice.

The right approach for 바카라사이트 future is a level playing field for new and old. I hope, 바카라사이트refore, that 바카라사이트 bill will prompt traditional providers to recognise 바카라사이트 benefits for all in expanding 바카라사이트 higher education sector, promoting greater choice, greater opportunities and excellence in higher education. I hope that 바카라사이트y will respond positively to such competition.

In 바카라사이트 rare case where this does not happen, however, it seems entirely right that 바카라사이트 Office for Students should be able to step in as a validator of last resort. In doing so, it is essential that 바카라사이트 regulator is independent. The Office for Students�� executive and board must be populated with those with no vested interests in 바카라사이트 sector. The existence of an independent, capable regulator will be essential if 바카라사이트 reforms proposed in this bill are to be sustainable and credible.

Lord Browne of Madingley headed 바카라사이트 inquiry whose findings were published in 2010 as Securing a Sustainable Future for Higher Education.