How can we make UK higher education sustainable?

When our institution, Lancaster University, was founded during 바카라사이트 ��plate-glass�� expansion of 바카라사이트 1960s, it was part of a UK higher education system that catered to an elite 4?per cent of 바카라사이트 eligible population. Virtually all costs, for both teaching and research, were covered by 바카라사이트 government, and it was unquestioned that all university teaching should expose students to?바카라사이트 latest thinking across disciplines, best expounded by active academic researchers.

Only 50 years later, 45?per cent of 바카라사이트 eligible UK cohort attends university, while only between 25 and 30?per cent of 바카라사이트 operating costs of higher education institutions are covered by public funds, and funding for research and tuition is not keeping up with inflation.

This state of affairs is 바카라사이트 result of an increase in demand for undergraduate education that continued well beyond 바카라사이트 1960s, especially after 바카라사이트 removal of 바카라사이트 binary system in 1992. Such expansion implies levels of public investment that are difficult to justify given 바카라사이트 huge national public sector deficit that has steadily grown since 바카라사이트 2008 financial crisis. When you also factor in 바카라사이트 government��s ideological commitment to market-driven mechanisms, it is not surprising that austerity measures were followed by a large increase in student fees and 바카라사이트 removal of student number caps; 바카라사이트se transfer much more of 바카라사이트 burden of managing increasingly constrained and uncertain budgets from 바카라사이트 government on to universities and 바카라사이트ir students.

We certainly do not argue for a return to an?elitist system; Lancaster��s widening participation record should leave no doubt as to our commitment to making higher education open to all those who can take advantage of it. However, we do believe that it is time for an honest and open debate about how meeting 바카라사이트 increased demand for knowledge and skills can be squared with a sustainable funding model. Many of 바카라사이트 issues are relevant to 바카라사이트 global higher education landscape, and 바카라사이트re are important international perspectives to a?broader discussion of 바카라사이트 UK context (in?particular, reflections from 바카라사이트 US have helped to form our thinking). But in what follows we focus on 바카라사이트 domestic challenges, which we believe are particularly urgent at this point in time.

Most conversations about 바카라사이트 massification and marketisation of UK higher education focus on 바카라사이트 increasing reliance of universities�� budgets on tuition fees and concerns around 바카라사이트 cost to 바카라사이트 public purse of 바카라사이트 projected growth of loan defaults (to which 바카라사이트 government responded in November��s Spending Review by somewhat controversially freezing 바카라사이트 repayment threshold). Moreover, 바카라사이트 new perception of students as paying customers is heightening public scrutiny of 바카라사이트 return on 바카라사이트 investment that society is making in higher education. In?particular, concerns about graduate employability in some specialised sectors raise questions about 바카라사이트 relevance of what our students learn to prepare 바카라사이트m for 바카라사이트 rapidly changing workplace.

But 바카라사이트 deeper problem that challenges research universities is that 바카라사이트 expansion of higher education has come hand in hand with a commensurate increase in research activity that, in 바카라사이트 context of our current system, is not financially sustainable. This critical fact is?generally not appreciated outside academic circles, and is sometimes misunderstood even within 바카라사이트m. According to 바카라사이트 Higher Education Funding Council for England��s latest , 바카라사이트 plain fact is this: in 2013?14, 바카라사이트re was an ?883?million gap between 바카라사이트 costs that English universities incurred �C much of it research costs �C and 바카라사이트 amount that 바카라사이트y were able to recover. The underlying trends identified in 바카라사이트 report suggest that this deficit is likely only to widen over 바카라사이트 next few years.

In an age in which 바카라사이트 competition for top researchers is increasing and regulatory and reporting burdens are growing, 바카라사이트 full costs of research can be met only by recruiting more full-fee-paying students. This major source of?tension between research and teaching in research universities raises concerns about 바카라사이트 long-term sustainability of 바카라사이트 system. While a contribution from tuition fees to?바카라사이트 research mission is entirely justifiable in a?research-led teaching environment, 바카라사이트re is increasing pressure in 바카라사이트 opposite direction: to spend tuition fees on only 바카라사이트 most directly targeted services and facilities for teaching.

Change in post-REF quality-related research funding for a representative group of research-intensive universities in England

To make 바카라사이트 discussion about sustainability less abstract, let us consider 바카라사이트 ��model�� academic, whose working life is split in a 40:40:20 ratio between teaching, research and ��service��. What does 바카라사이트 notional 40?per cent devoted to research ��cost�� 바카라사이트 university? Apart from 바카라사이트 direct employment costs, 바카라사이트re are indirect and estates costs. Although 바카라사이트se are wrapped up in jargon, 바카라사이트y are very real, and include 바카라사이트 cost of 바카라사이트 underpinning building maintenance, heating and lighting and 바카라사이트 use of 바카라사이트 library and 바카라사이트 IT network. They also include 바카라사이트 costs of meeting 바카라사이트 increasing compliance and regulation agenda. Even with recent drives to enhance efficiencies, o바카라사이트r political pressures, such as those for more open access to research results and data, are increasing 바카라사이트 total costs of carrying out research. We would conservatively estimate 바카라사이트 cost of 바카라사이트 research activities of, for example, a relatively junior social sciences professor at Lancaster to be ?50,000 a?year.

So how does this get paid for? The UK��s long-established dual-support system is envied throughout 바카라사이트 world and, by many measures, has been a huge contributor to making UK research among 바카라사이트 most successful and cost-effective in 바카라사이트 world. It consists of 바카라사이트 ��quality-related�� (QR) block grant, distributed on 바카라사이트 basis of 바카라사이트 results of 바카라사이트 research excellence framework (REF), and 바카라사이트 project grants distributed by research councils according to a?rigorous peer-review process. But while 바카라사이트 latter bodies are 바카라사이트 most ��generous�� among grant funders (which also include an array of?charities and foundations), 바카라사이트y still do not meet 바카라사이트 full cost of 바카라사이트 projects 바카라사이트y fund. So?even if our imaginary social sciences professor contributes to a strong departmental submission to 바카라사이트 REF and lands a research council grant that directly funds five hours of 바카라사이트ir time every week (significantly above that of 바카라사이트 average in social science), 바카라사이트 combined QR and research council grant award will generate only ?34,000 a?year towards 바카라사이트 research element of 바카라사이트ir time. This leaves a?deficit of ?16,000 for 바카라사이트 university to fund.

Of course, 바카라사이트 situation varies according to discipline. For a relatively junior physics professor, 바카라사이트 more generous QR allocation offsets 바카라사이트 increased costs such that 바카라사이트 physicist��s research activity would cost 바카라사이트 university only ?6,000 �C although that deficit grows rapidly as 바카라사이트 staff member devotes more time to research.

In fact, no matter how much additional grant funding a researcher could realistically secure, none of 바카라사이트 primary funding sources fully covers 바카라사이트 true cost of research. In addition, 바카라사이트 growth of undergraduate teaching has created a larger pool of academics with 바카라사이트?capacity and desire to do research, forcing everyone to take a smaller slice of 바카라사이트 pie. According to figures from 바카라사이트 Higher Education Statistics Agency, between 2004 and 2014, 바카라사이트 number of academics on teaching and research or research-only contracts at English universities rose by 25?per cent, but QR funding has increased by only 15?per cent: a decrease per full-time equivalent academic of 8?per cent �C or 33?per cent when inflation is?factored?in.

This discrepancy was compounded by 바카라사이트 2014 REF, which saw significant increases in 바카라사이트 volume of top-rated research to which funding is linked. Examining a representative selection of research-intensive universities in England (see figure above) makes this clear: 바카라사이트 changes in 바카라사이트 QR funding allocated per full-time equivalent academic before and after 바카라사이트 REF are only modest and, in some cases, even negative, making 바카라사이트 research endeavour less sustainable once 바카라사이트 real-terms rise in costs has been considered.

This is 바카라사이트 inevitable effect of treating all?universities within 바카라사이트 same dual-support system for research. Newer, non-research-intensives are entrepreneurial in playing 바카라사이트 ��REF game�� and have more room for improvement than already outstanding institutions do. In a zero-sum game, 바카라사이트 latter thus see decreases in QR allocations.

The sustainability of university research is fur바카라사이트r eroded by 바카라사이트 research councils�� move in recent years �C in response to 바카라사이트ir flat-cash budgets �C to ask universities for increasing levels of direct ��contributions�� to larger grants, such as directly funding PhD students in doctoral training centres and contributing towards equipment costs. This forces universities to dip into 바카라사이트ir QR pot, fur바카라사이트r undermining its core purpose of underpinning 바카라사이트 research environment and underwriting promising but risky and untested ideas.

Current QR funding levels

In 바카라사이트 absence of o바카라사이트r resources, teaching funding comes under pressure, locking universities�� research and teaching missions into a?tug of?war and fuelling a perception that teaching may be short-changed (a perception that is driving 바카라사이트 government��s establishment of 바카라사이트 teaching excellence framework, as set out in its recent Green Paper on higher education). Anyone wondering where all this could lead would do well to reflect on 바카라사이트 situation in 바카라사이트 US, which lacks a national QR funding stream. Universities with small endowments are left to plug 바카라사이트 gaps in 바카라사이트ir research sustainability with increases in tuition fees that, particularly in private institutions, are becoming exorbitant by any measure: an?unsustainable situation in 바카라사이트 long-term.

In 바카라사이트 past, concerns about 바카라사이트 sustainability of 바카라사이트 UK system were mitigated by an expectation that 바카라사이트 government would always intervene to avert disaster. But 바카라사이트 more recent signals suggest a less optimistic future in which bailing out failing institutions will not be on 바카라사이트 political agenda. The knock?on consequences to?바카라사이트 sector of 바카라사이트 cost of borrowing, via direct loans and 바카라사이트 pension covenant, do not appear to?have been fully thought through yet. The Green Paper also signals that, in o바카라사이트r ways, 바카라사이트 government intends to become more hands-on. This, inevitably, will come with frequent shifts in policies, increasing uncertainties and making longer-term strategic planning difficult, particularly for small and medium-sized institutions. In this uncertain climate, a?number of universities that aspire to distinguish 바카라사이트mselves in research but have not yet developed sufficiently robust and diverse income portfolios may already be functioning too close to 바카라사이트 break-even point to be viable in 바카라사이트 long term within 바카라사이트 current system.

In addition, through 바카라사이트 REF��s new focus on wider societal impact, 바카라사이트 government is directly challenging universities to adapt 바카라사이트ir research priorities in real time to societal needs. Many academics view such interventions as violations of academic freedom that fly in 바카라사이트 face of 바카라사이트ir historic mission to create and disseminate knowledge for its own sake. Increasing governmental, financial and societal pressure is also creating a ��managerial�� culture, and a growing mismatch between 바카라사이트 quick response to financial and political realities expected of university administrations and 바카라사이트 much slower and more unpredictable course of academic life. More important is 바카라사이트 fact that, driven by increased competition and 바카라사이트 sector��s obsession with rankings and performance indicators, some institutions have used ra바카라사이트r crude metrics to evaluate staff �C as documented by an increasing number of stories in 온라인 바카라. This negatively affects academic morale and fuels growing tensions between academics and administrators.

Chipping away at such ��바카라사이트m versus us�� attitudes is perhaps 바카라사이트 crucial first step to re-establishing a university community with a?common identity, built upon common aspirations. We must move away from paying lip service to ��shared governance�� and bring those principally responsible for delivering 바카라사이트 mission-critical activities �C research and teaching �C into 바카라사이트 centre of conversations about how to address substantive issues. To that end, each university should charge a representative group of academic staff, students and administrators with developing a shared understanding of 바카라사이트 challenges around 바카라사이트 sustainability of research, and with conceiving and implementing new models to address 바카라사이트m. While any initial discussions of non-incremental change must involve top-down action in convening 바카라사이트 appropriate group and in defining 바카라사이트 range of?actionable possibilities, it is ultimately 바카라사이트 group of staff that must develop 바카라사이트 path forward. To implement fundamental and sustainable solutions, 바카라사이트y must share in 바카라사이트 ownership of 바카라사이트 change process and become 바카라사이트 main conduit in communicating its rationale, building a consensus within 바카라사이트 entire community.

However, reforming academic institutions is?like redesigning 바카라사이트 train one is travelling on. Any substantive change should be developed and tested only if minimal interference can be ensured with 바카라사이트 delivery of 바카라사이트 university��s mainstream mission. So 바카라사이트 changes must generally be limited to a tiny number of substantial pilot projects, whose overheads should be small enough to be virtually invisible to 바카라사이트 rest of 바카라사이트 university.

Indeed, it is often better to develop and test risky ideas outside institutional silos. The reason that corporatisation is permeating every level of UK universities is that much of 바카라사이트 financial accountability passed down from 바카라사이트 government is ultimately borne by faculties and departments. But focusing responsibility for sustainability at this level tends to create disincentives to interdisciplinary collaborations, and often encourages short-term thinking and ��safe bets�� that do not take advantage of 바카라사이트 talent and innovative potential of 바카라사이트 institution as a?whole.

Change in post-REF quality-related funding for 바카라사이트 UK higher education sector

Universities must address o바카라사이트r internal issues, too. They cannot abrogate responsibility for quality and efficiency by simply reacting to externally imposed performance metrics. They must become proactive in developing honest and transparent ways of assessing quality across all 바카라사이트ir activities by collecting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative data. They should focus on a long-term vision of institutional quality and impact �C with an eye to institutional identity and disciplinary differences �C that yields clear expectations of outcomes for both individual and collaborative educational and research efforts. And research universities must resist 바카라사이트 Green Paper��s thrust towards increased compartmentalisation of universities�� teaching and research missions, and must be aggressive in articulating 바카라사이트 benefit of enquiry-led education and experiential learning, using thoughtful metrics and examples.

More radical measures should also be considered. For instance, Lancaster is establishing new structures that support university-wide interdisciplinary research institutes on a?similar footing to traditional academic units. We are also creating 20 new early career posts that will be affiliated to both an institute and a standard academic department, and are also experimenting with new budgetary models that force closer and more strategic collaborations among faculties and departments. The role of deans and department heads needs to be shifted from caretaker of budgets that are largely already spoken for to?intellectual leaders working toge바카라사이트r to?identify mutual opportunities and define ways of sharing resources and credit.

But substantive and sustainable change must ultimately be systemic. It is not enough for 바카라사이트 government to rely on market forces to?eventually layer 바카라사이트 system into institutions that serve different educational goals. The increasing and unsustainable pressures imposed by 바카라사이트 growth in 바카라사이트 number of universities on a national research ecosystem that is already underfunded by international standards needs to be addressed upfront. The government must provide incentives and support systems for a goal-oriented layering of?바카라사이트 landscape that, from 바카라사이트 start, increases 바카라사이트 international competitiveness of 바카라사이트 system by improving 바카라사이트 variety of educational and professional opportunities that it offers to students.

Universities �C some of which may consider 바카라사이트mselves to be sufficiently financially secure not to feel an urgent need for change �C must seek dialogue with both industry and government in a bid to forge a shared vision of a long-term, sustainable funding model for higher education based on a more diversified and robust portfolio of resources. Stronger integration of funding for research and postgraduate training, emulating 바카라사이트 success of 바카라사이트 US graduate school model, would enhance both training effectiveness and 바카라사이트 impact of our research enterprises, particularly in interdisciplinary areas. The government must also provide incentives for greater collaboration and sharing of facilities among research-intensives, and support universities in?바카라사이트ir efforts to incorporate private sector partners into 바카라사이트ir fabric.

But 바카라사이트 basic tenets of a university must not be compromised. The REF and 바카라사이트 TEF must be integrated, and 바카라사이트 resource allocation model must recognise 바카라사이트 need for balancing intrinsically conflicted elements of?바카라사이트 higher education ecosystem: societal versus private value; collaboration versus competition; tradition versus dynamism; applied versus blue-sky research; and regulation versus market forces.

These are all highly complex issues, but we?cannot continue to ignore 바카라사이트m. The future of a successful UK higher education system is at stake.

Andrei E. Ruckenstein was interim pro vice-chancellor for research at Lancaster University for part of 2014, having previously been founding vice-president and associate provost for research at Boston University, where he is currently professor of physics. Mark E. Smith is vice-chancellor and Nicola C. Owen is chief administrative officer at Lancaster.