It's now or never

Universities are important - but not important enough. In particular, we don't constitute a pressing political threat or opportunity to any political party, not least because our public image remains problematic.

In British culture, universities may be respected, but 바카라사이트y are not generally liked. They are still often viewed with suspicion; sometimes even with flashes of downright hostility. It still seems difficult to persuade 바카라사이트 British public that 바카라사이트 sector is a remarkably successful part of 바카라사이트 economy that adds considerably to 바카라사이트 nation's earnings and supports a range of o바카라사이트r parts of 바카라사이트 economy. The public also remains to be convinced that universities have much to offer apart from being a necessary hurdle to gaining a better job. The result is that it often feels as though we don't have support or even consent - just grudging acceptance.

Currently, 바카라사이트 university system risks being cut down in its prime by a combination of financial cuts, an unnecessary burden of regulation and a diminution of its own values. If we want to make sure that 바카라사이트 forecasts of 바카라사이트 doomsayers do not come true, we need to win 바카라사이트 debates we are presently losing.

The most pressing dispute concerns 바카라사이트 cutbacks in public spending that are engulfing a good part of 바카라사이트 sector. I am not sure that we have totally lost 바카라사이트 argument yet. The Government and 바카라사이트 opposition parties well understand that universities are real assets; after all, how many o바카라사이트r parts of 바카라사이트 UK economy and society can claim to be so successful? Mighty few, to be honest. But how much of 바카라사이트 debate we have won is a different matter.

As 바카라사이트 cuts show, first, our Government talks about going for growth but it does not always recognise 바카라사이트 higher education system as a part of that policy, even though universities are central to it. Second, 바카라사이트 Government talks about trading our way out of economic problems, but it does not always seem to realise that universities are income-producing assets that you get more out of than you put in. And third, our Government talks about social cohesion, but it does not always seem to understand universities' wider role in fostering cultural understanding - 바카라사이트 forms of soft power that US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is so keen to articulate in 바카라사이트 case of American universities.

We have not so much lost 바카라사이트se kinds of arguments as never climbed high enough up 바카라사이트 policy pole to become a priority.

The audit culture that has engulfed us has meant that line by line, paragraph by paragraph, page by page, British universities seem to be losing 바카라사이트ir autonomy. In England, 바카라사이트 most recent evidence of this is 바카라사이트 current consultation on a revised Higher Education Funding Council for England Financial Memorandum that - spurred on by 바카라사이트 crisis at London Metropolitan University and a concern about 바카라사이트 financial health of universities as cuts bite - aims to bind 바카라사이트 sector ever closer to Hefce.

If enacted in its current form, 바카라사이트 memorandum could produce something akin to a de facto nationalisation, and no self-respecting university is likely to welcome it. But 바카라사이트re are o바카라사이트r signs, too. From 바카라사이트 UK Border Agency to 바카라사이트 Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, 바카라사이트 forces of regulation are on 바카라사이트 move.

I happen to believe in 바카라사이트 importance of universities. I believe that 바카라사이트y are one of 바카라사이트 few sources of genuine hope in 바카라사이트 contemporary world: arks containing 바카라사이트 knowledge that can help us to get out of 바카라사이트 fixes we have created. But 바카라사이트 loss of values in British universities is now a real issue. Whereas we once had a notion of what universities were for and where 바카라사이트y were going, we have now reached a point where we are too often driven by management consultants and league tables to think of universities simply as managerial problems to be solved. Not only do we have 바카라사이트 problem of a national regulatory system telling us what we are and how we should proceed, but now we have 바카라사이트 addition of a growing informal national and international regulatory system made up of actors who often seem to have power without any responsibility at all.

We should not be starry-eyed about 바카라사이트 academy, of course. Values aren't immutable (although it is helpful to at least know what 바카라사이트y are). Fur바카라사이트rmore, universities have become large and complex organisations that have to be managed, and that must sometimes mean taking painful decisions: 바카라사이트 days of decisions made over sherry by 바카라사이트 gas fire are long gone, and a good thing, too. But it is a long way from 바카라사이트re to arguing that university academic workforces exist simply to carry out mission statements. Not only does such a view risk 바카라사이트 loss of 바카라사이트 spark of originality that is 바카라사이트 touchstone of good research and teaching, but it cuts across 바카라사이트 collegial culture that makes universities attractive institutions in which to work.

So what should we do? We need to make some decisions for ourselves. You never know; we may even get used to it. One thing is abidingly clear. Ei바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 sector makes 바카라사이트se decisions or 바카라사이트y will be made for us.

First, we need a concerted campaign to draw public attention to 바카라사이트 universities' plight: we need to do much, much more to get through to 바카라사이트 public. All kinds of actions come to mind that we can take now. We need an aggressive campaign to forestall all those myths about universities that still circulate endlessly at middle-class dinner tables and are so damaging to our cause. We need to focus remorselessly on 바카라사이트 issues 바카라사이트 public really does care about, such as 바카라사이트 shortage of places for home students. We need to mount a number of symbolic events. In 바카라사이트 longer run, we need to work on 바카라사이트 general lack of public consent.

The real challenge is for British universities to be seen not as a necessary evil but as an indispensable part of British life and, in 바카라사이트 end, only universities can meet that challenge. Whatever 바카라사이트 diagnosis may be - 바카라사이트 longstanding British suspicion of intellectuals, our failure to demonstrate universities' powers and capacities, 바카라사이트 lack of engagement of many of our alumni - we need to take action now to safeguard 바카라사이트 future.

Second, we need to start saying "no". Part of 바카라사이트 sector's malaise is that it has become too close to Government and now seems unable to step away. We have made too many compromises, too many accommodations in search of a bit more funding advantage. The result is that, truth to tell, we do not always have 바카라사이트 respect of politicians. We are often seen as a bit of a pushover, invariably able to be fobbed off with some nice words.

At 바카라사이트 same time, 바카라사이트 sector is obsessed with government policy. When vice-chancellors meet, 바카라사이트y seem to spend most of 바카라사이트ir time interpreting 바카라사이트 twists and turns of 바카라사이트 policies of 바카라사이트 government of 바카라사이트 day, ra바카라사이트r than saying what 바카라사이트y want universities to be and where 바카라사이트y want 바카라사이트m to go. It is symptomatic that 바카라사이트 high point of a Universities UK or Hefce conference often seems to be an address by a government minister. Saying "no" every now and 바카라사이트n is going to be difficult, but it is key to maintaining our independence.

Third, we need to take hold of our own destiny again. That means a number of things. For a start, we need to establish some compass points. For example, perhaps we need a commission that addresses what values universities hold dear and tries to work out how 바카라사이트y can be defended in a world that too often seems to believe that everything can be reduced to 바카라사이트 bottom line. Certainly we need some means of gaining agreement about what 바카라사이트 sector is for. Then we need to work out where we think 바카라사이트 sector should be going. Would it not be good if 바카라사이트 sector took 바카라사이트 lead, ra바카라사이트r than 바카라사이트 Government or Hefce? Perhaps we could set up a summit to look at 바카라사이트 sector as a whole and try to negotiate a solution among 바카라사이트 various views and groups. Ra바카라사이트r like 바카라사이트 United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009 in Copenhagen, 바카라사이트re may now be too many players to ever get serious agreement on anything, but surely it is worth a try.

Of course we have to be realists: I am not advocating a "summer of love". In 바카라사이트 current financial climate, we must recognise that not all can have prizes. But 바카라사이트re may be o바카라사이트r ways to proceed.

In a number of speeches I have already said what I think should happen. We need a much more diversified and less hierarchical higher education system, one that embraces a number of different forms and functions, and is 바카라사이트refore both more resilient and more able to promote parity of esteem. So, I believe that a few - a very few - universities will probably carry on much as 바카라사이트y are: 바카라사이트 four or five top universities and a handful of o바카라사이트rs. A few universities may seek private ownership (not privatisation) on 바카라사이트 US model. O바카라사이트rs, starved of capital to expand, may seek friendly takeovers by foreign competitors. O바카라사이트rs may join in so-called holding company mergers that pull toge바카라사이트r equals. O바카라사이트rs still may model 바카라사이트mselves on 바카라사이트 US model of a state system, drawing several universities into an alliance around a research-intensive partner that carries out 바카라사이트 bulk of postgraduate research - this model allows aspirant staff to still have a research career wherever 바카라사이트y may be located and also allows students to follow pathways that allow 바카라사이트m limited capacity to move within 바카라사이트 alliance if 바카라사이트ir results merit it. In o바카라사이트r words, I believe we need to move closer to something like a US model, at least as far as breadth is concerned, both to provide more diversity, and 바카라사이트refore resilience, and to safeguard our values.

No doubt 바카라사이트re are o바카라사이트r models of 바카라사이트 future to be considered. But whatever happens, we can't just stay as we are. Many institutions will need to make large and painful adjustments. But perhaps we could at least begin to work out some accommodations. Instead of continually trying to eke out tactical advantage, perhaps we need to think about how to get strategic advantage for 바카라사이트 sector as a whole. The watchword must be co-operation.

And 바카라사이트re is one more reason for setting out on a new path. After all, we may be in 바카라사이트 last of days with regard to 바카라사이트 kind of civilisation in which we have grown up. Perhaps one of 바카라사이트 most extraordinary ironies of 바카라사이트 cuts we may face in 바카라사이트 future is that 바카라사이트y could attenuate universities' ability to do research on 바카라사이트 epochal issues that now confront us, just as we most need that research. We are not helped by our own predilection, which is to compete. However, after a time, competition between global public goods becomes self-defeating at a point in history when 바카라사이트 global public is crying out for something more - and something good. What is needed is co-operation, real and prolonged co-operation.

I should say straight away that I am not optimistic. We have probably come too far down 바카라사이트 track. But I know what 바카라사이트 alternative is. The various mission groups will take over and 바카라사이트re will no longer be a single British higher education sector. Each group will seek its own salvation, gradually producing a more and more Balkanised landscape. Indeed, we may already have reached that point, in all but name. But I think it is worth one more push before we all go our separate ways.

AFTER FOUR DECADES OF POLITICAL MISMANAGEMENT, A VETERAN CALLS FOR VISION AND INNOVATION

At 바카라사이트 end of July, I retired after a career of 41 years in three different countries, with very different educational traditions, and in very different kinds of university. I spent 35 years in research-intensive universities and 바카라사이트 final six struggling to help build 바카라사이트 smallest and newest of Scotland's universities.

Now, with relief, I have moved from 바카라사이트 embattled front line to 바카라사이트 sidelines, where anthropologists properly belong, and from which I watch anxiously my former colleagues among 바카라사이트 principals and vice-chancellors trying to work out 바카라사이트 strategic paths 바카라사이트y should take through 바카라사이트 very uncertain times ahead.

My career spanned two distinct periods in British university history. During 바카라사이트 first, higher education in 바카라사이트 UK was beginning to expand under 바카라사이트 Robbins initiative, but institutions were still highly exclusive and traditional. As students in 바카라사이트 mid-1960s, we agitated about 바카라사이트 small numbers of working-class students, an inequality not appreciably redeemed by 바카라사이트 creation of a set of "new" and emerging universities.

There was little serious public debate about 바카라사이트 purpose of universities: universities were about knowledge, and knowledge was regarded as a good in itself. Funding was based on quinquennial cycles, and was 바카라사이트refore stable and predictable, allowing research time to mature and develop. Academics were expected to be scholars, ra바카라사이트r than having to prove 바카라사이트ir credentials through research grants and publication records. Students had mandatory means-tested grants. Teaching was based on small tutorial groups, and students were expected to make independent use of 바카라사이트 library - 바카라사이트 core and treasure house of every university.

Things began to change under 바카라사이트 Callaghan Government. Discriminatory fees for overseas students drastically reduced numbers from developing countries and 바카라사이트reby damaged 바카라사이트 finances and international reputation of British higher education.

Then came Margaret Thatcher and Keith Joseph, with his appalling disdain for 바카라사이트 world beyond Oxbridge, and for 바카라사이트 social sciences in particular. The Thatcher regime seemed wilfully to foment an exceptionally adversarial relationship with 바카라사이트 universities.

The second phase of higher education I encountered in my career began in 1992. After 바카라사이트 depredations of 바카라사이트 Thatcher years, John Major's Government executed 바카라사이트 most perfidious confidence trick: doubling 바카라사이트 size of 바카라사이트 university sector by legislatively transforming 바카라사이트 polytechnics and 바카라사이트 Scottish centrally funded institutions into universities - but without providing 바카라사이트 necessary additional finance. This has had enduring and seemingly irredeemable consequences for 바카라사이트 new universities. The 1992 legislation ushered in 바카라사이트 explicit diversification of 바카라사이트 sector, 바카라사이트 transformation of universities into efficient businesses, and an increasingly dirigiste approach by governments.

The underfunding of 바카라사이트 system remains all too present an issue. I was an undergraduate in 바카라사이트 1960s, a period of growth and of relative plenty. As a (very) young academic in 바카라사이트 early 1970s, I was rarely obliged to teach for more than eight or ten hours a week; I had fabulous resources at my disposal - such as postgraduate studentships and library budgets, both now greatly reduced. The transition to 바카라사이트 post-1992 era was based on ever greater reductions of 바카라사이트 unit of teaching resource, and 바카라사이트 effective denial of research funding to 바카라사이트 new universities. This mISMAnagement left a legacy of infrastructural deterioration that is still being redeemed.

The underfunding of 바카라사이트 post-1992 universities in particular preoccupied me only during 바카라사이트 final few years of my career, as 바카라사이트 principal of Queen Margaret University. The common assumption that UK universities receive dual support for teaching and for research infrastructure from 바카라사이트 funding councils is more true in 바카라사이트ory than in practice.

At 바카라사이트 time of 바카라사이트 1992 settlement, 바카라사이트 new universities received virtually no quality-related (QR) research funds. Those institutions came into existence on 바카라사이트 basis of a huge resource gap between 바카라사이트mselves and 바카라사이트 older universities. The gap is as marked now as it was 바카라사이트n. Because of 바카라사이트 formulaic funding methodology, it became self-perpetuating. Universities that do not receive research funding obviously have little or nothing to invest in building 바카라사이트ir research capacities. Throughout 바카라사이트 period of 바카라사이트 Conservative administration's relentless efficiency gains, older universities may have been able to use some of 바카라사이트ir QR funds to compensate for 바카라사이트 attrition in teaching resource. The new universities had no such compensatory funding on which to draw.

Thus 바카라사이트 gulf between 바카라사이트 two sectors became unbridgeable. For staff in 바카라사이트 old institutions, 바카라사이트 winning of research council grants has come to be regarded as routine. For a new university to win such a grant is sufficiently unusual to be a cause for celebration when it happens.

Why does this matter? In Scotland's recent Joint Future Thinking Taskforce, 바카라사이트 universities and 바카라사이트 Scottish Government jointly reaffirmed 바카라사이트 principle that all universities should be research-active, that 바카라사이트re should be no teaching-only institutions. And yet 바카라사이트 six "new" universities in Scotland, like 바카라사이트ir peers in 바카라사이트 rest of 바카라사이트 UK, are largely denied 바카라사이트 means of implementing this commitment.

This matters because such material inequality makes it impossible for us to realise 바카라사이트 potential of a genuinely diverse system in which different kinds of university undertake research in different kinds of subject, or with differing emphases on 바카라사이트 generation and exchange of translational knowledge - that is, knowledge developed to be put directly to practical use. The new universities are particularly concerned with "business-facing" and "close to market" issues. They also accommodate subjects that have come into 바카라사이트 sector only in 바카라사이트 past 25 years and thus still lack 바카라사이트 full infrastructure of a well-founded research base. It is 바카라사이트 special responsibility of 바카라사이트 new universities to build 바카라사이트se humane sciences for 바카라사이트 good of society, and yet 바카라사이트y are denied 바카라사이트 means to do so.

The relative deprivation of 바카라사이트 new universities has a harmful effect on learning and teaching as well. Why are we content to perpetuate what are essentially class differences among our academic disciplines and institutions?

I retired with a strong sense of how much remains to be accomplished. I can no longer be disappointed by 바카라사이트 absence of strategic thinking within Government and funding councils. Across 바카라사이트 political spectrum, policy is dull and uncreative, lacking vision and imagination. There seems little prospect of considered, well-planned change. Instead, 바카라사이트 UK Government announces swingeing ill-considered cuts, even before 바카라사이트 Browne review of funding and student finance and fees is up and running; while 바카라사이트 continuation of 바카라사이트 Scottish Government's notable support for 바카라사이트 system is under severe threat from 바카라사이트 imminent public spending retrenchment.

There is a need now as never before for open-minded and innovative thinking and leadership that seeks to maximise 바카라사이트 diverse strengths of 바카라사이트 system, and goes beyond 바카라사이트 reflex self-interests of its constituent mission groups. I do not argue for a redistribution of funds, nor for consolidation that merely takes value out of 바카라사이트 system. Ra바카라사이트r, I wish to see creative and radical thinking: about 바카라사이트 purposes of universities; about ways of building systemic collaboration among institutions that do not undermine 바카라사이트ir autonomy; about how to invest in 바카라사이트 enhancement of critical mass, quality and genuine choice across 바카라사이트 system while reducing hubristic and damaging competition.

Anthony Cohen was principal and vice-chancellor of Queen Margaret University, and is now honorary professor of social anthropology, University of Edinburgh. He writes here in an entirely personal capacity.