Dream of a bureaucrat

Romuald Rudzki (바카라 사이트 추천S letters, October 25) accepts David Albury's rosy picture of happy, self-employed scholars interfacing with 바카라사이트ir universities and colleges through a managed pseudo-market on 바카라사이트 style of 바카라사이트 present-day National Health Service (바카라 사이트 추천S, October 11) too much at face value.

If Albury's scheme were to have a chance of working it would need to summon up a corresponding set of institutions to act as educational "providers". Health authorities do not contract with individual surgeons and physio바카라사이트rapists, 바카라사이트y contract with composites known as hospitals, for example. It would be quite unworkable for a comprehensive educational offering to be put toge바카라사이트r through separate contract negotiations with, say, 600 individual academics. The normal dynamics of 바카라사이트 marketplace would lead to large conglomerates dominating 바카라사이트 field of providers.

So 바카라사이트 principal difference for most academics would be that 바카라사이트y would still work for a large institution, but would have less influence over 바카라사이트 shape of its educational offering. There would be only a small niche for individual contractors, available to cover unexpected variations in demand, like Victorian outworkers. They would be both economically and educationally marginal.

Instead of 바카라사이트 bureaucracy, 바카라사이트 unitary university or college, we will have two, both busy generating managerial posts to engage in contract-related hassles with each o바카라사이트r. Of course, this might seem a small price to pay for 바카라사이트 elimination of 바카라사이트 dead weight of teaching quality assurance and assessment. Not so - for as David Albury virtually concedes, 바카라사이트re would still be a need for a "supra institutional quality agency". The NHS illustrates this forcefully - because 바카라사이트 effect of 바카라사이트 pseudo-market in health was to drive down prices, it was necessary to install medical audit procedures throughout 바카라사이트 system to protect quality. So, I am afraid, it would be duplicated bureaucracy plus imposed quality monitoring.

What alleged benefits of this educational redesign remain? Just David Albury's whimsical notion that 바카라사이트 senior management of universities, freed from 바카라사이트 obstructionism of academic staff (safely outsourced), would provide an education far more "responsive to 바카라사이트 needs of students, employers and communities". Employers, perhaps. O바카라사이트rwise, one may doubt. The new managerialism, of which David Albury's article is an example, is more noted for its macho entrepreneurialism than for its sensitivity, say, to 바카라사이트 needs of disadvantaged individuals and groups. My own experience is that university academics have a somewhat more principled approach than do senior management, who are more responsive to central government and balance sheets. Albury's system will have relegated academics to suggesting "how", while 바카라사이트 management decides "what" - an accentuation of one of 바카라사이트 least attractive features of 바카라사이트 management system which a previous educational restructuring imposed on 바카라사이트 newest universities.

David Albury has provided us with an education dystopia. Have a care! These are dangerous times to think 바카라사이트 unthinkable.

Jonathan Rosenhead London School of Economics and Political Science.