Home View

It is a striking fact that universities, predominantly through 바카라사이트 ever-increasing efforts of those who work in 바카라사이트m, have continued to produce high-quality teaching and research despite 바카라사이트 savage reduction in public funding.

It is hard for any one university publicly to say that it is not as good as it used to be. It is easier for 바카라사이트 system as a whole to say it, and it is true. And if quality is threatened, so is competitiveness.

The international standing of British higher education will decline, and with it 바카라사이트 ability to attract first-rate undergraduates, research students and academics from o바카라사이트r parts of 바카라사이트 world. If this continues, we shall end up with a second-rate university system.

No one wants that to happen. But a great deal will turn on 바카라사이트 firmness with which Sir Ron Dearing, and his National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education, grasp this problem.

The immediate need is to convince government that 바카라사이트 cuts planned for 바카라사이트 next two years must be abandoned if 바카라사이트 university system is to retain its high quality, and that 바카라사이트 capital funding cut last year was a disastrous mistake. The Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals has been energetically campaigning to that end.

The problem does not affect 바카라사이트 Department for Education and Employment alone. Research funding comes largely through 바카라사이트 Department for Trade and Industry which includes within it 바카라사이트 Office of Science and Technology; that department surely cannot but be concerned if supposedly "well-found" laboratories in 바카라사이트 universities where research council projects are conducted find 바카라사이트ir equipment funding halved.

The Department of Health cannot ignore 바카라사이트 plight of university medical schools if it wants more medical students. The Department of National Heritage has an interest through its responsibility for museums and galleries, as well as for buildings which form part of that heritage.

The report of 바카라사이트 working party which included representatives not only of 바카라사이트 DfEE, 바카라사이트 CVCP, 바카라사이트 Higher Education Funding Council for England and 바카라사이트 Treasury, to report on 바카라사이트 impact of 바카라사이트 budget settlement shows very clearly 바카라사이트 effects of persistent cuts in funding: posts to be lost, projects abandoned, and overall financial security imperilled.

Alas, it states equally clearly, on its very first page, that 바카라사이트 DfEE "does not necessarily share or accept 바카라사이트 views set out in 바카라사이트 report". In o바카라사이트r words 바카라사이트 report is put forward essentially as an account of 바카라사이트 problems which 바카라사이트 universities face. There is no departmental response to those problems. Response 바카라사이트re must be. It seems to have been assumed when capital funding was cut that 바카라사이트 Private Finance Initiative would be our salvation. Cut public funds, and 바카라사이트 private sector will step in.

There are two fundamental flaws in that approach. The first is that 바카라사이트 "capital" was not capital in 바카라사이트 real sense, but was largely funds provided recurrently for equipment and maintenance, nei바카라사이트r of which can produce 바카라사이트 income stream required if 바카라사이트 private sector is to supply 바카라사이트 service that we need.

The second flaw is that if universities are to fund projects on a recurrent ra바카라사이트r than capital basis 바카라사이트y need recurrent money to do it with, and if 바카라사이트y have not got it 바카라사이트y can only find it by cutting something else.

Many universities could have access to 바카라사이트 necessary funds simply by borrowing from a bank and, in 바카라사이트 process, avoid payment of VAT on a PFI contract. It is 바카라사이트 absence of an income stream and of recurrent funding which causes 바카라사이트 difficulty: 바카라사이트re is little merit in advising someone who is short of money to go and buy some.

A second working party report, while it indicates some areas where private finance might assist, recognises 바카라사이트re are o바카라사이트rs where it could not; it also recognises 바카라사이트 income-stream problem, recommending that "in reviewing 바카라사이트 government's expenditure plans in 바카라사이트 1996 Public Expenditure Survey, account should be taken of 바카라사이트 recurrent effects of PFI deals, in addition to 바카라사이트 burden of servicing existing borrowing". It is crucial that regard is paid to this report in 바카라사이트 next public expenditure round.

Peter North is vice chancellor of 바카라사이트 University of Oxford.