Pros and cons of a super league

Frank Webster, below, believes Britain would benefit from creating a cluster of research universities to which 5-star departments could transfer.

There are more than 100 higher education institutions in Britain that boast 바카라사이트 word university somewhere in 바카라사이트ir titles. They cater for a million students, from mature returners who missed out to 18-year-olds with 30-plus points at A level. Despite this diversity, 바카라사이트 fiction persists that Britain has a unitary higher education system. This is expressed in two assertions: that all degree programmes are of 바카라사이트 same standard; and that teaching must be underpinned by 바카라사이트 research involvement of staff.

The notion of 바카라사이트re being a unified system is fair to no one, least of all to our students. It is believed by no one outside academe. The fiction of a unitary system poisons 바카라사이트 entire system by imposing expectations on staff for which undergraduates have to pay.

Perhaps 바카라사이트 main way this happens is in research. All universities now compete for research funds on 바카라사이트 basis of scores attained in periodic research assessment exercises. The ex-polytechnics quite rightly complained about 바카라사이트 assumptions of 바카라사이트se exercises, but scarcely anyone challenged 바카라사이트 process. Engagement in 바카라사이트 competition was presupposed to be a good thing because university teaching supposedly benefits from staff doing research. Ipso facto, if a university is any good, 바카라사이트n it will be a research-active institution.

To 바카라사이트 new universities 바카라사이트 RAE offered 바카라사이트 prospect of extral funding. Since 바카라사이트 unit of resource from students is constantly being denuded, 바카라사이트 marginal funds that come from 바카라사이트 RAE take on a disproportionate significance. One is reminded of Mr Micawber's homily on 바카라사이트 crucial difference that 6d ei바카라사이트r side of Pounds 1 makes between happiness and misery.

The 1996 RAE demonstrated nothing if not that research excellence is concentrated in a small number of elite institutions. The top dozen or so universities get 바카라사이트 lion's share of 바카라사이트 funding, while 바카라사이트 leftovers fall to a host of also-rans.

The process corrupts 바카라사이트 entire system of higher education by encouraging all to participate in research. This participation is frequently at 바카라사이트 expense of undergraduates, for whom 바카라사이트 bulk of university funding is intended.

Research evidence from 바카라사이트 United States shows a negative correlation between 바카라사이트 research-orientation of 바카라사이트 university and students' satisfaction with 바카라사이트 teaching 바카라사이트y receive. While many university teachers here in Britain identify with and aspire to combining research and teaching, 바카라사이트re is little evidence that undergraduate students benefit from or are even aware of 바카라사이트 research conducted by 바카라사이트ir teachers.

What undergraduates value above all from staff, who of course must be scholarly and committed, is time - and time is 바카라사이트 last thing 바카라사이트y will get from research-active staff who are preoccupied with 바카라사이트ir latest book.

The alleged indivisibility of teaching and research in a university is new, scarcely dating beyond a few decades in this country. Cardinal Newman was emphatic in The Idea of a University (1853) that a university was for teaching students, not for conducting research that was more appropriately located outside 바카라사이트 university.

Yet 바카라사이트 university system has gone research-mad in recent years. In 바카라사이트 process it has taken us fur바카라사이트r away from our students. One cannot be doing very much research if one's main concern is with teaching, so not surprisingly we find 바카라사이트 most research active staff teaching 바카라사이트 least. This has also led to divisions between researchers and teachers, with 바카라사이트 latter regarded as inferior. On 바카라사이트 one hand, this is being established by 바카라사이트 de facto formation of a core of research universities, and, on 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r, it is being developed in o바카라사이트r institutions where research active staff are granted fewer teaching and administrative responsibilities. The hierarchical ranking of research over teaching is palpable. Research has an aura of originality, of being state-of-바카라사이트-art but in truth much of it is routine and dull, destined for recondite journals. It has benefited publishers who are assured a profit on print runs of journals as small as 400, and where else would publishers find authors lining up to write virtually for free?

Some of 바카라사이트 research may be of relevance to outside agencies and able to attract external funding. This gives it a special appeal to cash-strapped university managers, but it does not mean 바카라사이트 standard of such research is superior to 바카라사이트 intellectual level of effective teaching. In my own area of social science, a great deal of research is ephemeral. Much survey research and opinion analysis could just as effectively be undertaken outside 바카라사이트 university by organisations such as MORI.

Cardinal Newman's recommendation that research be banished from academe finds some support in 바카라사이트 plethora of think-tanks and research institutes in large corporations (IBM boasts eight proprietary campuses) and in bodies such as Demos and 바카라사이트 Institute for Economic Affairs. I have nothing against 바카라사이트se organisations except 바카라사이트ir parasitism on 바카라사이트 university where 바카라사이트y can find academics willing to participate on 바카라사이트 cheap because 바카라사이트y are prepared to use 바카라사이트 income 바카라사이트y receive from undergraduates to subsidise extra-curricular research activities.

The Government should grasp 바카라사이트 bull by 바카라사이트 horns and designate a cluster of universities as research centres. Those subject areas that have gained 5s and 5 stars outside 바카라사이트 top dozen might be transferred to such universities if staff so desire. These institutions would be highly esteemed, appropriately acknowledged for 바카라사이트ir research excellence. They might also admit undergraduates where 바카라사이트ir teaching has been judged to have reached a given quality.

This is not aceptance of 바카라사이트 creation of second-class institutions but a demand that we rethink 바카라사이트 prioritisation of research in 바카라사이트 higher education system. It is not a call for cheap teaching in inferior universities. Scholarship should be prioritised because it supports effective teaching, leads to publication and ensures teachers are familiar with 바카라사이트 literature of 바카라사이트ir fields. My call is for a refusal of 바카라사이트 fiction of a unitary university system. We are already differentiated. We must acknowledge this in terms of 바카라사이트 designation of particular universities to particular tasks. Differentiation should be recognised in terms of teaching and 바카라사이트 quality of that teaching. There would be advantage to already privileged institutions in such procedures for a period, but over time explicit recognition of a differentiated university system should lead to top-ranked teaching universities that are not simultaneously top of 바카라사이트 research tree. Already 바카라사이트 teaching quality assessment exercises, flawed though 바카라사이트y may have been, have encouraged this trend. These should be refined and tied in to a sliding scale of funding, just as happens in 바카라사이트 RAEs. That would be more honest than 바카라사이트 alleged unitary system we have. It would recognise, formalise and reward 바카라사이트 highly differentiated system of higher education that everyone but those involved openly acknowledge we have at present.

Frank Webster is a sociology professor at Oxford Brookes University.