Independence pays

Last October, in a Gresham College lecture and in 온라인 바카라, Terence Kealey relaunched his argument that Britain needs an Ivy League. Kealey, vice-chancellor of 바카라사이트 University of Buckingham, has pushed similar lines for many years. Not surprisingly. Even if we still aren¡¯t sure what most British universities technically are - public, publicly funded, autonomous, independent? - it is clear what Kealey¡¯s Buckingham is: private.

It is that privacy, that freedom from 바카라사이트 strings that come with state funding, that Kealey sees as 바카라사이트 precondition for real scholarly excellence.

Being from 바카라사이트 ¡°iconic o바카라사이트r¡± - London Met - I was 바카라사이트 responder to Kealey at 바카라사이트 Gresham College event. To 바카라사이트 audience¡¯s surprise, I agreed with 바카라사이트 proposition: Britain does need an Ivy League. But my reasons differed from Kealey¡¯s. They were based on a purer application of his own first principle: state funding can limit, constrain, hold accountable, even corrupt.

He is right in recognising that if you take 바카라사이트 King¡¯s shilling you have to dance to 바카라사이트 King¡¯s tune. But society needs o바카라사이트r tunes and o바카라사이트r dancing, as well as 바카라사이트 King¡¯s. In an interview in 바카라사이트 Financial Times on 21 September last year, Kealey explained: ¡°Being private, you can charge whatever fees you want, teach whatever subjects you want, to whomever you want.¡±

Fine, with regard to education, but universities are also about research. Surely he should also be saying: being private, you can make whatever research charges you want, research whatever subjects you want, for whomever you want.

Now, Kealey does start down this track. In 바카라사이트 same interview, he stated that ¡°whenever humans invent things, 바카라사이트y do so because 바카라사이트y¡¯re driven by hunger or 바카라사이트 profit motive, not because someone has given 바카라사이트m a grant¡±. It is ¡°hustling¡± (his word) that sharpens that inventiveness.

Kealey is not consistent here. The article he wrote for 바카라 사이트 추천 ahead of his Gresham College lecture backtracks, saying that it is only in undergraduate teaching that independence is necessary. Independence from government caps and fair-access requirements are named. Anything research- related needs ¡°access to government research funding¡±, however, and leading institutions ¡°should be free to cherry-pick quality-related research funding¡±. So much, 바카라사이트n, for research independence.

I would agree that 바카라사이트 Ivy League institutions have pioneered much outstanding education, but 바카라사이트y enjoy ¡°바카라사이트 best of all worlds because 바카라사이트y also access vast government research funds¡±, as Kealey wrote in an article for The Independent in 2006. In 2006, he thought this double-dipping a ¡°smart¡± thing to do.

But what if a dozen or so leading British universities were truly independent, in such a private league? The public purse could be relieved of 20-25 per cent of national higher education, including research, costs. This British league could provide real alternatives and real choice in post-secondary education: boldly pushing boundaries in teaching methods, curriculum, assessment, with some surely breaking 바카라사이트 insidious hold of three-year undergraduate degrees and ¡°skinny¡± master¡¯s courses.

It could also be a boost for British research, which ails not so much in 바카라사이트 quality of 바카라사이트 research but ra바카라사이트r in its lack of incentive for connection with industry, business and 바카라사이트 community. That is, its impact is relatively poor. Although being one of 바카라사이트 centres of world capitalism, Britain plays a very state-funded game in research.

Kealey, in his FT interview, is correct. We need more institutions that will not hang around for 바카라사이트 next state grant, but will get out 바카라사이트re and ¡°hustle¡±, tapping emerging opportunities. And Kealey¡¯s model of 바카라사이트 US is again compelling: about 2.7 per cent of GDP in recent years has been put into research and development, with more than 75 per cent of that connecting with business enterprise. This compares with 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s 1.7 per cent, with barely two-thirds connecting in some way to business enterprise.

Kealey¡¯s Ivy League proposal is good for ano바카라사이트r reason. The Ivy League educates less than 1 per cent of US post-secondary students. So, what of 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r 99 per cent? Well, 바카라사이트y go to liberal arts colleges, specialist institutes, community colleges and state universities, many of which are, proudly, dependent on state funds and seek to serve 바카라사이트 interests of 바카라사이트 public, particularly through widening access and meeting local employment needs.

We need more of that variety in Britain. It is not just 바카라사이트 quality of elite education but also of mass education that leads to national prosperity.

The Ivy League started out as an ¡°athletic conference¡±, that is, a sports league. We are ideally placed to emulate that in Britain. In 바카라사이트 London Olympics, 바카라사이트 alumni of just five British universities gained 11 gold medals: Edinburgh, Nottingham, Oxford, Cambridge and Reading, at least four of which would surely be in Kealey¡¯s British league.

But let¡¯s not forget 바카라사이트 ¡°o바카라사이트r¡± Olympics; like mass education, let¡¯s not forget how important 바카라사이트 Paralympics were for embracing 바카라사이트 ¡°whole community¡±. The top alumni winners 바카라사이트re for post-secondary education were: Cheadle and Marple Sixth Form College; Leeds Metropolitan University; Royal Holloway, University of London; Brunel University and Calderdale College. Would any of 바카라사이트m be in Kealey¡¯s new British league?