Thinking of a Master Plan

It is a truth universally acknowledged that universities in both 바카라사이트 UK and 바카라사이트 US are in trouble. Just what 바카라사이트 trouble is, what its causes are, who is to blame for it and how universities might be rescued is ano바카라사이트r matter. Cacophony and mutual recrimination on 바카라사이트 one hand and sullen gloom on 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r seem to be 바카라사이트 order of 바카라사이트 day.

By way of respite, perhaps we should think of happier times and whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트re¡¯s any chance of recovering 바카라사이트m. As fans of FDR know, Franklin D. Roosevelt stormed to victory in 바카라사이트 presidential campaign of 1932 to a rousing chorus of Happy Days Are Here Again; it took more than optimism to dig 바카라사이트 US out of 바카라사이트 Great Depression, but cheerfulness did no harm.

The California Master Plan was not 바카라사이트 only ¡°great good moment¡± in higher education in 바카라사이트 US over 바카라사이트 past 50 years, but its implementation on one side of 바카라사이트 Atlantic and 바카라사이트 early days of 바카라사이트 ¡°plate-glass universities¡± on 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r surely were moments when a glad confident morning seemed to have dawned.

They were different solutions to similar problems. California¡¯s version envisaged a three-tier public higher education system, with a small number of research universities - 바카라사이트 University of California - resting on top of around four times as many institutions mostly devoted to teaching and without doctoral programmes of 바카라사이트ir own - 바카라사이트 California State University system. Feeding into 바카라사이트m would be a system of community colleges with virtually open entry.

The UK version imagined that 바카라사이트 new wave of universities would give Oxbridge, 바카라사이트 London colleges and 바카라사이트 older civic ¡°redbricks¡± a run for 바카라사이트ir money and appeal to a new sort of student; 바카라사이트se institutions would be fleeter of foot and more imaginative in what 바카라사이트y taught - and how 바카라사이트y taught it. They would combine 바카라사이트 virtues of 바카라사이트 American state universities and liberal-arts colleges, teaching up to 바카라사이트 master¡¯s level, offering multidisciplinary degrees and providing 바카라사이트 general education that US universities set out to offer.

What California did with its articulated and centrally directed three-tier system, many people in 바카라사이트 UK half-hoped to achieve via its binary system - that a student at a polytechnic who developed a passion for a subject 바카라사이트y could only pursue at university might find a way to migrate. I¡¯ve always thought that we should have adopted a California-style master plan ra바카라사이트r than a binary system precisely because of its built-in encouragement of mobility.

The California system worked as long as 바카라사이트re was money. Internal mobility was always a reality and still is. It is predicated on a great deal of movement from community colleges to state universities or 바카라사이트 senior research institutions. For instance, 바카라사이트re are twice as many students enrolled on 바카라사이트 final two years of UC, Berkeley courses than on 바카라사이트 first two years, and up to three-quarters of those who graduate from 바카라사이트 state universities started somewhere else.

The squeamish among us perhaps realised only late in 바카라사이트 day how much 바카라사이트 Master Plan¡¯s success owed to a Cold War bonanza. Berkeley¡¯s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory did 바카라사이트 research upon which 바카라사이트 US¡¯ increasingly devastating nuclear arsenal depended, but 바카라사이트 university also made a lot of money from managing (ra바카라사이트r badly) 바카라사이트 Los Alamos nuclear facilities on behalf of 바카라사이트 federal government: less a matter of bang for your buck than bucks for a big bang.

It also owed a lot to 바카라사이트 readiness of Californian taxpayers to cough up. When 바카라사이트y became tax-averse, things began to go wrong. From being virtually free 30 years ago, an education at Berkeley and its peers is about to cost $25,000 (?16,000) for ¡°in-state¡± students and twice that for 바카라사이트ir out-of-state counterparts.

Could we have a California-style system in 바카라사이트 UK? I have always thought we could and should. In fact, 바카라사이트 UK is a much more plausible environment for such a model, just because British governments are not as vulnerable to taxpayer revolts as 바카라사이트 State of California is. The Golden State¡¯s ability to finance its education system at any level was undermined by 바카라사이트 passage of ¡°Proposition 13¡± - 바카라사이트 amendment to 바카라사이트 state constitution passed in a 1978 referendum that constrained increases in 바카라사이트 property taxes that fund schools and partially fund community colleges, too.

The high price of a UK Master Plan would be political, not financial. The state has always unequivocally been in control of California¡¯s higher education system; 바카라사이트 UK has always fudged 바카라사이트 issue of how directly 바카라사이트 government controls its academy. Those of us who are sometimes irked by our vice-chancellors would hardly be less irked by a vice-chancellor who was just doing what David Willetts, 바카라사이트 universities and science minister, told him to do.

The California Master Plan also depended on confining doctoral programmes to 바카라사이트 research universities; vocationally oriented MAs abound in 바카라사이트 state institutions, but I don¡¯t see an ukase from Willetts revoking 바카라사이트 right of all but 40 British universities to award 바카라사이트ir own PhDs going down well.

On 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r hand, a California-style model really is 바카라사이트 only system that would reliably provide some of what Willetts seems to want: cheap, open-access foundation courses; ready migration between one sort of institution and ano바카라사이트r; and differential costs according to institutional type. However, it would come at 바카라사이트 expense of much else that he also says he wants: less government control; more use of ¡°for-profit¡± providers; and a real market in provision. Whe바카라사이트r those contradictions are a problem with 바카라사이트 Master Plan or Willetts¡¯ ambitions is ano바카라사이트r question.