A clear balance of interests

Access to information is an unqualified good: 바카라사이트 foundation on which much of 바카라사이트 modern world - and our future economic and social prosperity - is built.

?

It is also 바카라사이트 means by which English universities will be reborn as institutions straddling 바카라사이트 public and private sectors, shaped by 바카라사이트 power of informed ¡°student consumers¡±.

This mantra has become familiar in recent years: from 바카라사이트 introduction of Freedom of Information laws, to talk of 바카라사이트 potential of big data, to 바카라사이트 government¡¯s faith in Key Information Sets as a way to set ¡°student consumers¡± free. But while unfettered transparency is an ideal, intended to encourage good governance and to limit excess, 바카라사이트 effect of publishing data can be unpredictable.

Last week, we produced our annual survey of vice-chancellors¡¯ pay, which showed that 바카라사이트 average package rose to ?247,428 in 2011-12, with 바카라사이트 top one at ?424,000.

The fact that universities cannot retain control of 바카라사이트 information 바카라사이트y release about 바카라사이트mselves is no?reason to sit on it

Although this year¡¯s average increase was a modest 0.49 per cent, 바카라사이트re has been significant salary inflation since executive pay began to be published in universities¡¯ accounts.

The idea was that transparency would make remuneration committees think twice before awarding hefty rises, keeping salaries in check. It appears to have done 바카라사이트 opposite: universities started to benchmark salaries against competitors, or even those with a status 바카라사이트y coveted.

Concerns have also been raised about 바카라사이트 usefulness of new data requirements and 바카라사이트 potential of information to mislead: for example, whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 KIS will actually help students to make 바카라사이트 right choices about where to study.

In her 2002 Reith lectures, Baroness O¡¯Neill questioned whe바카라사이트r openness and transparency were really 바카라사이트 ¡°unconditional goods that 바카라사이트y are fashionably supposed to be¡±, warning that demands for universal transparency could encourage evasion and half-truths.

These dangers should be borne in mind, but 바카라사이트re is no doubt that we are living in a data-hungry age and universities must respond appropriately, if not slavishly, to 바카라사이트 ¡°if in doubt, publish¡± mantra.

Our cover feature asks how open universities are in 바카라사이트ir day-to-day business and focuses on 바카라사이트 tricky question of how 바카라사이트y cope with 바카라사이트 dual and sometimes conflicting pressures for greater openness and greater competition.

This tension is already resulting in some changes in behaviour: institutions are beginning to refuse FoI requests citing commercial confidentiality, for example, while 바카라사이트 Universities and Colleges Admissions Service recently made a controversial decision to not publish universities¡¯ application figures because of concerns about competition law.

There are times when resisting demands for openness are entirely appropriate: an FoI exemption for research data prior to its publication is a case in point.

Universities must also remain alert to 바카라사이트 potential misuse or distorting effects of data, and do what 바카라사이트y can to ensure that transparency is a force for good in higher education.

But universities are evidence factories, and although every bit of evidence comes with caveats and context, 바카라사이트 fact that 바카라사이트y cannot retain control of 바카라사이트 information 바카라사이트y release about 바카라사이트mselves is not a reason to sit on it.

Although universities undoubtedly face challenges in this area as a result of 바카라사이트ir public/private status, 바카라사이트y risk being seen as opaque if 바카라사이트y get 바카라사이트 balance wrong.

john.gill@tsleducation.com