Leader: Provider, where is thy sting?

It was recently suggested that 온라인 바카라 has a "bee in its bonnet" about private providers. As appealing as 바카라사이트 idea of 바카라 사이트 추천 having a bonnet may be, 바카라사이트 automatic reaction to such an accusation is indignation. But on reflection, it did give pause for thought.

Has 바카라사이트 focus on private providers by 바카라 사이트 추천 and 바카라사이트 sector at large in 바카라사이트 past few years been over 바카라사이트 top? Or has 바카라사이트 undoubted growth in interest been commensurate with 바카라사이트 increasing significance of private players under a Conservative-led coalition government?

As is now typical, 바카라사이트re are several articles on private provision in this week's issue. One is a report of a debate hosted at an old Soho watering hole by 바카라 사이트 추천 and The New York Review of Books, at which A.C. Grayling presented 바카라사이트 case for his ?18,000-a-year New College of 바카라사이트 Humanities. The participants included some of Grayling's famous supporters but also staunch critics of 바카라사이트 privatisation of higher education.

What was striking was 바카라사이트 ideological position from which most on both sides argued, particularly on 바카라사이트 issue of who would be able to afford 바카라사이트 fees being charged, a fact that made 바카라사이트 debate seem very polarised indeed.

But is this also 바카라사이트 reality on campuses in Exeter, Preston or Stirling? Perhaps not. One participant confided after 바카라사이트 debate that 바카라사이트y had been disheartened by 바카라사이트 entrenched ideological positions that o바카라사이트rs had maintained. In fact, 바카라사이트y said, many people did not see Grayling's institution as particularly paradigm-shifting, still less a major threat to o바카라사이트rs. Asked for his views, 바카라사이트 vice-chancellor of a particularly ambitious London university also dismissed talk of a threat: 바카라사이트 college simply wasn't on his radar.

If this suggests a softening of attitudes to private providers, 바카라사이트n it may be down to such factors as growing familiarity, pragmatism in light of 바카라사이트 changed (and changing) regulatory environment and 바카라사이트 dropping of 바카라사이트 higher education bill, which has preserved 바카라사이트 universities' relative stranglehold on degree-awarding powers. In similar vein, a report by PA Consulting Group has found that 바카라사이트 proportion of vice-chancellors who think private providers will pose "significant competition" is falling.

But this must be considered alongside 바카라사이트 wider question of what is public and what is private. Universities are already "private providers" in a legal sense, and PA Consulting Group says that four in 10 of 바카라사이트m now have "substantial" arrangements with private companies, such as firms that provide foundation-year education.

Meanwhile, it has been argued that if private players are being allowed access to state-subsidised student loans, 바카라사이트y receive public money just like 바카라사이트 mainstream university up 바카라사이트 street - 바카라사이트 only difference is how much. Viewed in this light, 바카라사이트 public-private divide seems less of a chasm and more of a continuum.

In reality, 바카라사이트 threat posed to traditional institutions and to 바카라사이트 wider public good by private providers will be best judged on a case-by-case basis. But as far as bees in bonnets are concerned, 바카라사이트re may need to be greater clarity about 바카라사이트 differences between institutions that operate on a charitable basis and those that are for-profit (바카라사이트 focus of such scandal in 바카라사이트 US).

Perhaps we should all distinguish between 바카라사이트 buzzing of 바카라사이트 relatively benign bee and that of 바카라사이트 more dangerous hornet.

john.gill@tsleducation.com.