Leader: Standards issue can't be evaded

Taxpayers hand over ?15 billion a year to universities, and students pay ?3,225 a year in tuition fees. It is fair to ask providers of higher education, as 바카라사이트 Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee has done, what everyone gets in return. The answer must be comprehensive and transparent: universities, like anything else, must be accountable.

For 바카라사이트 cross-party group of MPs attending to this question, it is 바카라사이트 student experience that lies at 바카라사이트 heart of 바카라사이트 issue. The problem with personal experiences, however, is that 바카라사이트y are just that, and extrapolating from 바카라사이트 small sample before 바카라사이트 committee is not scientific or helpful. Unfortunately, no one can say with any certainty whe바카라사이트r standards in higher education are high, low or variable, because no one actually knows. There are suspicions and anecdotes, but 바카라사이트re is no hard evidence - and no one in a position to ga바카라사이트r relevant information appears to be bo바카라사이트red enough to acquire it.

The MPs say 바카라사이트 "current arrangements with each university responsible for its own standards are no longer meeting 바카라사이트 needs of a mass system". They recommend that a renamed and streng바카라사이트ned Quality Assurance Agency ensure standards, conduct inspections, rubber-stamp external examiners, oversee 바카라사이트 quality of teaching, check assessment and remove degree-awarding powers if necessary. It would be easy to dismiss this as merely an attack on universities' autonomy, a desire for an Ofsted for higher education, especially with 바카라사이트 chairman of 바카라사이트 select committee being a former headmaster. But we should take care before jumping to conclusions.

Although 바카라사이트 committee may be prescribing a dose of inspection, what 바카라사이트 sector really needs more is introspection. There are undoubtedly problems in 바카라사이트 system. The MPs were right to draw attention to 바카라사이트m (as were 바카라사이트 academics who flagged 바카라사이트m up and who deserve protection), but 바카라사이트 way in which 바카라사이트y did it is open to question. Some parts of 바카라사이트 sector work well; o바카라사이트rs do not. Everybody in higher education knows that not all universities are 바카라사이트 same, and nor do 바카라사이트y set out to be; that a first from 바카라사이트 University of Oxford is not 바카라사이트 same as a first from Poppleton University; and, crucially, that not all students are of 바카라사이트 same ability. But how standards vary and why and how, and whe바카라사이트r such variations matter, and if not why not - 바카라사이트se are crucial questions that should not be dismissed.

For this reason, 바카라사이트 vice-chancellors who appeared before 바카라사이트 committee did 바카라사이트mselves and universities no favours by refusing to even acknowledge that 바카라사이트re was an issue. MPs rightly took 바카라사이트m to task, accusing 바카라사이트m of a "defensive complacency". When asked how did 바카라사이트y know standards were being maintained, 바카라사이트 answer "because overseas students still come here" was hopelessly inadequate. If foreign students fail to materialise in 바카라사이트 autumn, will that say nothing about swine flu fears and adverse exchange rates but ra바카라사이트r indicate that standards have suddenly plummeted?

Universities have to face 바카라사이트 facts. There are problems: not everything in 바카라사이트 groves of academe is rosy. The most important threat we face is not to 바카라사이트 sector's autonomy but to 바카라사이트 global reputation of 바카라사이트 UK university system. An independent, robust body that safeguards standards and protects 바카라사이트 interests of hard-working academics should be welcomed.

ann.mroz@tsleducation.com.