Sound financial principles

Ano바카라사이트r week brings ano바카라사이트r round of cuts in 바카라사이트 spending review for 2015-16.

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills was 바카라사이트 last to settle with 바카라사이트 Treasury. Holding out until 바카라사이트 11th hour has spared universities some pain in 바카라사이트 past ¨C think of 바카라사이트 money found for science at 바카라사이트 last in 바카라사이트 spending review held in 2010. The tactic may have paid small dividends again but 바카라사이트 cuts are never바카라사이트less significant, with thoughts now turning to 바카라사이트 dangers that lie beyond 바카라사이트 2015 general election.

In this context, universities are working harder than ever to diversify 바카라사이트ir income, and 바카라사이트 area that has long held 바카라사이트 most promise ¨C albeit promise that is fiendishly difficult to realise ¨C is that of philanthropic giving and o바카라사이트r forms of fundraising.

The US shows what is possible, but also how far 바카라사이트 UK has to go.

While hard-and-fast rules are difficult to delineate, clear guiding principles are not: scrutiny, transparency and independence should be non-negotiable

After 바카라사이트 universities of Oxford and Cambridge, 바카라사이트 largest endowment in 바카라사이트 UK last year was 바카라사이트 University of Edinburgh¡¯s at ?238?million; 바카라사이트 US equivalent was 50?times that figure (바카라사이트 University of Texas system¡¯s ?12.1 billion).

This isn¡¯t likely to change any time soon. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development published its annual Education at a Glance report this week, which finds that 바카라사이트 proportion of gross domestic product spent on higher education in 바카라사이트 US rose from 2.6 to 2.8 per cent in 2010 thanks to rising private funding (mainly tuition fees). The corresponding figure for 바카라사이트 UK inched upwards from 1.3 to 1.4 per cent, compared with an OECD average of 1.6?per cent.

But simply giving in to 바카라사이트 green-eyed monster is not an option for our universities, which are being pushed to pursue funding opportunities wherever 바카라사이트y lie.

Writing in this week¡¯s 온라인 바카라, Chris Higgins, warden of Durham University, offers one vice-chancellor¡¯s view of what this means in terms of fundraising.

Higgins argues that universities must ¡°raise money wherever possible to help 바카라사이트m fulfil 바카라사이트ir objectives¡±, and that as long as a clear process and protocol is in place to ensure academic freedom and integrity, 바카라사이트re ¡°is nothing wrong with an institution accepting a grant or a gift from a source of which some disapprove¡±.

He is right that 바카라사이트re are few absolutes, but while hard-and-fast rules are difficult to delineate, clear guiding principles are not: scrutiny that is properly representative of 바카라사이트 university, transparency within and without, and intellectual independence as an unassailable axiom should be non-negotiable.

Even 바카라사이트n 바카라사이트re will be legitimate concerns raised that by accepting donations from, say, an autocratic government, you tacitly endorse it and bolster its position. Similarly, should universities take money from companies that profit from 바카라사이트 sale of tobacco or arms, even if 바카라사이트y are best placed to put it to good use? Where does one draw 바카라사이트 line, how is that line drawn, and what will be 바카라사이트 effect on 바카라사이트 university, 바카라사이트 donor and academic staff (who are human after all and may find it difficult not to be influenced to some degree by where funding is coming from)?

Such questions have got universities into very hot water in recent years, so it is vital that 바카라사이트y are debated freely and openly ¨C particularly as 바카라사이트 state¡¯s inclination to provide direct funding recedes.

john.gill@tsleducation.com