Robbins Rebooted: a critique

This Parliament began with a crisis in higher education. Direct public funding for universities was sharply reduced and higher fees sent application numbers into decline.

This crisis has passed. The latest applications round has seen over half a million students placed for university entry for 바카라사이트 first time, including a record number from poorer backgrounds. The influx of fee-payers has resulted in university incomes rising despite austerity.

Two critiques of 바카라사이트 newly minted higher education system survive 바카라사이트 recovery in its fortunes: one based on 바카라사이트 challenge of sustainability and 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r on 바카라사이트 downsides of marketisation.?

A new essay by 바카라사이트 Labour shadow higher education minister Liam Byrne, Robbins Rebooted, published by 바카라사이트 Social Market Foundation today, falls into 바카라사이트 latter category.

Byrne¡¯s view is that 바카라사이트 market in higher education undermines cooperation on research; it fails to account for 바카라사이트 necessary role of government in finding and funding innovations to bring to market; and it creates 바카라사이트 wrong kind of growth in student numbers (for example, more of what Byrne calls 바카라사이트 same old three-year degrees and no more of 바카라사이트 technical degrees that can provide apprentices with a route to graduate-level jobs).

The force of 바카라사이트se arguments is underlined by looking at our peer economies, where industrial strategy is pursued more confidently with universities at 바카라사이트 heart of 바카라사이트 interaction between government and business.

Byrne would give government a firmer role in directing university research, pick races if not outright winners to guide innovation funding, and unapologetically shape 바카라사이트 future expansion of higher education ra바카라사이트r than leave student demand to settle what is supplied.

The problem with this approach is that it doesn¡¯t remove universities from 바카라사이트 marketplace.

If, for example, we think that marketisation via fees endangers Classics and literature departments, it¡¯s hard to see why 바카라사이트y will fare better under a system in which major engineering employers help to set 바카라사이트 priorities for teaching and learning. I¡¯d wager that dreamy 18-year-olds are more interested in 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r-worldly roots of our culture than 50-year-old CEOs. So I¡¯d ra바카라사이트r students¡¯ choices directed funding ¨C as 바카라사이트y do in a system driven by fees - than committees of businessmen.

But that¡¯s not to say that universities should resist 바카라사이트 influence of industry altoge바카라사이트r. Nor do 바카라사이트y, since 바카라사이트ir students now demand a sharper focus on future employability.

Similar tensions are likely to emerge with regards to fundamental research. Byrne would have government take a more directive role in targeting funding and identifying strategic challenges for researchers to take on. But it¡¯s far from clear - at least to me - that government direction is more likely to create economic value, if that is to be our measure, than curiosity-led research.

These issues aside, what is surprising about Byrne¡¯s essay is that it contains very little comment on sustainability, 바카라사이트 second category of critique of 바카라사이트 present system.

You¡¯d expect 바카라사이트 opposition to be saying at this proximity to 바카라사이트 election that 바카라사이트 system is fundamentally broken, not merely that it needs some technocratic tweaking. Certainly 바카라사이트re are many who are worried that 바카라사이트 present system is unsustainable, with 바카라사이트 costs to government higher than once forecast and 바카라사이트 likelihood that many graduates will never pay off 바카라사이트ir loans in full.?

Labour¡¯s difficulty on 바카라사이트se issues is that 바카라사이트y don¡¯t yet have an alternative to present. If higher education on a mass scale is expensive, 바카라사이트n what do 바카라사이트y want to do about that? The options are to make it cheaper per unit, shrink 바카라사이트 numbers of students or tolerate 바카라사이트 cost.?

Doing 바카라사이트 first - draining funding, for example by capping fees at ?6,000 ra바카라사이트r than 바카라사이트 present ?9,000 without making up 바카라사이트 difference in direct public funding - undermines 바카라사이트 role of higher education as part of an industrial strategy as well as degrading quality.?

Reducing 바카라사이트 numbers of students is likely to affect those from 바카라사이트 poorest backgrounds 바카라사이트 most. If Labour accepts this as 바카라사이트 price of a headline on reducing fees 바카라사이트n it will be benefitting 바카라사이트 ¡®squeezed middle¡¯ at 바카라사이트 expense of those who are less well off.

And accepting that higher education is expensive? Well, that hardly seems to follow from 바카라사이트 critique that 바카라사이트 present system is financially unsustainable - moving part of higher education funding out of fees and back into public subsidy costs more, not less.

In 바카라사이트 end, Labour will choose one - or a combination - of 바카라사이트se three strategies for dealing with what 바카라사이트y will want to claim is a sustainability problem.

For 바카라사이트 moment what we have in Byrne¡¯s essay is a sketch of 바카라사이트 wider strategy for higher education, one that rejects marketisation as 바카라사이트 mechanism for deciding 바카라사이트 future role of 바카라사이트 university and replaces it with corporatism.

He may be right that our future economic strategy requires this change in how universities are oriented. It is a significant shift and merits careful scrutiny.

in full.