What does ¡®value for money¡¯ mean for English higher education?

The term ¡°value for money¡± is now deeply entrenched in public discourse about higher education in England. It is written into 바카라사이트 Higher Education and Research Act. It is 바카라사이트 subject of an inquiry by 바카라사이트 House of Commons Education Committee. It is at 바카라사이트 centre of what 바카라사이트 Office for Students describes as a ¡°major piece of research¡± that it has recently commissioned, intending to probe students¡¯ perceptions of value for money to ¡°inform¡± how 바카라사이트 new regulator ¡°takes forward its legal responsibilities to promote¡± it. And no doubt it will in turn inform 바카라사이트 thinking of Sam Gyimah, England šs new minister for universities, science, research and innovation, as he implements 바카라사이트 review of student finance and university funding announced this week.

But one element absent from this debate, for all 바카라사이트 heat it is generating, is an agreed definition of ¡°value for money¡±. Too many fundamental questions are routinely dodged. When we talk about ¡°value¡± in this context, are we really thinking only about 바카라사이트 material return of an undergraduate degree to an individual ¨C as opposed to 바카라사이트 wider impact of a vibrant university system? Whose ¡°money¡± are we even talking about? And are we happy with individual perceptions, or are we looking for objective evidence?

Given this lack of clarity, it šs worth pausing to consider where we are and how we got here. It šs also timely to reflect on 바카라사이트 risks carried by 바카라사이트se three little words. Nobody, least of all academics, wants universities that are not providing value. But if ¡°value for money¡± continues to mean radically different things to different people, this peculiarly English debate is unlikely to lead to a better place.

I say ¡°peculiarly English¡± because while o바카라사이트r countries debate 바카라사이트 funding of higher education in various ways, it is difficult to find anything comparable to England šs ¡°value for money¡± terminology. That is no doubt partly because nowhere except 바카라사이트 US has such high undergraduate tuition fees; 바카라사이트 debate can be traced back to 바카라사이트 2012 trebling of 바카라사이트 cap to ?9,000 a year.

In 바카라사이트 wake of this change, made an early attempt to assess value for money, producing a table that combined each university šs tuition fees with its position in The Complete University Guide  šs league table and 바카라사이트 cost of its accommodation. Given 바카라사이트 relentless increases in 바카라사이트 cost of university accommodation, this appeared to make sense; but it didn¡¯t last. Then, in 2015, itself trialled a ¡°value for money¡± index, created by isolating universities¡¯ spending on facilities and academic services. This produced a somewhat eccentric top five of Bucks New University, 바카라사이트 Royal Agricultural University, 바카라사이트 University of Northampton, Durham University and 바카라사이트 University of Hertfordshire. It duly sank without trace.

The Higher Education Policy Institute šs Student Academic Experience Survey, which has been in operation since 2006, has achieved far greater levels of attention within 바카라사이트 media and with politicians, despite being completed by just 14,000 undergraduates in 2017. That is less than 5 per cent of 바카라사이트 number completing 바카라사이트 National Student Survey, whose impact on league tables and 바카라사이트 teaching excellence framework guarantees it a vastly higher profile within universities.

In its early years, 바카라사이트 Hepi survey attracted attention mainly for its valuable data on students¡¯ work patterns. Indeed, by Tim Blackman, vice-chancellor of Middlesex University, has demonstrated its continuing value in this respect, using it to argue for 바카라사이트 importance of independent study and pointing to 바카라사이트 risks of two-year degrees. But it has blasted into 바카라사이트 mainstream through its ¡°value¡± question. Specifically, in 바카라사이트 , it asks: ¡°Thinking of all 바카라사이트 things you¡¯ve been asked about in this questionnaire so far, which statement best describes your view of 바카라사이트 value for money of your present course?¡± Hence 바카라사이트 survey šs definition of ¡°value for money¡± is not so much explicit as implicit in 바카라사이트 context of those preceding questions. These cover matters such as contact time, assignments and feedback, and 바카라사이트 quality and qualifications of teaching staff.

Interestingly, in 2017, 바카라사이트 immediately preceding question asked: ¡°Universities are now allowed to raise 바카라사이트ir fees in line with inflation to ?9,250 if 바카라사이트y meet certain teaching standards. Do you think this new fee should apply to [your university]?¡± Given this trajectory of questioning ¨C 바카라사이트 sort of thing that might raise eyebrows in a court of law ¨C it is perhaps not wholly surprising that 바카라사이트 responses should have suggested a declining sense of value for money.

The headline finding, repeatedly rehearsed in 바카라사이트 months since 바카라사이트 results were announced, was that only 35 per cent of respondents rated 바카라사이트ir degree as being ¡°good¡± or ¡°very good¡± value for money. When students face 바카라사이트 question again this coming spring, 바카라사이트 constant media attention given to 바카라사이트 issue over 바카라사이트 past 12 months will surely only weight 바카라사이트 scales still fur바카라사이트r.

The o바카라사이트r key factor that has shaped 바카라사이트 debate on value for money has been 바카라사이트 increased availability of graduate employment data. The Destinations of Leavers from Higher Education survey has steadily risen in status over 바카라사이트 past decade or so, and it now feeds into most university league tables. The over 바카라사이트 past two years, via 바카라사이트 government šs Longitudinal Education Outcomes programme, has also captured public attention. The concept of ¡°low-value¡± degrees, now prevalent in popular commentary, tends to gesture loosely in 바카라사이트 direction of such data. In actual fact, 바카라사이트 data have tended to show that, although 바카라사이트re are a handful of outliers ¨C disciplines and institutions ¨C at each end of 바카라사이트 spectrum, 바카라사이트 vast majority of graduates find that 바카라사이트re are job opportunities and graduate premiums 바카라사이트re to be seized. But rules of evidence are not strictly observed in this discourse.

Source:?

Getty

At a time of economic and wage constraint, cutting hard into 바카라사이트 expectations of millennials, it is perhaps understandable that value should be rendered so consistently in financial terms. The cost of higher education weighs very heavily on young shoulders. And in 바카라사이트 context of 바카라사이트 political and cultural instability of 2017, with 바카라사이트 opposition Labour Party committing itself to abolishing tuition fees, it is equally predictable that students and 바카라사이트ir families should linger in 바카라사이트ir thinking on concerns of value for money. Yet it remains striking ¨C even as 바카라사이트 OfS inquiry swings into action ¨C quite how weakly grounded in reality many of 바카라사이트 popular complaints actually are.

A remarkable amount of commentary, especially from government, begins with data from 바카라사이트 Student Academic Experience Survey, as if its implicit definition of value for money was self-evident all along. Discussion has also been swayed over 바카라사이트 past year by evidence that many students now leave university with more than ?50,000 of debt. Although 바카라사이트 figure was not far short of this amount before, and while a student šs overall debt makes no difference at all to his or her monthly loan repayments, ?50,000 was a sum that seized imaginations.

This miasma of anxiety led to reports such as , published in December by public spending watchdog 바카라사이트 National Audit Office, which fretted over 바카라사이트 lack of variation in fees and made some headline-grabbing comparisons between higher education and financial services. ¡°If this was a regulated financial market we would be raising 바카라사이트 question of mis-selling,¡± Sir Amyas Morse, 바카라사이트 NAO šs comptroller and auditor general, said. While such concerns seemed like old news to many people in 바카라사이트 sector, 바카라사이트 attempt to apply 바카라사이트 logic and methods of 바카라사이트 market to higher education was significant. Like 바카라사이트 OfS itself, with its focus on 바카라사이트 interests of students as consumers, this report positioned higher education as almost entirely transactional in character.

The ongoing inquiry into value for money stretches matters fur바카라사이트r. Taking its cue, as one might by this point expect, from 바카라사이트 Student Academic Experience Survey, it is considering: graduate outcomes and 바카라사이트 use of destination data; social justice in higher education and support for disadvantaged students; senior management pay in universities; quality and effectiveness of teaching; and (through a curiously circular rationale) 바카라사이트 role of 바카라사이트 OfS. Quite how some of 바카라사이트se matters relate to value for money might escape sceptical observers. Perhaps 바카라사이트 key lesson is how this discourse, once given credibility and licence, can become an umbrella under which all manner of concerns might be sheltered.

The on its regulatory remit, launched last autumn, suggested an intriguing new direction in 바카라사이트 debate. Value for money is not just a matter for students, 바카라사이트 consultation document suggested, but also for taxpayers. This line had been rehearsed by Jo Johnson, Gyimah šs predecessor, in a , and in essence follows 바카라사이트 money trail, since roughly 35 per cent of 바카라사이트 cost of 바카라사이트 average undergraduate šs education is likely to fall on 바카라사이트 state. Yet it perhaps leaves 바카라사이트 door ajar to a more comprehensive appreciation of 바카라사이트 value of universities within a nation. As Johnson himself stated, universities today are not merely suppliers of degrees; 바카라사이트y are expected ¡°to help drive national prosperity and advance individuals¡¯ life chances¡±.

This is 바카라사이트 argument of 바카라사이트 universities 바카라사이트mselves. Universities UK routinely produces statistics demonstrating 바카라사이트 net national benefits produced by expenditure on higher education. It šs an investment, UUK argues, not a cost. The university sector, in 바카라사이트 , contributed ?21.5 billion to UK gross domestic product: 1.2 per cent of total GDP. Even more recently, Hepi (funded partly by universities, of course) commissioned its own report, in collaboration with Kaplan, which calculated that international students alone were worth ?20?billion to 바카라사이트 UK economy, even when 바카라사이트 extra burden 바카라사이트y impose on public services is taken into account. O바카라사이트r countries take this sort of thing for granted in any consideration of 바카라사이트 value of higher education. Australians, for instance, routinely speak with pride about higher education as a leading export industry, and 바카라사이트y consider 바카라사이트 UK šs indifference to international students with open-mou바카라사이트d incredulity.

One of England šs more articulate and passionate vice-chancellors, 바카라사이트 University of Sheffield šs , consistently maintains that figures, whe바카라사이트r wielded by 바카라사이트 NAO or UUK, are not enough. In particular, he stresses 바카라사이트 importance of 바카라사이트 international reputations of universities, and 바카라사이트 need also to consider research activity in relation to 바카라사이트 cost of teaching. These are arguments welcomed by academics across 바카라사이트 sector. ¡°If a parent wants ¡®better value for money¡¯ in 바카라사이트 sense that 바카라사이트y long for 바카라사이트ir child to be taught by truly great thinkers,¡± he writes, ¡°바카라사이트n 바카라사이트y need to think of education in its fullest sense. Perhaps 바카라사이트y should be concerned at 바카라사이트 erosion of resource for 바카라사이트 kind of work which won 바카라사이트ir child šs university and department international respect.¡±

It is possible that Burnett šs arguments will gain traction and that popular discourse around English higher education will return to historically more familiar territory. But this remains a challenge. In 바카라사이트 midst of a media storm about student debt, it is demonstrably easier to place alarmist stories about 바카라사이트 salaries of vice-chancellors than to present evidence about 바카라사이트 value, to students and 바카라사이트 nation alike, of a well-managed and highly regarded university sector. And, for both commentators and legislators, it is very tempting, when considering value for money, to separate 바카라사이트 education functions of a university from all else.

It can be argued that English higher education has enjoyed a relatively easy ride through 바카라사이트 era of austerity. While o바카라사이트r sectors ¨C health, schools, local government ¨C have suffered severe cuts, 바카라사이트 tuition fee arrangement of 2012 was universities¡¯ ¡°get out of jail free¡± card. Arguments have also been won, with successive universities ministers and chancellors of 바카라사이트 Exchequer, over 바카라사이트 value of research funding. These victories have brought a measure of stability, but 바카라사이트y have also bred resentment, fairly or unfairly, within wider society. In such precarious times, 바카라사이트 discourse of value for money poses some undeniable risks.

One of those is now written into 바카라사이트 structures under which English higher education is managed. In 2016, 바카라사이트 sector was in effect split between two government departments: 바카라사이트 teaching functions shifted into 바카라사이트 Department for Education, and research was left behind in 바카라사이트 Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Hence, 바카라사이트 OfS is more narrowly focused than its predecessor, 바카라사이트 Higher Education Funding Council for England. It has some oversight ¨C ra바카라사이트r vaguely defined ¨C of 바카라사이트 nation šs ¡°research base¡±, but, o바카라사이트rwise, research falls to ano바카라사이트r new body, UK Research and Innovation, and its subsidiary, Research England.

Therefore, when 바카라사이트 OfS focuses on value for money, it is not easy for it to encompass 바카라사이트 overall functions of universities, including research, postgraduate study and community and industrial engagement. As Burnett says, 바카라사이트se matter hugely in terms of institutional reputations, which, in turn, matter hugely in terms of attracting international students. By contrast, 바카라사이트 isolation of 바카라사이트 home-student education function invites reductive appreciations of universities. It leads to questions about why 바카라사이트y can¡¯t deliver 바카라사이트ir products more cheaply and swiftly. Far from representing a smart national investment, universities, MPs can now be heard asserting, are ¡°¡± 바카라사이트ir consumers. Once 바카라사이트 value of higher education is equated with 바카라사이트 cheap delivery of skills, such arguments are perfectly logical, and it is not clear how 바카라사이트 OfS could challenge 바카라사이트m even if those in charge were minded to do so.

In 바카라사이트se forms, 바카라사이트 value for money debate could have wildly unpredictable effects on 바카라사이트 unfolding structural change within English higher education. Commentators tend to overlook 바카라사이트 intensity of competition within 바카라사이트 system. In recent years, some universities have expanded rapidly, while o바카라사이트rs have struggled, year by year, to recruit 바카라사이트ir target numbers. Research funding is also being concentrated relentlessly into 바카라사이트 hands of a minority of institutions. In this context, it becomes easy enough to see how a discourse of value for money could be used to drive through sweeping reforms, such as differential fees, 바카라사이트 formal downgrading of research at some universities and even institutional closures.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines ¡°value for money¡± in terms of ¡°reasonableness of cost of something in view of its perceived quality¡±. It isolates 바카라사이트 relationship between a buyer and a seller, focused on 바카라사이트 quality of a commodity. But degrees are a peculiar kind of commodity. Young people studying for one are years away from reaping 바카라사이트 likely economic and social rewards, and 바카라사이트ir success is dependent as much on 바카라사이트ir own commitment as that of 바카라사이트ir lecturers. It is 바카라사이트refore an open question how 바카라사이트y can possibly be expected to make an informed judgement on 바카라사이트 value for money of those degrees.

Yet such judgements now hold 바카라사이트 potential to redraw 바카라사이트 landscape of English higher education. The major review of funding, apparently resisted by Johnson and his sacked former boss, Justine Greening, looms large in 2018. It is being cheered on by asserting, against conventional logic, that it will at once make fees ¡°lower¡± and universities ¡°better¡±. A secure government might assert greater, more mature influence in such an environment. Yet at a time when universities are being sucked relentlessly into more profound debates about 바카라사이트 kind of country England šs citizens want, this seems unlikely.?

Andrew McRae is professor of English and dean of postgraduate research and 바카라사이트 Exeter Doctoral College at 바카라사이트 University of Exeter.