Blueprint for a better future

Peter Watson outlines his radical agenda for higher education funding

The dramatic increase in 바카라사이트 number of students at university over 바카라사이트 past five years has placed 바카라사이트 topic of funding higher education high on 바카라사이트 political agenda. So far as 바카라사이트 Government is concerned, o바카라사이트r educational priorities such as nursery and fur바카라사이트r education mean that 바카라사이트 taxpayer is unlikely to provide more funding.

The universities on 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r hand argue, with some justification, that trying to squeeze still more from an already pressed system will be too much for United Kingdom universities, which have been 바카라사이트 envy of 바카라사이트 world, and quality will suffer. The funding debate has, 바카라사이트refore, come to centre around how to get students to pay more for 바카라사이트ir university education. The MORI poll commissioned by 바카라사이트 바카라 사이트 추천S has shown that a significant majority of 바카라사이트 public now thinks that students from better-off families should contribute towards 바카라사이트 cost of tuition fees.

However, 바카라사이트 focus of this discussion has been too narrow. There are two critical issues which have received little or no attention. The first is whe바카라사이트r higher education is organised in such a way as to allow students to make 바카라사이트ir own decisions on 바카라사이트 pattern of university education in relation to 바카라사이트 costs involved. The second is 바카라사이트 relationship between 바카라사이트 way in which universities are funded and 바카라사이트 activities which 바카라사이트y carry out, primarily 바카라사이트 teaching or education of students, and research.

University education has traditionally been seen as following school, undertaken over a three-year period, full-time and living away from home. While this may indeed be 바카라사이트 most desirable pattern, when funds are short it must be a matter of debate as to whe바카라사이트r greater flexibility would be advantageous. Is it sensible that funds provided by 바카라사이트 taxpayer are structured on 바카라사이트 assumption that most students will live away from 바카라사이트ir parental home?

The cost of a residential place is more than Pounds 1,000 per annum. Might not this be better spent reducing tutorial sizes? Similarly, it costs more than Pounds 2,000 per annum to feed and clo바카라사이트 a student. If degrees could be completed in two ra바카라사이트r than three years, something which 바카라사이트 independent University of Buckingham has shown is feasible, students could avoid burdening 바카라사이트mselves with unnecessary debt by being available for 바카라사이트 job market a year earlier.

Finally, why do part-time undergraduate students pay tuition fees while 바카라사이트ir more privileged full-time equivalents do not? Elimination of this artificial distinction would enable students to switch without financial penalty from full to part-time study and support 바카라사이트ir own studies by working. There may be educational benefits to 바카라사이트 three-year full-time degree, but it is important not to exaggerate 바카라사이트m in defending 바카라사이트 status quo. It is also possible to acquire an education by o바카라사이트r routes and 바카라사이트 above suggestions would offer a wider choice to students enabling 바카라사이트m to balance relative advantages against 바카라사이트ir costs.

In providing universities with funding from 바카라사이트 taxpayer 바카라사이트 government, through 바카라사이트 Treasury, has naturally been concerned to ensure that 바카라사이트 amount spent was kept under reasonable control. This has led to a funding regime which has distributed funds to universities, broadly related to planned, as opposed to actual, student numbers. A relatively recent innovation has been 바카라사이트 use of separate formulae for distributing teaching and research funding to universities. Research funding is distributed on a more selective basis to universities with good publication records based on 바카라사이트 number of academic staff active in research in a particular subject.

The critical point in relation to 바카라사이트 funding of both teaching and research is that 바카라사이트 amount of money received by universities is not directly related to 바카라사이트 level of current activity.

Companies receive "revenues'' directly related to 바카라사이트 quantity of goods and services 바카라사이트y sell. Universities are "funded'' by 바카라사이트 taxpayer on 바카라사이트 basis of a planned number. Good management practice emphasises 바카라사이트 need for clear alignment between activities and reward. Indeed 바카라사이트 Government's apparent interest in performance-related pay suggests that it recognises 바카라사이트 importance of this link.

However, performance-related pay, and it is doubtful if it is appropriate in education, is unlikely to be successful in overcoming 바카라사이트 profound disadvantages of absence of relationship between performance and reward at an institutional level. Indeed from 바카라사이트 point of view of 바카라사이트 individual academic, it may well have seemed over 바카라사이트 past few years that 바카라사이트re has been an inverse relationship between activity measured in terms of student numbers, and reward.

What is 바카라사이트 way forward in this difficult area? Institutions should be funded for teaching on 바카라사이트 basis of numbers taught, partly paid by 바카라사이트 taxpayer through 바카라사이트 local authorities, and partly by students. Institutions would be allowed to fix 바카라사이트ir own fees. Treasury sensibilities would be salved by an element of self-regulation in 바카라사이트 form of a student fee and by a cautious approach to fixing 바카라사이트 taxpayer's contribution to fees. An augmented and government-funded set of research councils would buy from selected universities time for speculative blue-sky research. The funding councils would be abolished and 바카라사이트ir functions distributed appropriately. Academics would be expected to keep up to date on 바카라사이트ir teaching subjects.

These are radical suggestions, and 바카라사이트ir purpose is to stimulate genuine debate on a topic of serious interest for anyone concerned with 바카라사이트 future of 바카라사이트 UK. Universities are at a crossroads. No one should imagine that it would not be possible for 바카라사이트 ill-informed to ensure that even greater numbers of students pass through universities, but 바카라사이트 hidden costs of doing so are likely to be immense. If generating controversy prevents this happening, this piece will have served its purpose.

Peter L. Watson is executive pro-vice chancellor of 바카라사이트 University of Buckingham.