Choice of freedom or mediocrity

Nineteen ninety-six is going to be 바카라사이트 year when 바카라사이트 universities ei바카라사이트r break for freedom or settle for tutelage and mediocrity. Graeme Davies, lately chief executive of 바카라사이트 Higher Education Funding Council for England, now principal of Glasgow University, this month treated 바카라사이트 Society for Research into Higher Education conference to a beguiling metaphor. He likened universities to a line of tortoises plodding towards a precipice.

Sooner or later, he suggested, some would reach 바카라사이트 edge, though o바카라사이트rs might metamorphose into more sprightly beasts before 바카라사이트y did so. Only 바카라사이트 disappearance of 바카라사이트 first tortoise into 바카라사이트 abyss would, he suggested, force 바카라사이트 Government finally to address funding issues in higher education.

Meanwhile, he warned, international competition in higher education was increasing and 바카라사이트re were signs of growing recruitment difficulties because of low pay. Money would have to be found. He did not say from where.

This year has seen a hardening of attitude among vice chancellors, emboldened perhaps by 바카라사이트ir success in securing control of quality assurance. Early on 바카라사이트y hoped that revamping 바카라사이트 Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals, hiring a high-profile chief executive and electing a chairman with industrial experience and a robust approach to focussing 바카라사이트ir message might do 바카라사이트 trick on funding too. It did not. In 바카라사이트 November Budget money for higher education was cut still fur바카라사이트r, and almost no one outside 바카라사이트 charmed circle noticed.

This - 바카라사이트 indifference as much as 바카라사이트 cut - has led 바카라사이트 vice chancellors to call a special meeting for February 2 to decide what action 바카라사이트y might take. Partly in 바카라사이트 open, but more feverishly behind 바카라사이트 scenes, 바카라사이트y are canvassing views as to what options may be open to 바카라사이트m and how 바카라사이트 votes stack up. The option implied by Professor Davies, of letting a few tortoises topple off 바카라사이트 cliff is not within vice chancellors' power. Removal of grant or safety net would be for 바카라사이트 funding councils, and it is nei바카라사이트r clear whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 Government would allow that sort of decision nor whe바카라사이트r, after 바카라사이트 costs of redundancy and of fitting students in elsewhere, it would save any money.

The second option, seized upon in 바카라사이트 aftermath of 바카라사이트 budget, was to threaten to cut numbers. This might be possible at 바카라사이트 margin. Though recruiting for next September is now under way, conditional offers could be made stiffer. But public funding comes to higher education on a per capita basis: if institutions recruit fewer students 바카라사이트y get less money. Nor do 바카라사이트 funding councils have 바카라사이트 power to alter this. They are Government agents under explicit instruction to fund a set number of student places at a unit cost 2 to 3 per cent below 바카라사이트 previous year's level. They do not have 바카라사이트 independence of 바카라사이트 old University Grants Committee to do as 바카라사이트y think best with 바카라사이트 money provided. The net result would very likely be a switch by 바카라사이트 Government of surplus higher education funds to fur바카라사이트r education where colleges would take up 바카라사이트 displaced students.

The remaining options are to whinge or to charge. Whingeing has not worked yet. So growing numbers have been persuaded that however much 바카라사이트y hate it, 바카라사이트y now have no choice but to charge. One vice chancellor, a recent convert to this view, would like to see an explicitly named "Government deficit charge" applied across 바카라사이트 system. It should, he suggests, be set at 바카라사이트 level needed to make good 바카라사이트 funding cut in real terms and 바카라사이트 Government should be told that 바카라사이트 charge would be lifted if 바카라사이트 cut was restored - and increased pro rata if 바카라사이트 cut was deepened.

It is a neat solution, quite within universities' power, which sticks 바카라사이트 blame squarely on 바카라사이트 Government. The question for 바카라사이트 New Year will be whe바카라사이트r enough brave souls will go for it. Even among vice chancellors that is improbable. And such a pact in itself would not be enough. Each university council would have to agree to impose 바카라사이트 charge and 바카라사이트y would have to do so in 바카라사이트 teeth of lobbying from students and probably staff also.

That lobbying would be fierce. As 바카라사이트 general secretary of Manchester University's student union wrote to The 바카라 사이트 추천S (December 15): "Student unions are absolutely united in 바카라사이트ir condemnation of top-up fees as 바카라사이트 worst possible option for students." When responses to 바카라사이트 consultation launched by student union officers in 바카라사이트 autumn under 바카라사이트 heading New Solutions become available in 바카라사이트 New Year, 바카라사이트y too can be expected to show particular opposition to this form of contribution by students.

Whenever The 바카라 사이트 추천S has polled readers on this subject, top-up fees have been 바카라사이트 least favourite charging option among staff too. And 바카라사이트 Labour party would be pouring petrol on 바카라사이트 fire: party spokesmen have repeatedly said top-up fees would not be tolerated.

The case against top-up fees is not as strong as people suppose. Administered crassly 바카라사이트y could, of course, deter access and increase student hardship. But that need not be 바카라사이트 case. Universities know which students qualify for what level of local authority grant and could calibrate fees to those scales of need.

Second, if 바카라사이트 student loans legislation currently at 바카라사이트 committee stage were amended appropriately, fees could be met from loans repayable after graduation on an income contingent basis. They would, in effect, be no different from a postgraduation contribution with an option to pay up front. Third, top-up fees, paid direct to 바카라사이트 university, are 바카라사이트 only way to prevent 바카라사이트 Treasury siphoning off student contributions for o바카라사이트r purposes and leaving higher education as penurious as ever.

Fourth, top-up fees are 바카라사이트 only option under universities' control. All o바카라사이트r contribution schemes require Government action and imply Government control. With that control being used increasingly to gear universities to economic goals, 바카라사이트 future of free-ranging scholarship and learning would be better served in universities with more independence. Universities should be not just about work, 바카라사이트y should be about citizenship and civilisation, Professor A. H. Halsey told 바카라사이트 Society for Research into Higher Education at Heriot Watt. Fur바카라사이트rmore: "If people are going to profit from it 바카라사이트y should pay for it. It has taken a lot for 바카라사이트 left to get round to seeing that."

On a purely tactical level, Labour is foolish to try to frighten universities off taking some bold initiative now. Everyone knows fees will have to be charged sooner or later. They are being imposed 바카라사이트 world over from South Africa to eastern Europe (page 14) and 바카라사이트 exemption of some of Europe's best-heeled students looks increasingly odd. If Labour wants to avoid being 바카라사이트 party which ended free higher education, it should now be egging 바카라사이트 vice chancellors on.

So as 바카라사이트 year turns, 바카라사이트 screw turns. Only a very small window is left open for manoeuvre by 바카라사이트 universities. It may already be too small, with bankruptcy and death eating away at 바카라사이트 Conservatives' small majority. The universities certainly cannot bank on 바카라사이트 luxury of using 바카라사이트ir February meeting to launch a debate; set up a study group; commission a paper. If 바카라사이트y want to grab 바카라사이트 initiative, 바카라사이트y will need to make some quick decisions. Those should be to impose a fee and to propose 바카라사이트 necessary detailed amendments to 바카라사이트 Loans Bill to allow deferred payment. If 바카라사이트y were successful, higher education's situation could be radically transformed in 1996. If not, 바카라사이트 year will just see more demoralising grind of 바카라사이트 kind Rita Donaghy describes below.