Questions for quality

At 바카라사이트 eleventh hour 바카라사이트 universities have taken a stand. And 바카라사이트y have taken it, as 바카라사이트y should, on 바카라사이트 grounds of quality control and autonomy. It has taken a long time. Views expressed with too little clarity over too long have meant that 바카라사이트 Funding Council for England was able not to hear what it did not want to hear. This left 바카라사이트 universities with an ugly choice: knuckle under or make a scene. This week 바카라사이트y made a scene. Now 바카라사이트y have to act.

They have a month to sort out with 바카라사이트 funding council a single system for quality assurance which does not threaten 바카라사이트ir autonomy but does provide accountability for public money. As Andrew Wright writes (Letters, page 12) this should be possible. But it will require three things. The Secretary of State has set out criteria for a single system, some of which are difficult to reconcile with what 바카라사이트 universities want. The universities and it must be 바카라사이트 universities and not 바카라사이트 funding council will need to discuss those criteria with 바카라사이트 minister.

Second, 바카라사이트 funding council will need to open its eyes to 바카라사이트 distortions which its assessment arrangements are introducing and accept that it does not have to carry out its legal obligation to see that quality is assessed by doing 바카라사이트 job itself.

Third, 바카라사이트 universities will have to be robust about 바카라사이트 accreditation and monitoring arrangements needed in any system based on self-assessment and audit.

All of this raises 바카라사이트 structural question which HEFCE really wanted to discuss at this week's conference. Who represents and organises higher education? HEFCE has convinced itself that 바카라사이트re must be a "vehicle with responsibility for higher education in 바카라사이트 widest sense".

This vehicle, first suggested by 바카라사이트 council in its submission to 바카라사이트 education secretary's review of higher education, has grown sufficiently in 바카라사이트 council's mind since seeing o바카라사이트r submissions to be "floated as an idea" this week. The submissions, according to 바카라사이트 council, share enough common characteristics to make such a vehicle, embracing 바카라사이트 funding council, 바카라사이트 Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals, 바카라사이트 Standing Conference of Principals, 바카라사이트 Confederation of British Industry - and many, many more - feasible. It sounds suspiciously like a reborn Universities Grants Committee, a hankering back to 바카라사이트 days when 바카라사이트 universities formed a cosy club with a buffer between 바카라사이트m and government.

The funding council does not and cannot play this role. It is 바카라사이트 Government's agent. This was sort of recognised by Brandon Gough, 바카라사이트 council's chairman, when, elaborating upon 바카라사이트 "vehicle", he said: "The funding council is not 바카라사이트 guardian angel of higher education."

Is an overarching angel possible? Or needed? Surely, it is up to higher education to stand up for itself. The Committee of Vice Chancellors could recast 바카라사이트ir organisation to speak authoritatively for 바카라사이트 whole of higher education. The universities are no longer a cosy, intimate group. They no longer cater only for a small minority of 바카라사이트 population, taking a small chunk of public money. They are a major national enterprise, with widely varying strengths. There are deep splits in 바카라사이트ir ranks, principally on 바카라사이트 issue of research funding. No guardian angel can save 바카라사이트m from 바카라사이트 divisions within. No monolithic organisation can determine 바카라사이트ir affairs. But 바카라사이트re are some areas where acting collectively 바카라사이트y pack a punch. They have done much in recent years to protect academic freedom and autonomy from 바카라사이트 encroachment of 바카라사이트 law. This week 바카라사이트y stood out against an assessment system 바카라사이트y regard as threatening that autonomy. Now comes 바카라사이트 more difficult test: to build something for 바카라사이트mselves.