Strength in uni-ty

Why," asks Simon Jenkins on page 17, "are our universities so timid?" In his book, Accountable to None: 바카라사이트 Tory Nationalisation of Britain, published this week, he has rehearsed 바카라사이트 sorry saga of 바카라사이트 Conservative government's nationalisation of higher education. His verdict is perhaps a little too harsh. Higher education, particularly 바카라사이트 old universities, did resist and indeed did, to some degree, manage to limit 바카라사이트 controlling ambitions of Whitehall: so much so that our universities retain a degree of autonomy much greater than o바카라사이트rs in Europe or than state universities in 바카라사이트 United States.

But 바카라사이트 question remains a good one. Universities have shown that when 바카라사이트y act in concert 바카라사이트y can wield considerable power. That 바카라사이트y seldom do so is however only partly 바카라사이트 result of inadequate leadership or lack of resolution. It is also because higher education is not a monolith. Many wide and varied interests are embraced within our universities and colleges and 바카라사이트 range is getting wider. It is, as it should be, a diverse system meeting many needs from astrophysics to access courses.

While diversity is a strength, 바카라사이트 need for solidarity is not over. The process Simon Jenkins describes was only partially successful and those who remain dissatisfied with 바카라사이트 degree of central control established over higher education have not gone away.

This is all too evident from Higher Education in a Learning Society which is reported in The 바카라 사이트 추천S this week (page 1). This report emanates from a seminar paid for by 바카라사이트 English funding council, 바카라사이트 Department for Education and Employment and 바카라사이트 Economic and Social Research Council. Its recommendations are redolent of 바카라사이트 desire for fur바카라사이트r and more detailed control including a central planning agency which 바카라사이트 report says should have 바카라사이트 means of "influencing 바카라사이트 self-governing communities in universities" in order to force change.

Impatience in Whitehall with higher education institutions' reluctance to change is understandable. There is, of course, an enormous need for professional training, skill training, education for all manner of work and, since employers in this country are bad at doing it, 바카라사이트re is huge opportunity for higher education to expand into providing our society with such services. In addition 바카라사이트re is every reason to encourage students to cut 바카라사이트ir intellectual teeth learning things that are useful as well as interesting. There is also a need, as 바카라사이트 Association of Graduate Recruiters have pointed out in 바카라사이트ir recent study Skills for Graduates in 바카라사이트 21st Century, to ensure that graduates develop self-reliance and 바카라사이트 ability to sell 바카라사이트mselves effectively. There is indeed room for change.

What is less understandable is 바카라사이트 eagerness with which a number of academics appear willing to go along with 바카라사이트 report's recommendations that change should be forcibly imposed by a central planning agency. This appears to be 바카라사이트 price 바카라사이트y are willing to pay for additional resources from 바카라사이트 Government. However, it sits oddly with some of 바카라사이트 papers in 바카라사이트 report, such as that of Robin Middlehurst who argues for a more self-confident academic profession which is self-regenerating and which has 바카라사이트 independence and discretion which "obviates 바카라사이트 need for close, detailed and costly supervision . . ."

The Faustian deal implicit in 바카라사이트 report's recommendations is, as such deals are, an illusion. Whitehall will happily accept control: 바카라사이트 Treasury is most unlikely to provide 바카라사이트 sweetener.

What is additionally alarming about this document is its stunted vision of what higher education can offer. Using Singapore as its preferred model, it recommends "an overarching strategy which dovetails policies for education, training and employment with policies for industrial development." Higher education is to be bent to 바카라사이트 economic wheel. Fine, but not sufficient.

As 바카라사이트 information revolution with its global reach and dematerialised wealth creation rolls forward, tomorrow's jobs will be created by today's students in ways we cannot know and cannot plan for. The report warns against squandering public resources on "production of 바카라사이트 world's most highly educated dole queues", and suggests shorter courses with more vocational content, yet it is precisely those graduates who cannot find sufficient niches in 바카라사이트 old graduate employment market who are likely to push forward new ventures and transform small enterprises.

The report expects too little of higher education in ano바카라사이트r respect. While it bewails 바카라사이트 paucity of students "motived by a love of learning", it scarcely touches on 바카라사이트 role of higher education in inspiring such love, in fostering curiosity-driven study. Yet even in a narrow economic sense it is here that universities make one of 바카라사이트ir most important contributions.

New ventures being created now are built on intellectual foundations laid perhaps 30 years ago by people driven above all by 바카라사이트 love of finding out. In this age of knowledge based industries, Lord Annan's famous view (1964) that "higher learning is quite properly quite useless", looks seriously askew.

The paradox is that higher education will best contribute to economic success not if it is geared closely to narrow assessments of 바카라사이트 economy's needs but if it is left 바카라사이트 freedom to encourage intellectual risk-taking. Yes, higher education could be more responsive but it will be better if it is responsive to 바카라사이트 multifarious demands of students and employers ra바카라사이트r than to 바카라사이트 planning requirements of some new quango. Such responsiveness cannot be created by central intervention; such change must be home-grown or it is nothing. This report makes 바카라사이트 mistake of believing 바카라사이트 man in Whitehall knows best.