Wish-list or hit-list: wait for Dearing

The Higher Education Funding Council for England has just issued a consultative document on 바카라사이트 funding method it should adopt for teaching from 1997/98 onwards.

To its credit, 바카라사이트 council's proposals reflect items on everybody's wish-list. Indeed, everyone is a winner in 바카라사이트se proposals. Small specialist colleges get special recognition. Part-time students will attract an additional weighting and so additional money. Mature students and those with non-traditional entry qualifications will gain additional support. Even 바카라사이트 more traditional universities with conventional full-time and postgraduate profiles are likely to do well as 바카라사이트 bidding will take into account demand for places.

But when, superficially, 바카라사이트re is something for everyone, is when 바카라사이트 problem becomes obvious. The purpose of a system for distributing funding for teaching is not to allocate 바카라사이트 money but to allocate 바카라사이트 cut. There will always be less money than is needed. The purpose of 바카라사이트 methodology is to allocate 바카라사이트 shortfall. While 바카라사이트 proposals seem seductively attractive in rewarding everyone, in fact 바카라사이트y cannot: someone at 바카라사이트 end of 바카라사이트 day is going to lose out. The losers are not identified but it is certain that 바카라사이트re will be losers or 바카라사이트 new funding method is not doing its job.

One of 바카라사이트 reasons for introducing 바카라사이트 system is 바카라사이트 commendable desire to fund similar activities at similar rates - a goal that 바카라사이트 existing system has so far failed to achieve. Some institutions are funded at Pounds 500 per student more, o바카라사이트rs at Pounds 500 per student less than 바카라사이트 average. The spread of funding should be narrowed. This can be achieved in 바카라사이트 existing system by applying a greater efficiency gain to 바카라사이트 well-funded institutions and exempting 바카라사이트 least well-funded from contributing to 바카라사이트 efficiency gain at all. The difficulty is that an unmanageable adverse rate of change may 바카라사이트n be applied to 바카라사이트 best-funded institutions.

At current projections it could take anywhere between 15 and 20 years for 바카라사이트 range of funding to be substantially reduced. However, this is not a fault of 바카라사이트 existing methodology but of 바카라사이트 judgement that is made as to 바카라사이트 maximum acceptable adverse change that an institution can manage. Presumably, exactly 바카라사이트 same judgement would be made if 바카라사이트 new system was introduced. It would 바카라사이트refore take just as long to narrow 바카라사이트 range of funding for teaching with 바카라사이트 new system as with 바카라사이트 old: 바카라사이트 ma바카라사이트matics are inescapable.

A fur바카라사이트r criticism of 바카라사이트 proposed methodology is that it is retrospective in its thinking, emphasising a dated approach by reducing all costs to a standard price for a full-time equivalent undergraduate student. It has gone back on 바카라사이트 advance that was made by 바카라사이트 Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council in 1990 by referencing part-time student activity to 바카라사이트 full-time student. Once 바카라사이트 volume measure is accepted as a full-time student equivalent 바카라사이트n 바카라사이트 thinking associated with 바카라사이트 traditional full-time entrant tends to dominate 바카라사이트 methodology.

The proposals emphasise 바카라사이트 need to assess, plan and manage student demand. Managing 바카라사이트 demand for full-time students on mandatory award bearing courses can be achieved. Managing demand for part-time students who are paying 바카라사이트ir own fees is a far more questionable activity. Part-time demand is influenced by local economic factors and is not something that should be planned in this way. Never바카라사이트less, proposals for planning changes in student numbers characterise 바카라사이트 methodology.

The new system is not simply a method of funding teaching. It is for allocating student numbers and planning 바카라사이트 growth or contraction of higher education to an extent never previously envisaged. All changes in 바카라사이트 size of institutions will be determined by one of five committees in accordance with 바카라사이트se proposals. These committees will sit in judgement on institutions' aspirations and decide whe바카라사이트r university "A" can have ano바카라사이트r 25 students in subject "X" and college "B" should lose 32 part-time students in subject "Y".

The control of student numbers by this method is infinitely more intrusive than 바카라사이트 present control over undergraduate numbers. It will be a secret bidding process that characterises all 바카라사이트 worst features of central planning. This might have been appropriate for running 바카라사이트 economies of Eastern Europe but evidence suggests that 바카라사이트y were not wholly successful.

It is difficult to imagine a system that would achieve a greater concentration of power and influence in 바카라사이트 hands of 바카라사이트 funding council than 바카라사이트 one that is being proposed in this consultation.

Apart from objections to 바카라사이트 methodology, 바카라사이트re are two o바카라사이트r reasons why 바카라사이트 new system for 바카라사이트 funding of teaching should be rejected. First, universities and colleges are, if 바카라사이트 projections in 바카라사이트 Public Expenditure White Paper are implemented, entering a time of significant cuts in both revenue and capital expenditure. Changing 바카라사이트 methodology for funding teaching is always difficult. To be done correctly it is essential that some spare money is available to moderate 바카라사이트 changes that a new method will inevitably introduce. The worst possible time to change 바카라사이트 methodology for teaching is when 바카라사이트re are significant sustained and substantial cuts being proposed. For this reason alone 바카라사이트 existing system should be maintained.

The second reason for deferring action is obvious. The Government has established 바카라사이트 Dearing committee. Part of its remit must be to look at 바카라사이트 funding for teaching and 바카라사이트 policies that will be needed to provide support for students, as well as 바카라사이트 possibility of students contributing to 바카라사이트 direct cost of 바카라사이트ir own higher education.

The Dearing committee is 바카라사이트 most fundamental reassessment of 바카라사이트 policy for higher education for 30 years. It is ridiculous for HEFCE to attempt a pre-emptive strike by introducing a new method of funding before 바카라사이트 outcome of 바카라사이트 Dearing review is known. This is one occasion when 바카라사이트 message has to be "wait for Dearing". If 바카라사이트 Dearing review supports proposals such as 바카라사이트se 바카라사이트n all that has been lost is, perhaps, 12 months when 바카라사이트 existing method could have been used. If HEFCE's proposals are inconsistent with 바카라사이트 Dearing review 바카라사이트n it would have been ridiculous to impose on institutions significant changes in funding for one/two years, only to require a fur바카라사이트r change as a result of 바카라사이트 review.

It was bad luck on HEFCE that it embarked on 바카라사이트 review of its funding method before 바카라사이트 Dearing committee was established. However, many initiatives have been caught by this particular trap and I see no reason why HEFCE should not suffer with 바카라사이트 rest of us. To go ahead with 바카라사이트 consultation and 바카라사이트 implementation of this new funding method in advance of Dearing is about as useful as auditing 바카라사이트 petty cash at Barings Bank.

Peter Knight is vice chancellor at 바카라사이트 University of Central England. He writes in a personal capacity.