Thank you for the thoughtful write-up. A couple of things I'd add, as you've focused heavily on recommendations 1 and 2 (out of 40):
- Let's say a Government listened to you on the contagion risks of 30% and instead went for 10-15% over 5 years (which could be achieved largely through those on franchised courses or without L3 quals). Alongside the measures - on entry standards, grade inflation, admissions and loan reform - those reforms would still do a tremendous amount of good.
- You are unduly pessimistic about people going into the labour market at 18. While I firmly believe funding should be available - in FE colleges - for an alternative route for every place cut, for many, going into the workplace would be better than being missold a worthless degree and ending with £50k of debt. Whatever L4+ skills our economy may need in future, they are not those much of our HE sector is currently providing.
I'm not an HEI expert but i found this a really insightful read. Your drawing together micro points hidden in sometimes niche reports to paint the big picture is helpful.
As a layman it's difficult to disagree with your 5 questions that HEIs should convincingly be able to answer - the sum of which is the value proposition to prospective students.
I'm currently reading Professor Guy Standing's work which is giving me pause for thought about the narrative of humans as capital and the value of learning for learning's sake. Is it possible that we sweat the seemingly small detailed stuff when what is really happening is a more fundamental belief system that is being challenged?
My key takeaway from this is...like it or not changes are coming - get ahead and shape the future or risk becoming obselete.
This is great article, so thank you. It is really sobering to get figures and details instead of slogans.
At the same time, one standing issue remains, and if the sector has to do some proper soul-searching and advance a plan, it must be addressed IMO.
The idea that university prepares for the job market is problematic if not defined properly.
To list two examples:
- Base research in hard science systematically needs public investments and public infrastructures (as little of that is done in house by companies). Natural scientists have long complained that base, speculative research is collapsing under the weight of offering viable solutions and products asap.
- Many social sciences and humanities do not necessarily prepare for a job. You can bend over backwards to make the case of a great anthropologist working for AI, or an archeologist being employed for construction permits. But these extreme cases aside, people who choose these fields do no necessarily have a high paid job (as much data show). They do so because they follow their passion, and end up applying their skills in tangential ways. A rich, G7 country may want to save this gem.
So the question, the hard question, is: do we in HE want to protect the idea that university is a public service whose outcome is not necessarily catering to economic needs?
By now the situation is clear:
- either we revert to a time where studying non-economically viable subjects (let's say, pure mathematics, astronomy, archeology) is confined to upper classes going to a handful of niche colleges (like Oxbridge)
- OR we rethink the sector back to a public service where we divide between proper vocational training (like university of applied sciences in most western EU) vs University as place for critical thinking, knowledge, and creativity for their own sake.
In the former, research is minimal and used to applied cases in teaching; in the latter, research is well founded, central, and applied in teaching at abstract level. For instance, a Uni of Applied Sciences teaches project management skills; in the latter, the history, social context, and economic/long-term implications of the division of labour in organisations. Needless to say, an employer will seldom appreciate a story of labour process theory in the 70s in a job interview; but this creates a long-term understanding of how a profession came about, and how it may evolve. The reality, is that universities today try to do both, and they (we) do it bad.
This does not mean HE should be detached from the real world or the economy; it means abandoning metrics on employability and income as the main, if not only, predictor, of HE quality.
Personally, I believe that if UK HE does not seriously decide if it is a pre-labour-market trainer or a place to learn thinking, becoming a citizen, and developing complex understanding of scientific or social phenomena (regardless of short-term economic outcomes), it will never be able to present a clear solution.
In conclusion, I also wonder how many professors will be willing to say 'my job is to train future workers and to ensure their salary is good at year 3'. I would say very few, and even less outside applied field by design (like business or chemistry).
Long reflection, sorry! Thank you again for the great article!
I'd argue that your second option - "OR we rethink the sector back to a public service where we divide between proper vocational training (like university of applied sciences in most western EU) vs University as place for critical thinking, knowledge, and creativity for their own sake." - is the way to go, and Tarnished Towers sets out various steps that would take us closer to that.
Higher eduction will not reform itself incrementally or effectively or indeed at all - and the longer it continues in its current parasitic state the more damage it will cause and the worse will be the ultimate adjustment to reality - a reality that includes LLMs making redundant virtually all degrees within less than a decade.
Thanks for providing such a broad perspective, with much to consider. I agree that neither a graduate tax nor a large scale, rapid reduction in university education are the answer. But we do need radical reform in relation to student finance as well as significant change across the university sector - both of which need to go hand in hand.
Your list of 5 questions for HEI's is very helpful. There are opportunities for HEI's to change and improve voluntarily, but how many will take that opportunity in the absence of clear leadership and a sustainable vision for the university sector from government?
This covers a lot but we also need to look at University leadership, management and expenditure (not just the income side). Nobody talks about the fact that the HE sector had a huge windfall of additional income running into the billions when full fees were introduced in 2012 for several years.
It used this to (a) initiate huge vanity projects, physical and systemic transformations that often went way over budget; (b) bloat management structures; (c) increase senior management pay to eye watering levels; (d) bring in armies of big four consultants at huge cost with little (if any) return; And when, as anyone looking forward could see coming, the money got tighter, these same leaders go back to government with a large cap in hand asking for increased fees and more money to reward their profligacy.
A radical review of efficiency and spending in University might also be part of seeking greater credibility for Universities in govenment circules. Because you can be sure that UK Treasury officials have figures on how much University management costs have grown in the last 15 years whilst academics are being made redundant.
Thank you for the thoughtful write-up. A couple of things I'd add, as you've focused heavily on recommendations 1 and 2 (out of 40):
- Let's say a Government listened to you on the contagion risks of 30% and instead went for 10-15% over 5 years (which could be achieved largely through those on franchised courses or without L3 quals). Alongside the measures - on entry standards, grade inflation, admissions and loan reform - those reforms would still do a tremendous amount of good.
- You are unduly pessimistic about people going into the labour market at 18. While I firmly believe funding should be available - in FE colleges - for an alternative route for every place cut, for many, going into the workplace would be better than being missold a worthless degree and ending with £50k of debt. Whatever L4+ skills our economy may need in future, they are not those much of our HE sector is currently providing.
I'm not an HEI expert but i found this a really insightful read. Your drawing together micro points hidden in sometimes niche reports to paint the big picture is helpful.
As a layman it's difficult to disagree with your 5 questions that HEIs should convincingly be able to answer - the sum of which is the value proposition to prospective students.
I'm currently reading Professor Guy Standing's work which is giving me pause for thought about the narrative of humans as capital and the value of learning for learning's sake. Is it possible that we sweat the seemingly small detailed stuff when what is really happening is a more fundamental belief system that is being challenged?
My key takeaway from this is...like it or not changes are coming - get ahead and shape the future or risk becoming obselete.
This is great article, so thank you. It is really sobering to get figures and details instead of slogans.
At the same time, one standing issue remains, and if the sector has to do some proper soul-searching and advance a plan, it must be addressed IMO.
The idea that university prepares for the job market is problematic if not defined properly.
To list two examples:
- Base research in hard science systematically needs public investments and public infrastructures (as little of that is done in house by companies). Natural scientists have long complained that base, speculative research is collapsing under the weight of offering viable solutions and products asap.
- Many social sciences and humanities do not necessarily prepare for a job. You can bend over backwards to make the case of a great anthropologist working for AI, or an archeologist being employed for construction permits. But these extreme cases aside, people who choose these fields do no necessarily have a high paid job (as much data show). They do so because they follow their passion, and end up applying their skills in tangential ways. A rich, G7 country may want to save this gem.
So the question, the hard question, is: do we in HE want to protect the idea that university is a public service whose outcome is not necessarily catering to economic needs?
By now the situation is clear:
- either we revert to a time where studying non-economically viable subjects (let's say, pure mathematics, astronomy, archeology) is confined to upper classes going to a handful of niche colleges (like Oxbridge)
- OR we rethink the sector back to a public service where we divide between proper vocational training (like university of applied sciences in most western EU) vs University as place for critical thinking, knowledge, and creativity for their own sake.
In the former, research is minimal and used to applied cases in teaching; in the latter, research is well founded, central, and applied in teaching at abstract level. For instance, a Uni of Applied Sciences teaches project management skills; in the latter, the history, social context, and economic/long-term implications of the division of labour in organisations. Needless to say, an employer will seldom appreciate a story of labour process theory in the 70s in a job interview; but this creates a long-term understanding of how a profession came about, and how it may evolve. The reality, is that universities today try to do both, and they (we) do it bad.
This does not mean HE should be detached from the real world or the economy; it means abandoning metrics on employability and income as the main, if not only, predictor, of HE quality.
Personally, I believe that if UK HE does not seriously decide if it is a pre-labour-market trainer or a place to learn thinking, becoming a citizen, and developing complex understanding of scientific or social phenomena (regardless of short-term economic outcomes), it will never be able to present a clear solution.
In conclusion, I also wonder how many professors will be willing to say 'my job is to train future workers and to ensure their salary is good at year 3'. I would say very few, and even less outside applied field by design (like business or chemistry).
Long reflection, sorry! Thank you again for the great article!
I'd argue that your second option - "OR we rethink the sector back to a public service where we divide between proper vocational training (like university of applied sciences in most western EU) vs University as place for critical thinking, knowledge, and creativity for their own sake." - is the way to go, and Tarnished Towers sets out various steps that would take us closer to that.
Higher eduction will not reform itself incrementally or effectively or indeed at all - and the longer it continues in its current parasitic state the more damage it will cause and the worse will be the ultimate adjustment to reality - a reality that includes LLMs making redundant virtually all degrees within less than a decade.
Thanks for providing such a broad perspective, with much to consider. I agree that neither a graduate tax nor a large scale, rapid reduction in university education are the answer. But we do need radical reform in relation to student finance as well as significant change across the university sector - both of which need to go hand in hand.
Your list of 5 questions for HEI's is very helpful. There are opportunities for HEI's to change and improve voluntarily, but how many will take that opportunity in the absence of clear leadership and a sustainable vision for the university sector from government?
Here’s a thought.
Maybe education shoildn’t just be about earning more?
Maybe it should be about learning and personal development?
Half of 26 year old graduates earn less than average salary?
Given they have 42 more years of work ahead of them, do they expect to already be on more than average wage?
Only the top 10% of earners makes over £68k already. They can't all go into the top 10%, so what kind of career growth are they expecting?
This covers a lot but we also need to look at University leadership, management and expenditure (not just the income side). Nobody talks about the fact that the HE sector had a huge windfall of additional income running into the billions when full fees were introduced in 2012 for several years.
It used this to (a) initiate huge vanity projects, physical and systemic transformations that often went way over budget; (b) bloat management structures; (c) increase senior management pay to eye watering levels; (d) bring in armies of big four consultants at huge cost with little (if any) return; And when, as anyone looking forward could see coming, the money got tighter, these same leaders go back to government with a large cap in hand asking for increased fees and more money to reward their profligacy.
A radical review of efficiency and spending in University might also be part of seeking greater credibility for Universities in govenment circules. Because you can be sure that UK Treasury officials have figures on how much University management costs have grown in the last 15 years whilst academics are being made redundant.