Developing Engineers

Now that leaks are emerging concerning the fate of higher education funding in the UK, it is beginning to become clear what the ‘masterplan’ behind increasing tuition fees, reducing teaching funding and reducing research funding really is.  But will these changes ultimately improve the standard of teaching at our universities, create more specialist and demand-driven institutions and make our research efforts inherently more efficient?  Or simply saddle graduates with mountains of debt, discourage poorer families from considering a top university education for their children, and place an unfair burden on those that have recently been termed the ‘squeezed-middle’?  Will some less renowned institutions go to the wall?  And will the UK lose some of its most valued researchers?

Given the Government's insistence on spending cuts, what moves does the higher education sector have left to make?

In the whirlwind of media coverage on this issue (including, I feel obliged to add, footage of a number of my peers from Sheffield University Students’ Union outside Nick Clegg’s Sheffield Hallam constituency office) it is difficult to pinpoint any conclusive answer – the Government is clearly hoping for market forces to shape higher education, whilst the student movement is fighting any increase in fees at a time when student satisfaction has remained static.  The Russell Group wants higher fees and a market in HE but are worried about teaching and research funding cuts, a concern which is shared by academics and Vice-Chancellors across the country, while the institutions represented by the university think-tank million+ believe the impact will be much worse for them; without an international reputation to support them, they could get dragged into a divisive and destructive competition for students looking to pay lower fees, whilst facing the same teaching funding cuts as everyone else.

Given the Government’s market-driven approach, it is incredibly worrying to see reports suggesting that commercial firms and charities will not fill the funding gaps left by the proposed changes to the HE system.  Perhaps just as indicative of the severity of the situation, given the Russell Group’s aversion to criticising the Government recently, is when one of its own Vice-Chancellors warns staff that university cuts would be a “national tragedy”.  The head of Universities UK, Professor Steve Smith sent a similar message to Vice-Chancellors around the country, saying that the figures set out by the Browne Review “confirm our worst fears” – a £3.2bn or 79% cut to teaching funding and a £1bn cut to research.

“George Osborne’s aim of cutting Whitehall department budgets by between 25 and 40 per cent over five years could leave universities out of pocket by as much as £6.6bn” – Michael Savage commenting on statements by Universities UK in The Independent

Renowned scientist and Chair of the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee, John Krebs has warned that research funding cuts will lead to a new ‘lost generation’ of scientists, highlighting the lack of top researchers in their mid-50s thought to have been lost as a result of cuts during the Thatcher years.  It seems common sense to suggest that cutting funding to research will just cause our best scientists to take their research elsewhere, namely the better funded institutions of our competitors in the United States, France and Germany.  In all this there does appear to be some respite for those of us of a STEM persuasion though – both the Browne Review and the Government have suggested increased subsidies for ‘strategically important’ subjects, although it appears this is at the expense of almost all funding for Arts & Humanities.  This is presumably one of the factors that is expected to result in smaller, specialised institutions as suggested by a recent Times Higher Education report, with ‘non-profitable’ departments being re-organised, merged or closed as a result of the loss of teaching funding.

Regardless of specific provisions for particular social groups or specialisms, all stakeholders and users of the higher education system in this country have grave concerns that need addressing before these monumental changes are pushed through Parliament.  With organisations, businesses, services and individuals from across the country fighting their separate corners after the Comprehensive Spending Review is published on the 20th October, half the battle for students, universities and higher education will simply be, to be heard at all.

I’ll leave some final thoughts to Professor Geoffrey Crossick, on his report entitled, ‘The future is more than just tomorrow: Higher education, the economy and the longer term’.

The Browne Review (or Independent Review of Higher Education Funding and Student Finance) is due to report back next week with constant media speculation that the overarching recommendations will be to raise tuition fees to £7000 a year and allow selective institutions to charge even more for ‘elite’ courses.  This will undoubtedly be welcome news for Dr. Wendy Piatt, Director-General of  the Russell Group of leading research-intensive universities, who have long advocated a competitive market system for tuition fees – but what about everyone else?

The opposite can be said of Aaron Porter, President of the National Union of Students – having campaigned for years against tuition fees, against top-up fees and against a ‘free market’ in HE, even advocating a graduate tax in recent times to increase the contribution graduates make towards their university education.  But so far all of these arguments, that HE gives a ‘free boost’ to the economy, that as a developed nation we are dependent on our ‘knowledge-based’ economy and that HE should be free and open to all, appear to have fallen on deaf ears.

“For every £1m spent by higher education, £1.35m was generated by universities for the economy” – The Impact of Universities on the UK Economy

Adam Tinworth - http://www.flickr.com/photos/adders/3009564837/in/photostream/

Whilst the major partner in the Coalition Government appears opposed to the latter idea, the Liberal Democrats recently voted for a ‘graduate tax campaign’ at their party conference.  This idea is supported by groups such as million+, who historically represent former polytechnics and colleges – but why the difference with the Russell Group?  The obvious (or cynical?) answer to that is simply this: leading research universities will be able to charge the highest rates for the courses they offer, whilst those with a lower international standing will be forced to charge much less to remain competitive, whilst also bearing the burden of funding cuts in HE (see my post on research funding) that will likely result from the Comprehensive Spending Review, which coincidentally reports back later this month.

For those of you from outside the profession, you may think of this as an odd topic for a ‘developing engineer’ to weigh into, but it’s not – organisations such as the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE), along with other professional engineering and science bodies are dependent on a stable flow of qualified graduates from a wide-range of backgrounds.  Major changes to tuition fees and higher education funding will impact their future membership.  Worries such as those highlighted by a study commissioned by the Sutton Trust, that higher fees will deter those from poorer backgrounds, must be shared by all.

“Only if sufficient young people are motivated to pursue careers based on Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) can we maintain and progress the  technological developments that underpin our health, wealth and security.” – Education for Engineering – IMechE Policy Summary

Let’s be clear, whilst the tuition fees debate is sometimes portrayed by the media as an internal dispute between students and universities, it should be of concern to everyone.  A well-funded, stable and open higher education system for anyone with the right abilities is essential for the future prosperity of our economy.  The outcomes of the Browne Review, the Comprehensive Spending Review and the subsequent decisions made by Government will not just affect students, universities and academics – they will affect us all.