THE FUTURE OF HIGHER EDUCATION Academy of Social Sciences / College of Academicians meeting / June 7, 2011 Introduction two stories

s 1. Thank you very much for inviting me to speak on the Future of Higher Education what future, some people may ask, because after more than decade of sustained increases in funding, both for students and for research, higher education [in England, at any rate] seems to be on the brink of a new Iron Age. In fact, despite my opposition to almost everything that is being proposed by the Government a rather toxic mix of privatisation and nationalisation, in my view I believe our first responsibility is to avoid a slide into the language, and mentality, of catastrophe. 2. Of course, thats not easy. We are faced with two stories. The first story is about the death of public higher education. This is not just a question of the usual critics the NUS, UCU and a (very) few leftish Vice-Chancellors. Whatever else the Browne report will eventually achieve, it has already been successful in mobilising the bulk of academic opinion in resistance to its proposals. More than that Browne has also roused the public intellectuals. It is rare indeed that they notice events in their own backyard. But not only has the London Review of Books published three excellent polemics by Stefan Collini last year (which I circulated to my [then] Governing Body, probably to their bemusement) and twice in recent weeks by Harold Hotson the present crisis in English higher education has even made the pages of the New York Review of Books. So that is one story and well told it has been. 3. But there is a second story of the slow car crash that the Governments plans to reform higher education are turning into. Originally David Willetts promised a White Paper by Christmas; then it was promised in the spring; next it was promised on June 7 [today]; the latest is that it has been put off until July. Some cynics are beginning to wonder if it will ever appear or whether some fudged broad-brush high-level statement will appear instead, and the poisoned chalice will be passed back to HEFCE to sort out. Perhaps if HEFCE had not been kept out of the loop in the first place by the Browne committee and then by the Government, this very public policy meltdown might have been avoided. The same week Harold Hotsons first piece appeared in the LRB, the process descended almost in farce as, within hours of David Willetts floating the idea of rich families buying off-quota places, he was slapped down by David Cameron. Meanwhile Vince Cable glowers in the corner, not saying much but what he does say largely critical of universities. One thing is sure it is difficult to recall a better (or do I mean worse?) example of how not to make public policy. 4. But just as I dont entirely buy the-death-of-the-public-university story (my heart does but not my head), nor do I think we should indulge (too long, at any rate) our feelings of schadenfreude. It is not in any ones interests, least of all ours as social scientists, to encourage bad habits in the making of public policy. I am not doing quite as far as to say that it is our duty to rescue David Willetts from his folly. But I am saying that we should keep cool heads by offering as cool, dispassionate and careful analysis of the Governments plans as is possible, an analysis that recognises the continuities with past policy (and, more controversially perhaps, the commonalities with Labours higher education policy because, if we are honest, there has been a decades-long drift away from collegial governance to executive governance in universities and also towards some inchoate, ill-defined, form of a

market in higher education). At any rate we should provide a range of possible scenarios, from the mildly disruptive to the seriously scary, rather than simply offering a single worsecase Doomsday account. 5. So today I would like to do two things: First, to talk about Browne and all that which cannot, and should not be avoided but to do so as dispassionately and realistically as possible. I will try to thread a narrow path between complacency and catastrophe; Second, I want to take the long view and talk about the deeper currents of change in higher education, the shift in social, economic and cultural structures (and changes in knowledge and technology) which matter far more than the surface eddies of politics.

Browne and all that 6. So to start with Browne and its after-shocks. The big question is whether, looking back, Browne report will be seen as such a dramatic break-point, the final abandonment of higher educations own version of the post-war settlement? Or will the media storm die down, the political circus move on, the compromises and adjustments be made restoring business-asusual? Lord Browne and his fellow committee members, of course, see their report in dramatic terms; they even use that much abused term paradigm shift. But the processes of adjustment are already apparent: First, the Government itself refused to lift the fees cap entirely, as Browne recommended so undermining any possibility of a real market developing (if such a possibility had ever existed). What we are left with is not that different from a retrograde and regressive graduate tax (which, because of the repayment terms, will never be paid back in full); Next, nearly every university has decided to charge fees right at the top of the permitted range. The only substantial difference is between those which want to assert, uncompromisingly, that they are among the very best (hence they have decided to charge 9K) and those that want to demonstrate their social conscience (so they will charge 8.5K). Both are simply positioning statements not market decisions and the 500 difference is neither here-nor-there; Thirdly, of course, the White Paper has yet to appear. It is hazardous to speculate although the motherhood-and-apple-piece stuff about empowering students through more transparent information and not forgetting about widening participation (to quieten Liberal Democrats jitters) is easy to predict. But some tricky balances will have to be negotiated between the desire to promote a student demand-led market and the manifest need to limit the States financial exposure (which translates into student number controls); and also between the enthusiasm for private providers and the need to prevent a wholesale erosion of quality and standards. No wonder it is proving difficult to write. Six scenarios 7. So what is likely to happen? Let me list six possible scenarios:

i) A first scenario is that, indeed, the paradigm shift announced by Lord Browne, comes to pass. Not only does a lively market in fees develop among existing higher education institutions, but private providers flood in some for-profit companies specialising in course delivery, others multi-national media corporations with entirely new delivery models; and others again non-UK higher education institutions attracted by a more open (and potentially lucrative?) market place. Meanwhile Further Education colleges become much more significant providers both of entry-level higher education (rather on the US community college pattern) and of new vocational pathways (in a re-run of the binary policy of the 1960s). ii) But a second scenario is that higher fees consolidate the position of higher-status institutions because they provide a more secure and more generous stream of funding underwritten by the State than under the current HEFCE grant system. On the other hand, higher fees force other universities to abandon me-too strategies of academic drift (especially in terms of building research capacity) and adopt strategies that are dictated more by the demands of students and needs of employers. So, although an elite core remains above the market, the bulk of institutions are transformed by differential fees. Despite the apparent uniformity of headline fees, widespread discounting, more or less generous bursaries and other market devices produce real differentiation; iii) But, according to a third scenario, the current reform produces unexpected winners and losers. Success in the fees market-place depends not only on the capacity to charge higher fees but also the ability to recruit sufficient students, whatever the fees. So an institutions place in the pecking order (and its academic standing which are not necessarily the same, although they are confused in a system obsessed with brands and league tables) is not the only success factor. Equally decisive are subject mix (lots of STEM subjects would be good or would it?), geography (often at the level of micro-regions), financial resilience and management capacity; iv) Of course a fourth scenario opens up the possibility of more radical restructuring than has been seen since the 1960s (when, broadly, the current pattern of institutions was established half a century ago!). Some institutions struggle to maintain their independence. The attitude of Ministers (and, through their influence, the attitude of HEFCE) to institutional failures is difficult to predict especially if they are the wrong losers (in academic or political terms). At a less catastrophist level experience of, and appetite for collaborations and partnerships becomes much more important (even, or especially, those that cross boundaries between HE and FE, public and private or national and international); v) A fifth scenario takes a broader view, embracing not just the fees and funding changes developed from the Browne report and the spending review but wider policies (for example, the Research Excellence Framework or new regulations on student visas). Successive Research Assessment Exercises have failed to promote research concentration; indeed more differential gearing of research funding allocation systems has been needed to override their results. The REF is even worse; at the least assessing impact produces new uncertainties. The new visa regulations also handicap those institutions which try to escape from the constraints of national policies (or overcome their weaknesses in domestic markets) by international flight.

These are just two examples of the potential significant impact of non-Browne policies. vi) But then there is a sixth scenario in which the whole higher education system demonstrates its underlying resilience by absorbing the impact of the current reforms with minimum change. Fee cartels emerge through a process of osmosis that is immune to effective scrutiny by fair competition regulators. Most students, however loud their collective protests, have little choice but to pay higher fees (and, because they may never have to pay back the full amount, many even welcome higher fees because they give institutions more money to meet student demands in the hereand-now). Even those institutions most exposed by a high-fee regime develop effective coping strategies. They also tend to be the most street-wise institutions, used to searching out new student markets to compensate for declining or lost markets. Good habits developed in the course of widening participation are turned into shrewd business strategies. Knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns 8. Which of these scenarios is most plausible? Your guess is as good as mine. But experience suggests that we will end up with a mixture, with elements of all six (and maybe of other scenarios). Remember Donald Rumsfelds not entirely distinction between knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknown. My worry is the unintended (and maybe perverse?) consequences, the collateral damage that always attends on reforms done in a great hurry. Let me just mention three: Student demand 9. First, we know almost nothing about the impact of higher fees on student demand. The Treasury, of course, is interested in this question because it wants to know what the total bill s going to be. The rest of us are interested because the level of demand will determine how the system develops. An educated guess is that 80% plus of potential students will still have no choice but to go to higher education, because we have become in many key respects a graduate society. But 10% plus, from socially more disadvantaged groups, may be put off. Then there is the impact of demography buoyant in London and the South east; much less so elsewhere. If demand stays high higher education will remain a sellers market, with little downward pressure on fees. But, if demand declines significantly, it may not help to produce more fee differentiation. Institutions lower down the food chain may be unable to recruit students whatever fees they charge, because there may be no students left. 10. Then there is another twist. Many people expect a temporary decline in demand to be followed by a resumption of growth. But two points: First, some stage, in mass higher education systems, we presumably must reach saturation point and, although we feel we must still be some way from that point here in Britain, there are signs it has been reached in the United States; Secondly, even if demand recovers, how long will the trough last and what will be the impact on the finances of more vulnerable universities?

Price Group C and D

11. My second example of collateral damage is the large-scale cut in HEFCEs teaching grant to universities which, of course, means that there will be no grant at all for price group C and D subjects (in other words, the arts and humanities and the social sciences but also art and design and other creative subjects, and also business and management). In other words many of the most fundamental disciplines in the modern university will receive no direct public support. This has been represented as a gigantic act of philistinism. This is not completely unfair, because we are all aware of the way politicians love to attack media studies courses or ridicule any social science research that is remotely theoretical or critical. But it is not completely unfair either, because (as members of the Browne committee have pointed out) tuition fees are really a form of student vouchers and so represent a substantial, even increased, public commitment to the arts and social sciences; and also that the lack of dependence on HEFCE funding enhances their autonomy. 12. The real difficulty is that we have no idea what the consequences will be: One possibility, of course, is that universities will disinvest in these subjects, believing they are responding to the political message; another that they will actually expand student numbers (because 9K is more than the total they currently receive in grant and fees); Another concern must be that the arts and humanities, and the more critical social sciences, will become concentrated in elite universities and inevitably, therefore, in the elite social groups that are concentrated in these universities. The implication would then be that, while philosopher kings can be trusted with the truth, the people cannot. But can a functioning, let alone flourishing, democracy tolerate such a resurgence of aristocratic and authoritarian ideas? The arts and humanities, and social sciences, it can be argued, are even more necessary for the kind of students recruited by London Met than for students at Oxford not just necessary for them; necessary for us, as a society: Finally, and more prosaically, another unintended consequence of the withdrawal for HEFCE funding could be an even more intensive, and excessive, focus on big science in research funding and the future distribution of QR at our expense.

Devolution 13. The final example of collateral damage and, presumably, unintended consequences is the impact of devolution. Take the example of a student in Berwick-upon-Tweed who wants to attend their closest university, Edinburgh, 45 miles away. She, or he, will be charged 9K while a student living just across the Border, in Duns say, would effectively pay no fees. In a further twist a student from Bucharest, on the other side of Europe, would be treated like the student from Duns not like the student from Berwick (the legal argument being that, while it is unlawful to discriminate against citizens from other EU states, it is fine to discriminate against your own citizens). In fact the example I have just given is not the best one, because cross-border flows between Scotland and England are fairly modest. Those between England and Wales are not. Not only is the Welsh Assembly Government planning to discriminate against English-domiciled students in Welsh universities; it is also proposing to subsidise Welsh-domiciled students in English universities.

14. One reaction to all this is to treat it as Alice-in-Wonderland politics. But much is at stake. Not only will this produce major distortions that have no academic logic, and disrupt natural student choices; the stakes are even higher the United Kingdom, that historic sense of Britishness to which both Conservative and Labour politicians have pledged their allegiance, are much more likely to be eroded from below, by an accumulation of rather humdrum inequities such as these, than dissolved from above by dramatic constitutional and legal actions. Political events and the long haul 15. I have already begun to drift into bigger topics the links between the arts and humanities, and critical social sciences and the nature of democratic society, the future of the United Kingdom and our post-imperial identity rather than reinvented national identities, and so on. So I would like to spend just a few minutes looking at this big picture. I have always particularly liked the contrast drawn the French historian Fernand Braudel between the history of events and the long haul (longue dure). It is these more fundamental structural changes in science and society, in organisations and culture that will shape the future of higher education not Browne and Willetts (or even the elegant critiques of their policies in the LRB and NYRB). 16. So what changes do I have in mind? Three in particular (and these are hardly surprising choices): i) The first is the growth of the knowledge economy. Year-on-year there is an inexorable decline in low-skill jobs and an equally inexorable increase in the number of jobs for which advanced skills are required. At the same time a growing proportion of those advanced skills are generated within higher education, as more and more professions and occupations require graduate credentials. In the so-called race to the top the pressure to concentrate on high-skill knowledge economy jobs, the great majority of which are also graduate jobs, is one of the major drivers of modern higher education. ii) The second is the important changes in the way in which group and individual identities are formed. In the past these identities were shaped by gender, ethnic origin, religion, geography, occupation and social class. Now increasingly identity is moulded by: (i) levels of educational attainment; and (ii) cultural capital (or, more prosaically, exposure to a new and more open graduate society (which is as much about life-styles as about life-chances). iii) The third big change is in political culture in particular, the shift from the welfare state to the market state, a structural as well as ideological shift; and instantaneous always-on media-driven politics which, in the short run, force politicians to meddle furiously and over-claim wildly. This has made it much more difficult to fund public services, including higher education, out of general taxation. So more Government borrowing, ceaseless reorganisations and reforms and quick-fixes like PFI (and private universities?) 17. Most of the really fundamental changes in higher education reflect these kinds of changes such as:

The growth of the system, much of it very recent: today there are 2.5 million students compared with 1.5 million at the time of the Dearing report 12 years ago; Changes in the pattern of courses, and of teaching and learning in higher education the creeping vocationalisation of most university courses (the very opposite of academic drift) and, of course, the explosion of IT, social media and the rest; New patterns of research production the industrialisation of research practice, increasing surveillance (sorry assessment and accountability!) and high-flown theories of Mode 2 knowledge and the Triple Helix; Finally, changes in universities as organisations and, more specifically, their leadership, governance and management. The waning of the donnish dominion and the rise of the managers...

18. In my view, these changes are coming from below or coming from outside. They are not, in the most part, coming from above. I find that comforting for two reasons. FIRST, it means that I have an excuse for worrying less about the Browne report and its after-shocks, from which we are still reeling; the combination of privatisation and nationalisation which is being inflicted upon us, which seems bizarre and contradictory in terms of the history of events, becomes much more comprehensible in the context of the long haul. SECONDLY, it underlines for me the urgent need to bring social scientific knowledge theories, public policy and professional insights and empirical research to bear on understanding modern higher education systems. That is where we will discover its future not in the entrails of David Willetts! Conclusion 19. But let me end with a more personal coda. I recognise that I have walking the narrow line between complacency and catastrophe and many of you may feel that I have erred on the side of complacency. After all, in the long haul present difficulties disappear even though the long haul is composed of the slow accretion of present events. So let me try to redress the balance and leave no one in any doubt about where I stand. 20. I stand four-square for public higher education public not solely in terms of its funding, although as an unreformed social democrat I believe that is where universities should derive most of their support from and that students should not be burdened with debt; but public in the sense that higher education, both teaching and research, must transcend the purely personal, extend beyond the individual and also beyond our own times. There are three fundamental reasons why I believe in, and (I hope) stand behind, public higher education: FIRST, any weakening of that idea is certain to undermine higher education as a progressive social project not just at the margin in terms of widening participation but centrally in terms of the quality of our democracy, the conditions of our social life: SECONDLY, any weakening of the idea of public higher education will compromise the universitys key position in civil society, that crucial space between the State or the market and the purely personal domain. For me the whole idea of

civil society implies collective actions and instincts. And it is civil society in which criticality and, therefore, freedom flourish; FINALLY, any weakening of the idea of public higher education is a challenge to science itself because the marketisation of higher education, especially of research, is incompatible with fundamental processes of open science on which its continuing progress ultimately depends. 21. So I have no doubt that great things are at stake. Nor do I have any doubt about the ground on which I stand. Thank you for listening to me.

Questions and Answers following Professor Sir Peter Scotts talk on the Future of Higher Education and of the Social Sciences given to the College Annual Meetings on 7th June 2011 1. Ian Gough AcSS (Chair College of Academicians). Collini says that the elimination of public funding for the arts and social sciences means that universities will be at the mercy of the preferences of teenagers, who will only follow what they already know. PS: This is a risk. But I dont expect student behaviour to change as a result of the rise in fees. There was no marked behaviour change when Clarke first introduced fees. Students tend to see their chosen subject as a statement about their future selves. 2. Gail Birkett (BISA). BISA is going to start marketing to GSCE level students. PS: I am uncomfortable about subjects marketing themselves as brands. 3. Ceridwen Roberts AcSS. Young peoples choices are related to jobs. If the public sector is disappearing there are fewer possibilities for social science graduates. PS: Yet traditional academic disciplines are resilient. 4. Ceridwen Roberts AcSS. More broadly, are we witnessing the disappearance of the concept of the public university? PS: Too many senior university people now dont hold to the idea of a public university, seeing it rather in mechanistic, procedural terms. But against this, the general public see the importance of being a graduate and would regard any restriction of access to HE negatively: HE is widely regarded as a right. Second, we must distinguish a public sector university from a HE institution serving the public interest. For example, Harvard is regarded as an institution which serves the public benefit. But others [in US] are seen as money-makers and this is often regarded as offensive over here. 5. Ann Buchanan AcSS. Given the internationalisation of Higher Education, how can a English university system with high fees coexist with universities in Europe? PS: There will probably be wide effects. The University of Maastricht wishes to join the UCAS system: if European universities are cheap, they will probably be a draw. Also, if the differential here between overseas students fees and home fees diminishes then we may not recruit as many overseas students. The impact may well fall on postgraduate courses as Masters courses may be cheaper elsewhere. IG: The evidence from Europe is that they wont follow the UK and the difference in fees is already large. PS: Many European governments are tempted by higher fees, but what they do tends to relate to political ideology. The Netherlands already charges significant fees, compared to 10 years ago, but the Nordic countries cannot accept the idea of fees. The UK is not a trendsetter. 6. Ewan Ferlie (SHOC). Have we underestimated the effect of the UK states power on universities? There have been negative consequences since the 1990s of steering by the state. And will we see hybrid forms of HE e.g. not for profit or partnerships such as the recently announced New College where the academics own shares.

PS: a) There has been an encroachment of state power on universities. This was an inevitable part of increasing transparency with growth. The universities havent asserted their independence. b) What is important about any models of funding HE is the ethos rather than the mechanics. 7. Barbara Doig AcSS. Social Science hasnt got its message across about the skills set it provides. How can it do this? PS: The IoE provides an MBA in HE Management, but professional managers is not a positive move. In the US the President of a university tends to regard himself as part of the administration rather than the Faculty. The UK differs, which is probably good. There is a need for independent and disinterested people of suitable status to make these arguments as otherwise they are perceived as being made to benefit particular institutions. BD: This is the role of the Academy. 8. Corinne Squire AcSS. The universities most likely to be under threat will move to vocational qualifications and a strong employability focus. PS: those from poorer backgrounds tend to take a short view and opt for vocational qualifications because they need to get jobs. It is important that social science and the arts are preserved in all places which is the worry about the employability argument. 9. Andy Ross (GES). What about other forms of Higher Education, such as part time? PS: Browne did recognise that p/t students also need access to loans. Many students are now p/t and hold down jobs: the distinction between f/t and p/t study is essentially gone already. Now is the time for more flexible providers. Post graduate study is already very flexible but the bulk of younger students have very traditional expectations. The system is already changing and the funding system is playing catch-up. 10. Linda Hantrais AcSS. Another issue is that European students are already taking loans from our government but will probably never repay them when they return to their own countries. Many home students will never repay the loans either as they may take lower paying jobs. PS: Recent figures show that 40% of graduates have not repaid their loans, and probably most female students will never do so. This could be regarded positively as a clever way of providing public support. It is still a hugely publicly subsidized system. End.