Times Higher Education - February 08, 2018

8 February 2018Times Higher Education 31

LETTERS

GETTY/ISTOCK

In his challenge to the established

hierarchy of universities (“Snob-

bery towards modern universities

is unfair and outdated”, Opinion,

3 February, http://www.timeshigher-

education.com), Edward Peck, the

vice-chancellor of Nottingham

Trent University, proposes new

categories of “teaching-intensive”

and “teaching-active” universities,

to match designations for research.

He asks why a record of

success in the teaching excellence

framework, in widening partici-

pation and in graduate employ-

ment does not translate into a

judgement of prestige. Peck also

laments the enduring truth of the

observation made by Sir Howard

Newby in 2003 that “the English

[have a] genius for turning diver-

sity into hierarchy”.

However, as Roger Brown

recently pointed out, we do not

have substantial diversity of

mission in UK higher education,

and we find “reduced between-

institution diversity of mission,

with emulation being the main

form of competition in a posi-

tional market”. This desire for

emulation has meant that most

UK universities have sought to

signal prestige by research achieve-

ment. To that end, many have

imposed research-performance

criteria on their research-active

staff. Those expectations for read-

ers and professors at Nottingham

Trent do not differ significantly

from those circulating in Russell

Group universities, and neither do

the disciplinary consequences for

not meeting them.

One limitation of his argument

is that Peck does not supply any

evidence that research-intensive

universities are necessarily less

teaching-intensive. In fact, teaching

loads have climbed for all staff at

Russell Group universities as new

workload models have been intro-

duced. At many universities, much

of the teaching is delivered by a

casualised workforce of highly

qualified academics whose career

options do not allow any other

choice but to be teaching-intensive.

In any case, if we take the

student experience as the point of

reference, it is not apparent that

students enjoy more teaching

intensity at universities that are

members of Peck’s University Alli-

ance than they do at those of the

Russell Group. The Higher Educa-

tion Funding Council for England

has just released the new subject-

level TEF measures of teaching

intensity, and a key factor in the

weighting calculation is staff-to-

student ratio. Consequently, if

Russell Group universities are

found to offer a lower staff-to-

student ratio, this will translate

into a measure of greater teaching

intensity. The TEF will also

include a corroborating Teaching

Intensity Student Survey, in which

students will be asked about their

scheduled teaching hours.

It remains to be seen whether

the metric will provide clarity, but

until there is evidence by which

we can compare teaching inten-

sity, it might be best to avoid

introducing unwelcome divisions

into a sector that would be best

served by solidarity.

Liz Morrish

Nottingham

Participation points

Cherie Blair (HE&Me, News,

25 January) is mistaken about the

participation rate at the time of

the Robbins report. It was 6 per

cent in 1963, when I started

university as one of a small minor-

ity of working-class students. By

the 1970s, the proportion had

more than doubled, but it stag-

nated while the polytechnics coped

with the drastic contraction of

initial teacher training following

Margaret Thatcher’s White Paper

A Framework for Expansion.

I also disagree with Blair over

tuition fees and funding. I would

not have gone to university with

the current consequent debt. In

those days, the masses contributed

to funding higher education for

the elite in an elite system. Now

that we have a mass system, the

elite are not reciprocating, but are

ducking their obligation to repay

that debt. The working class,

including fishand chipshopwork-

ers, now pay twice – in tuition fees

and self-sustenance for their fami-

lies, and in taxation to cover the

loss on the sale of the debt book

and writing off unpaid loans.

In 1963, after the Anderson

report, the minimum grant was

£50 towards fees, with a means

test. It must not be hard to keep

fees and devise a progressive

support structure along similar

lines, so that those from richer

families get less and those aiming

for social mobility – a declared

government objective – get more.

Ian McNay

Professor emeritus, higher education

and management

University of Greenwich

Quality points

Mary Curnock Cook’s address to

the annual general meeting of the

Council for the Defence of British

Universities (CDBU) was robust

and provocative (“Prioritise stu-

dents or face more regulation,

says ex-Ucas head”, News, 1 Feb-

ruary). I should like to comment

on some of the issues mentioned

in your report.

1) With regard to the need to shift

priorities from research to teach-

ing, as Dorothy Bishop noted in

her response to Curnock Cook,

it is unfair to blame academics for

any imbalance because (a) many

of them show real dedication to

teaching, and (b) it is the financial

incentives imposed through the

research excellence framework

that have skewed the priorities of

institutions in favour of research.

2) The CDBU has campaigned

vigorously against the marketisa-

tion of higher education for a

number of reasons. One is the risk

inherent in encouraging a prolif-

eration of low-cost, low-quality,

for-profit providers; another is the

Don’t rush to

erect a divisive

hierarchy

It is not apparent that

students enjoy more teaching

intensity at University

Alliance institutions than

at Russell Group ones

tendency for such a system to gen-

erate a transient teaching force,

which cannot be in the best inter-

ests of students. Third, it is mis-

guided to infer from the fact that

higher education is now financed

substantially through student

loans that it should therefore be

treated as a consumer good.

3) To argue that those who criti-

cise the teaching excellence frame-

work for its lack of credible

metrics should suggest some other

way of measuring teaching quality

is to miss the point of the criti-

cisms. The maintenance of high

standards by the academic profes-

sion depends on the freedom of

academics to make independent

judgements about the teaching

and assessment of students in

their subject area.

4) In its response to the consulta-

tion on the functions of the Office

for Students, the CDBU chal-

lenged the use of the phrase

“value for money” as a proxy for

the quality of teaching provided

because it clouds the issue. Per-

ceptions of what students say they

want are no substitute for the

independent judgement of aca-

demics on what students need to

do in order to achieve the level of

qualification to which they aspire.

Let’s hope that the OfS, once

its modus operandi has been clari-

fied, will succeed in discouraging

poor-quality education while

allowing institutions that pose

lower risks to students to flourish;

that the independent review of the

TEF required under the Higher

Education and Research Act will

take us towards a quality assur-

ance regime that does enjoy the

broad confidence of the academic

profession; and that, under the

new minister for universities, the

HE sector may continue to

provide the high quality and

diversity of higher education that

has been the basis of its outstand-

ing international reputation in the

recent past.

David Midgley

Professor of German literature and

intellectual history

St John’s College

Cambridge

SEND TO

Letters should be sent to:

[email protected]

Letters for publication inTimes Higher

Educationshould arrive by 9am

Monday. For terms and conditions,

see http://www.timeshighereducation.com