The Accidental Analyst is back

and pondering the future beyond the 2010 HE funding cut announcements.....

My most enthusiastic readers will be no doubt aware that it has been a period of extended hibernation for the Accidental Analyst…Needless to say, this predicament was a due to the recent cutbacks on stationery and other relevant writing material thrust upon us;
- For indeed the pen (or blog), my friends, is more deadly than the sword …

Now that the country has emerged, blinking, from recession, the AA can confirm that the narcosis is over - for, indeed, what better a time to prod and poke on the few “lose ends” of the Higher Education sector’s institutional weave (which, I guess, has now become just that little bit “looser”), than now!

And so I shall begin and end my rant with the binding themes of government budget slashes, HE cutbacks, mythical promises, pre-election power struggles and inter-institutional HE snob wars, all suitably seasoned with a good dose of hilarious public commentary … Please feel free to comment, at your convenience…

- I am guessing, by the way, that the early February Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) announcements on the provisional distribution of funding to universities and colleges 2010-11, have not escaped the keen connoisseur’s attention. As a matter of fact, it would seem to be exceedingly hard these days, even for the usually most disinterested of parties in the area of HE funding - you know, those “regular”, “round-and-about-the-red-brick-campus” guys - to miss out on the recent news.

Indeed, even when in deep REM mode, the AA did not fail to smell the pending sense of doom and gloom that enveloped the UK Higher Education sector since last year:
In a 23rd December 2009 speech, Mr Mandelson made the Higher Education cuts proposal substantial and defended it in context of the pre-election budget’s general cut backs, and – not surprisingly – with the claim that UK HE had for years benefited immensely in gaining its world class reputation (and, presumably, its generation of international capital) from state “benevolence”.
As such we can presume, according to Mr Mandelson, that the time has finally come for the “spoilt” sector to let go of its parents’ purse strings.

As one really keen spectator belonging in the higher echelons of the University and Colleges Union (UCU) observed, the speech was “a real Christmas kick in the teeth”, and added that, “the government has completely lost its way when it comes to higher education. You cannot make these kinds of cuts and expect no consequences”.

Another insightful NUS (National Union of Students) insider put it in a different way: “last year, the government urged universities to expand without providing the funding to match. This year there must be no unfunded expansion”.

Mr Mandelson however took it from a rather more tactful angle: HE institutions are still a “prime investment in our economic future”, he said, but they can’t be “completely immune to fiscal reality”. Universities ”have to accept their fair share of the economies and savings that have to be made – but no more than their fair share”.

Apparently it has now been left to regional development agencies to provide the “essential bridge” between local authorities, science based research and private enterprise in the government’s post-recession economic plans.

- But, AA is thinking:

- How can world class quality be maintained in the face of cuts to teaching and capital budgets? Recently, The Guardian used research based on a HEFCE survey about the state of British universities’ infrastructure, and found that a quarter of all HE institutions have had at least 10% of their estate judged unsuitable for current use, whilst for some this figure is in excess of 40%. The research highlighted that without capital funding, the appropriate infrastructural repairs for many institutions would amount to sizeable chunks of their annual incomes (see Cracks show at Universities, The Guardian, 16th February 2010)
- Is the government expecting local employers, (unaffected by the recession, presumably) to step up and make good the funding deficits?
- Can multinational companies be expected to support an independent HE infrastructure anyway? And what would they want in return?

Now let’s see now what HEFCE had to say on February 1st about the nature of those cuts:
By contrast to the year on year increases in government funding the HE sector has been used to, this year sees a significant reduction in funding across all areas of the sector (I believe the correct terminology is “efficiency cuts”). The main decisions made by the HEFCE Board on the provisional distribution of funding to universities and colleges in 2110-11, which stands at £7,356 million, were:

• £4,727 million recurrent funding for teaching. This represents a decrease of 1.6% in real terms, compared with 2009-10.
• £1,603 million recurrent funding for research. This is a maintained allocation, in real terms, compared with 2009-10.
• £562 million in capital funding. This represents a 14.9% reduction in cash terms on the 2009-10 allocation.
• £294 million in special funding for national programmes and initiatives. This represents a 7 per cent reduction in cash terms on 2009-10.

- AA will have to ask whether such lack of funds will inevitably cause high quality academic staff to leave good institutions, and others to be made redundant? This would indirectly affect high quality research, which will already have to make and do with a 0% budget increase. So how then can we maintain both quality and quantity in Higher Education without cash?

Afterall, as David Lammy rather helpfully points out – “There is a record number of students – over 2 million – at university “, he says, “that’s 390,000 more than in 1997 and next year we expect there will be more students than ever before”.
- Are we therefore to expect more students than ever before, with less cash, I wonder…?

What AA found particularly noteworthy was the response of the Chief Executive of HEFCE himself, Sir Alan Langlands, regarding the situation:
“This is a challenging financial statement…(sic) we will maintain our commitment to widening participation….”, but – the big but – “It clearly makes sense for the Government to take full account of this in setting priorities for the effective use of public funding in future spending rounds.” Indeed Sir Langland’s statisticians estimate the funding package translates to a reduction in student places in England of about 6,000 on 2009-10 levels…

So, where does this leaves us, the AA ponders?
Considering that demand for university places this year is set to be higher than ever (some institutions have reported increases in applications of over 20%), the outlook is, frankly, not that good - lest of all for applying students. Indeed Steve Smith, president of vice-chancellors' group Universities UK, warned us this month that more than 200,000 applicants could be left without a place this summer…

Unsurprisingly, the most vociferous critics of the infamous “efficiency” cuts are none other than Russell group institutions themselves. As the heads of the group lament, “it has taken more than 800 years to create one of the world’s greatest education systems, and it looks like it will take six months to bring it to its knees”; their “gold standard system will be replaced with one of silver, bronze, or worse”. The root of the problem, they insist, lies in populist, party manifestos: “The health service, police, and schools are all currently “protected”, presumably due to their perceived importance in the ballot box. Not so, it seems, HE.” This is thus, they continue, a “defining moment” for saving “one of the jewels in the country’s crown”, and that therefore, “if politicians don’t act now, they will be faced with meltdown in a sector that is vital for our national prosperity. They have been warned.”

These are some hefty words of doom and gloom. However on the bright side, “research intensive universities have been given some consolation”; the Russell Group thus “certainly welcomes the relative protection for research announced in December and the pronouncement that the needs of world-class institutions must be prioritised”.
- Phew!…that was a close brush, my dear colleagues then, no?

Unfortunately, the Chair of the Million+ group did not see the bright side. By contrast to his “red brick” colleagues, he seemed keen to remind us of the original ethos underpinning the expansion of Higher Education in the first place: He claimed that “there is no robust evidence that postgraduate doctoral provision is dependent on a ‘critical mass’ of world-leading research or that this produces greater efficiency and better outcomes.” , and that, “ [e]xpanding excellence, innovation and opportunity should be at the heart of postgraduate provision in the UK.”. Thus “[s]acrificing this idea, to supposedly preserve quality, is just what those who would cut higher education budgets further want to hear”. It is therefore important that “[a]ll universities need to make clear that the result would be a narrowing of opportunities for students and graduates.”
Similarly, in a 22 December 2009 Universities’ Alliance response to the Government’s Grant letter to HEFCE, it was stated that government investment in HE is “crucial” for the UK economy, and that therefore, “[t]he Independent Review of higher education funding and student finance has a responsibility to step back from the immediate pressures on departmental budgets to ensure a long term, stable system that meets the needs of students, universities, tax payers, and the government”. For this reason, “[q]uality and access must be maintained”.

Just for the record, the AA has also noticed of lately that - for both heavyweight political parties - an easy way to divert these increasingly mounting criticisms is to blame the HE sector itself; for, it has been said, the HE sector is using scaremongering strategies to increase university fees… Why, the argument has even wormed its way through the very red-brick university walls themselves!
One particularly hilarious case was that of a certain Cambridge University Labour Club Chair, who insisted that, the Russell Group are “scaremongering” in order to bolster their case for scrapping the tuition fee cap (the AA is not sure how interested and involved parties making statements about the likely impact of budget changes on their own abilities to maintain a level of service qualifies as “scaremongering”, but it appears that we are living in interesting times).

What the AA is thinking right now - amongst just about everyone else - is that, once again, the HE sector has become a public battlefield in pre-election power struggles. But this time it is not a straight forward déjà vu from 1997: it has indeed taken a slightly different turn!

For all the warnings of our Russell super groupers, the most likely outcome, for the AA, remains: Bearing in mind the considerable decrease in teaching budget, it may well be the “others” - those non-‘research - intensive’ universities -that will bear the brunt of the funding cuts; alongside, of course, the increasing number of aspiring students that will either not be able to secure a place, or, more controversially, will not be able to afford higher education altogether.
AA thinks that the GuildHE CEO put the matter rather more succinctly:
“It is critical to recognise that these graduates will be the generation who pull us out of the financial difficulty that presently surrounds us. This will still mean, however, that there will be many young voters who have been encouraged to try for higher education but who will miss out.”

The current situation of the British HE sector has certainly been a splash of cold water on AA’s sleepy face (However, on the plus side, the AA is now back for good!), and today, can conclude:
In 2010, and rather ironically so, HE expansion seems to have re-enforced the old binary divide. It is not now as simple as the “ex-polys” Vs “the red bricks” in the gladiator arena – rather, the winners look likely to be the ones who secure the big bulk of the more stable, research funding.

- I believe, we all have a pretty good idea of who that will be…