Britain's elite research universities were warned last night that they could forfeit miIlions of pounds in a shake-up of higher education. David Eastwood, head of England's university funding council, told The Times that, in future, universities that admit a large number of students from poor backgrounds were likely receive as much public funding as those that concentrate on research. The shift will make it harder for middle-class students to get places at university.
At present almost a third (32 per cent) of all research funding, goes to just five institutions: Oxford, Cambridge, Manchester, Imperial and University College London. These admit among the lowest number of students from poor backgrounds. They said last night that they feared they would have to fight harder for fewer funds and would struggle to compete with competitors, particularly in America.
The Higher Education Funding Council for England (Hefce) spends £6.7 billion on teaching and research in universities. Of this, £1.6 billion goes on research, £332 million on raising the number of working-class students attending university and £118 million on developing regional business links. Professor Eastwood, its chief executive, said that as students pay higher fees and employers invest more in the sector, universities must play a greater role in society. While insisting that research funding will not be cut, the former Vice-Chancellor of the University of East Anglia said that ensuring more young people attended university was as important as the take-up of subjects such as maths, engineering and physics.
However, Malcolm Grant, Provost of University College London and chairman of the Russell Group of leading universities, said that while all would like to see the funding gap in teaching costs close, that gap was worst for research universities that compete globally for staff. "While we applaud widening participation, it would seem sensible for Hefce to look at ways to allow our world-class universities to compete at an international level and not to tax research funding to cross-subsidise widening participation across the sector," Professor Grant said.
While universities have concentrated traditionally on teaching and research, Professor Eastwood said it was now time for institutions to work out what they were good at and act upon it. It was not possible for all universities to excel in all areas, he said, and instead of competing with the large research-led universities for diminishing returns, they should capitalise on excellent teaching and regional economic growth. Five universities are already involved in pilot projects, including Sheffield Hallam, which has been given £1.2 million to undertake research on food waste, packaging and better ingredients with companies in the region.
Forty-two per cent of 18 to 30-year-olds attend university and the Government has set itself a target of 50 pet cent reaching that level by 2010. Since the introduction of £3,000-a-year tuition fees, the numbers applying to university have dropped, especially among poorer school-leavers.
* The University of Reading's decision last night to close its world-class physics department, despite the prospect of a government rescue package, was met with dismay by the scientific community.
The next spending review for British universities is going to be tight, as David Eastwood, the chief executive of the Higher Education Funding Council for England, has explained to The Times. This will make it difficult, he admits, to maintain the present proportion of 18 to 30-year-olds - 42 per cent - going on to university, let alone increase that figure to 50 per cent, the government target. The inevitable result, especially in parts of the country where participation in higher education is relatively low, will be to spend public money to help universities to admit more students from poorer homes.
All that sounds a worthy, if rather vague, ideal. It is when Professor Eastwood articulates the implications that the problems with his proposals become apparent. He argues that universities should be given extra funding to help them to boost the intake of working-class students by offering more bursaries to those put off by tuition fees. And since this funding will come out of the total £6.7 billion distributed to universities each year, there will inevitably be cuts elsewhere, especially in the £1.34 billion research budget.
Of that money, the lion's share goes to Britain's 19 leading research universities, which make up the so-called Russell Group of elite institutions. It is this very group - to which Labour has repeatedly directed its call for more cutting-edge research so that this country can hold its own in the fierce global competition for academic excellence - that will suffer the sharpest budget cuts. Clearly realising the contradiction, Professor Eastwood muttered that these universities must make up the shortfall by attracting more money and support from industry.
This smacks of the worst ivory tower thinking. Of course it is important to relate university research and output more closely to industry and business. Of course it will help universities, academically as well as financially, if they foster more links with industrial innovators. But to imagine that industry is able or willing, at short notice, to top up budget shortfalls for all manner of research, some of it unrelated to their concerns, is utterly unrealistic. Industry today is already struggling to survive the suffocating growth of regulation and government interference; it is in no position to underwrite the enormous sums leading universities need for research.
The Hefce proposal is not simply academically damaging; it overlooks the broader purpose of a university. Social engineering and the increasing of opportunity for those in lower socioeconomic groups is a desirable political goal; but it is not the function of a university. Granting extra funds according to how many working-class students are admitted smacks of the admission system based on social class once seen in Communist countries. If the Government is indeed concerned that too few able pupils from poorer backgrounds are going on to higher education, the place to make a special effort is at school. Encouraging more pupils to stay on after 16, boosting the quality of teaching at sixth-form level and motivating those who could benefit from university would do far more than handing out grants to supplement the £332 million universities currently spend on such outreach schemes.
The Russell Group of universities will be horrified. They see that the result will be to penalise top research bodies while rewarding some institutions of varying repute and ability. Reducing the present overemphasis on research as a measure of academic excellence is a good idea; taking a knife to the research budget in the name of greater equality will lower the common denominator.
Sir, You drew some strange conclusions from the interview I gave to your education correspondent (leading article, Nov 21). It correctly quotes me as insisting that research funding will not be cut, but then suggests that research-strong universitries will suffer the sharpest cuts. For the Higher Education Funding Council for England and for the Government, sustaining universities and colleges which are world-class in research is a top priority. Funding for research is in a separate, ring-fenced budget from that provided for widening participation. Universities and colleges recognise their responsibilities to increase the recruitment and retention of students from poorer backgrounds. We will work with the Government to ensure that all these priorities are properly recognised and supported, so we can continue to support a vibrant higher education sector.
PROF DAVID EASTWOOD
Chief Executive, HEFCE
Sir, The insistence of David Eastwood that it is as important to increase the number of students attending university as to improve the take-up of subjects such as maths, engineering and physics is typical of the myopia of those formulating policy on higher education. Evidently it does not matter what students study at university as long as enough of them go there to meet the government's absurd "target" of 50 per cent of 18-year-olds in higher education by 2010. In the meantime, science departments are being closed in universities while the study of modern languages in schools is in free fall. This will do wonders for our competitiveness in the global ecconomy.
PROF GEOFFREY WARNER
Didcot, Oxon.
Sir, You report that since the introduction of £3,000-a-year tuition fees the numbers applying to British universities have dropped. It might be illuminating to know whether this drop applies equally to Scotland, as tuition fees were imposed by this Government only on English univerrsities. Higher education is yet another area where the English are getting the worst deal under a Scots-dominated government at Westminster.
JON SIMONS
Little Hallingbury, Essex