Higher education: for too long, we've avoided debating the true purpose of universities

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/25/higher-education-true-purpose-of-universities

Version 0 of 1.

What is the value of an ivory tower? Universities have long argued against a purely utilitarian measure, rightly challenging the notion that it can be measured in pounds and pence. But when a version of the question was put to several thousand undergraduates in research published last week, one in three said they were getting poor value for money for their degree.

Such a standard has never been central to the debate about our universities. Britain has always punched far above its weight in international league tables and universities have been fierce watchdogs of their independence, claiming interference from the outside would undermine the autonomy from which their very value is derived.

Add to this the difficulty of putting a price on enlightenment and intellectual advancement, and the relatively modest public spend on universities compared with schools or hospitals, and it is easy to see why. Even with pressure on public budgets, the sharp increase in numbers going to university and escalating student fees, the debate has been about how much students and the state should pay, not what the money should be spent on.

There are two dimensions to the value-for-money question. First, what do students get out of their learning experience? It is likely to vary widely, with students of the same subject at different institutions getting very different amounts of teaching, lectures and feedback. In truth, we have no consistent way of measuring the "value add" of a degree in terms of learning and skills across the board, but controversial research in the US has suggested that doing a degree added little for many American students.

A problem is that most young people go to university to improve their job prospects; most employers recruit graduates on the basis of university reputation determined by research, not teaching quality. Young people are told that if they want a good job in today's fiercely competitive market they must get a degree, hardly putting pressure on universities to up their game and offer a more innovative or better-priced learning experience. Hence fees have shot up across the board; hence the lack of innovation, for example in two-year accelerated degrees or degrees better integrated with workplace learning.

This raises some important questions. To what extent is a degree simply an expensive signal to employers? And if not from employers or students, where is accountability for the quality of learning coming from? These questions will become increasingly important with new freedoms for universities to attract unlimited numbers of students. We will see new providers entering the market, more aggressive marketing of courses and some institutions potentially failing. The American experience, where several universities have been sued for misleading advertising, surely rings an important warning bell.

Further, what value does society derive from universities? It is striking how little light has been shone on this area of public spending. Politicians have always appeared anxious about asking difficult questions of a loud, autonomous and powerful sector. But the debate should be had. Does it make sense, for example, to fund more than 100 English departments, or would money be better focused on fewer centres of research excellence? How can we open up access to publicly funded research and improve its practical application?

Also conspicuous is the limited role of business. There are far too few examples of degrees co-funded and provided by companies, such as the accountancy degree combined with paid employment offered by KPMG and Durham. In the world of science, there have been high-profile partnerships involving corporate giants such as Jaguar Land Rover. But the level of business involvement in applied research is nowhere near as high as in Germany, where applied research institutes have to attract business funding in order to get state funding, with the result that medium-size businesses are genuinely driving research agendas. The truth is there are too few incentives for British universities to work more with business.

Few would argue that the value of a university system could be reduced to higher salaries or an extra percentage point on GDP growth. But for too long this has been allowed to obscure a challenging debate about how our universities could achieve more for less, be they ivory towers, redbrick or plate glass. If our university sector is to remain world class, it must embrace greater scrutiny and innovation.