< Previous page ^ Table of Contents Next page >

National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education: Notice

1 October 1997

The Council consider that the main points which are being made on behalf of the University in various discussions about the Dearing Report (within the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and elsewhere) should be known to members of the Regent House. They therefore publish the following summary. In their Notice dated 28 July 1997 (Reporter, 1996-97, p. 1060) the Council indicated that they intended to prepare comments on the Report of the Dearing Committee to be made on behalf of the University. The Council published the recommendations of the Dearing Committee and invited comments from members of the Regent House; they are grateful for the comments which have been made by members of the Regent House, and for comments from Cambridge University Students Union. The Council earlier published the brief statement issued by the Dearing Committee (Reporter, 1996-97, p. 1028). Various consultations and discussions are continuing to take place within the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, and elsewhere.

Introduction

 1. The forward-looking approach of the Report to the nature and purposes of teaching and research in higher education, and their value to individual people, to national life, and to the world is welcomed. Dearing's clear recognition of the funding gap in higher education, and the fact that it is distorting the nature of teaching and research in many universities, is applauded. Dearing's recognition of the desirable diversity within British higher education is greeted warmly here. But it is disappointing that such recognition is often at variance with the prescriptions put forward in the Report for implementing many of the Committee's suggestions, on matters such as fees, governance, examining, quality assessment, and staff development. The Council comment on these specific matters later in this Notice.

The funding problem

 2. The objective of the Report in seeking to persuade the government to close the funding gap is strongly endorsed. The current evidence does not convince the Council that the government will achieve an enduring solution to the funding problem of higher education. Dearing's solutions depend on extra funds coming reliably and permanently into the system, both in relation to research (where the sums involved, though large, may be achievable, with commitment by government) and in relation to teaching (where the sums are just as daunting, and the commitment of government may be in doubt). CVCP and others have been urged to press the government hard on these funding questions. In particular, the government should confirm that universities will receive the full gross benefit of the new tuition fees which they have imposed. If there is to be significant expansion of student numbers, through lifting the cap or otherwise, corresponding funding is essential if loss of quality is to be avoided. Although identifiable inefficiencies should be remedied, expansion cannot be funded by so-called efficiency gains (cuts by another name). Failure to reach a satisfactory solution would mean that the exercise had made a bad situation worse.

Student support

 3. Dearing's excellent analysis of student support merited longer and more careful consideration by government than it was given. The proposals in Dearing for increased Access support, and for social security provision in some circumstances, are welcome, as is the encouragement given to efforts made by many universities, including Cambridge, to improve access for students of potential with disabilities or from disadvantaged backgrounds.

 4. Comment must however centre on the government's announcements about its own intentions. Already much concern has been expressed about the government's plans for student support, many important aspects of which remain unclear. These are of course matters for national decision, not for individual universities, and indeed the views of individual members of this University will vary. However, it seems paradoxical that the least well off (and those undertaking the longer and in some cases the more demanding courses, which already impose heavy financial burdens on students) should incur the greatest loan debt. It seems likely that adverse effects on access to higher education will result (especially in relation to longer courses) unless other measures are taken.

 5. The Council regret in particular the government's proposal to abolish the means-tested maintenance grant for undergraduates, which is plainly regressive. CVCP has been urged to influence the new system before it is too late. Restoration of a maintenance grant for those students who are to be relieved by means test of payment of the proposed £1,000 tuition contribution is desirable. A clear ceiling on indebtedness arising from undergraduate study should be defined.

 6. The impact of the proposed new system on particular groups of students must be carefully assessed before implementation. There is particular concern about graduate students, particularly doctoral students, and those undertaking longer courses (e.g. medicine, veterinary medicine, and architecture, and four-year undergraduate courses in engineering, science, and languages), many of whom are studying subjects into which successive governments have been eager to attract high-calibre students in response to their recognition of national needs. There is also the possibility of an adverse impact on entry to the teaching profession: measures to encourage good graduates - especially in mathematics, science, and languages - to take up teaching are needed, not measures to discourage. The Council believe that, as they stand, the proposals could have serious, though unintended, effects on entry to these important fields. Their impact on potential women students should also be considered more fully.

Quality and standards in teaching

 7. Cambridge aims to achieve the highest standards in both research and teaching. We are not complacent about the need to ensure that quality in teaching is as high as can be attained, and our teaching, support, and assessment methods are geared to this, through both University and College arrangements. It is against this background that the University would test proposals for the future of national quality assurance arrangements, which principally, of course, serve a somewhat different purpose.

 8. The cost of the national quality assurance and assessment requirements to individual universities is considerable. There is great concern already that the emerging quality assurance regime is becoming too prescriptive and interventionist - and too costly, both centrally and to institutions, especially if system- rather than quality-based. The Dearing proposals may exacerbate this, and if as seems likely some universities are not prepared to accept the new regime there is a risk of dividing the UK university system, something which many would wish to avoid. Recommendation 25 of the Dearing Report refers, promisingly, to the use of a threshold basis for quality assurance, but the requirements of the code of practice proposed in Recommendation 24 will be crucial in this connexion. There is a danger that such a code could reintroduce a bad approach by the back door and that an audit culture will develop. A minimal threshold basis for assessment for particular institutions of established standards is therefore supported, any further assessment being of teaching quality subject by subject.

 9. Although Cambridge staff play an extensive part in external examining for other universities (and the University is grateful to those who act as external examiners for Cambridge) there is concern that the establishment of a national pool of external examiners may place an undue burden on the staff of some institutions and thus on the institutions themselves (Recommendation 25). The commitment of time which Dearing suggests is very large and will be discouraging to those who are of most value as external examiners to universities such as Cambridge, i.e. experienced university teachers with a strong commitment to research. These proposals need to be reconsidered. Unless the pool of external examiners is very large it could lead to a loss of desirable flexibility and variety.

Staff development and training

 10. Cambridge would wish to promote further the opportunities for University and College teaching staff to develop their portfolio of skills and competences in teaching, and indeed in research. Flexible arrangements are needed for this, including positive arrangements for guidance and appraisal, which reflect the needs and responsibilities of the individual and of the institution. They must also reflect the nature of the disciplines concerned; this is particularly important where teaching takes place in a context of research, as in Cambridge. The University is continually improving and developing its arrangements for staff development and the training of university teachers. Normally such arrangements would work best when institution-based. There is concern, on grounds of cost and effectiveness, about setting up a new agency (Recommendations 13 and 14). Further discussion of these proposals is needed. The implication of some of the analysis in the Report that university teaching in general lacks professionalism is strongly challenged.

Research

 11. The Council warmly welcome the convincing analysis of research funding made by the Dearing Committee. It is essential, however, that additional funding, the need for which Dearing has established beyond doubt, should be genuinely additional, and not achieved by re-shuffling current research funding. In particular, a further dual support transfer to the Research Councils should be strongly resisted. The research element of the block grant, allocated selectively, must be maintained; it provides the foundation for university research, through supporting infrastructure and posts, and is the basis on which the research-intensive universities are able to take a strategic approach to research, and, crucially, to foster the newest work, from which later developments derive.

 12. As recognized by Dearing, it is essential that equipment and infrastructure costs of research (including major infrastructure costs, such as the modernization of laboratories) are adequately financed. This is a general problem, affecting many disciplines, but it arises in a particularly acute form in the case of biological and medical research. It is especially important that government and others concerned, including the research foundations, should collaborate to solve this problem, as Dearing recommends. Otherwise, the future of biological and medical research in the UK is threatened.

 13. There is great concern that loan-based support for undergraduate study will deter intending researchers of high potential from undertaking the essential postgraduate work which is an important foundation for a career in university research and teaching, or in research in industry. Some imaginative thinking is needed about the support of postgraduate students, particularly doctoral students, if national interests are to be safeguarded.

Relationships with companies

 14. The Council support the thrust of Recommendation 30 (companies to take a strategic view of their relationships with higher education). A deep and stable long-term relationship between a company and a university, particularly in research, can be mutually extremely fruitful.

Review of research funding in higher education

 15. The Council warmly endorse the establishment of an independent body to review the direction of national policies for research funding in higher education (Recommendation 35). The work of this body could be of great help to the Director General of the Research Councils, the Office of Science and Technology, and the higher education funding bodies, and at the same time of great reassurance to universities. However, its composition and terms of reference need careful consideration, and it must command the support of the research-intensive universities. It would be helpful if its work included a national overview.

Arts and Humanities Research Council

 16. Reservations have previously been expressed from Cambridge about the possible establishment of a Humanities Research Council, particularly because of doubts about a directive programme basis for humanities research, and also because of strong opposition to the transfer of any part of the related R element of block grant, which in Cambridge supports extensive infrastructure for humanities research (in particular libraries and computing). If, however, the Arts and Humanities Research Council proposed by Dearing is not financed in any part by transfer from HEFCE the Council would not oppose it. It is still considered that its modus operandi would need to be very different from that of the other Research Councils, given that much research in humanities is, appropriately, on an individual basis. Moreover, if, as suggested, art and design are included, its basis will be significantly different from that of the other Research Councils (and from that of the Humanities Research Board of the British Academy). For these reasons the ESRC would not provide a good model for a Humanities Research Council.

Regional bodies

 17. Recommendation 36, about the representation of higher education institutions on regional bodies (such as the proposed regional development agencies in England and the possible regional chambers in the English regions), is potentially of great significance both to the region and the University. The involvement of higher education in these bodies is important.

Pay

 18. Pay levels generally in the University are of great continuing concern to the Council. It was most disappointing that Dearing did not recommend that a pay review body should be set up with government commitment. The Council endorse the proposal in Recommendation 50 for a review committee with a chairman appointed by the government, and hope that it may lead to a long overdue reassessment of university pay levels, reliably supported by extra funding from government, and to an end to progressive degradation of pay levels.

Diversity of mission and governance

 19. Dearing's endorsement (Recommendation 61) of diversity of institutional mission - and of the importance of reflecting it in funding arrangements - is welcome. It has resonance for governance, for institutional structure and management, and for the organization and funding of teaching and of research.

 20. The Dearing recommendations for governance (Recommendations 54 to 59) arise particularly from concern about problems experienced by some post-1992 universities and some pre-1992 chartered universities which have Courts with strong powers. It should be clearly recognized, as it has been by the Nolan Committee, that given the diverse nature of universities a variety of systems of governance is appropriate. Cambridge's governance, an important - arguably crucial - element in the successful record of the University, is based on the underlying principles referred to by Dearing (especially those of small and coherent executive bodies, which, of course, also have the role of advising the Regent House). The Council are confident that the Regent House would wish to continue to improve Cambridge's governance by adapting our constitutional framework, rather than accepting an imposed template. In this connexion the Council note that the respect which Dearing attaches to the different history and circumstances of institutions (paragraph 15.34 of the Report) is not reflected in the specific recommendations on governance (particularly Recommendations 57 and 59). The governance of a university cannot, without the risk of catastrophic damage, be considered in isolation from its culture and mission, and significant differences in governance are perfectly proper, and indeed desirable.

Funding of teaching

 21. The Council have noted Recommendation 74 (public funding for teaching) and the mention of Oxford and Cambridge College fees in paragraph 19.46 of the Report. The implications for Cambridge could be profound, and the Council must reserve the University's position until discussions with government and HEFCE are concluded. It would be the Council's hope to see the maintenance of a satisfactory system of support for the essential educational contributions of the Colleges, and moreover a solution which recognizes the importance of encouraging access to the University for students of high potential, regardless of their financial resources.

 22. Dearing set out (paragraphs 19.48 to 19.51) some of the considerations which might apply if some universities wished to introduce what the Report calls differential fees (that is, fees higher than those imposed nationally). The Dearing Committee did not rule out the introduction of such fees, and did not recommend that there should be legislative prohibition on charging differential fees. Such legislation would be a highly illiberal interference in the autonomy of institutions (and contrary to the repeated and strong endorsement of institutional autonomy made by Dearing).

 23. Indeed, as financial difficulties are exacerbated, some institutions may reluctantly need to turn to differential fees. The Council do not wish to propose that Cambridge should go down this road, and hope that the eventual financial situation will not compel it to do so. Nevertheless, a responsible attitude to the future of the University means that the possibility must remain open. For this reason, the Council do not accept the apparent limitation, set out in Dearing, that such fees should be considered only in the long term. The timing must rather depend on the situation of the universities concerned, rather than on some broad prescription.

 24. The possibility that unsatisfactory decisions made now by government will force some institutions to consider introducing full-cost tuition fees should not be underestimated.

Institutional separation

 25. The Council welcome Dearing's endorsement of institutional separation from national and sub-national levels of government (Recommendation 84).

UK-wide reviews

 26. Recommendation 88 makes the suggestion of further reviews at five- and then ten-year intervals. Five years seems a short horizon for a full-scale review, but an audit of the financial situation then - in particular to ensure that additional funding has been generated - might indeed be appropriate. Previous experience with government reviews (such as the recent abortive DfEE review) has not been encouraging, and the terms and status of any review would be of great importance. It is important to avoid 'review blight'. If government responds appropriately Dearing will have achieved a lot, but waiting for Dearing has done some damage, and waiting for implementation will do some more.

Information technology

 27. The prominence given by Dearing to the growing importance and future potential of IT in higher education is encouraging, but the challenge which this poses in terms of investment (by institutions and by students) and management should not be underestimated.

Other matters

 28. The fact that other points are not mentioned does not mean that the Council do not attach importance to them, but reflects the different timescale for consideration and national consultation. The Council have asked the General Board and other bodies concerned within the University (such as the Board of Continuing Education and the Careers Service Syndicate) to consider how matters falling within their responsibilities should be taken forward.
< Previous page ^ Table of Contents Next page >

Cambridge University Reporter, 8th October 1997
Copyright © 1997 The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge.