Examination of Witness (Questions 60-79)
MONDAY 10 FEBRUARY 2003
MARGARET HODGE
MBE, MP
60. That is a very powerful signal to a lot
of research institutes out there that your money could go before
2008?
(Margaret Hodge) We want to concentrate funding on
the world-class institutions and secondly on those that demonstrate
that they are on the upwards escalator.
61. If you are running an institution and you
have heard that decision from you, Minister, and the research
assessment exercise was awarded research up to 2008 obviously
universities have taken account of that, do you think you might
find yourself in court?
(Margaret Hodge) Let me say a number of things, under
the last RAE 55% of research active staff are in departments which
got a 5 or a 5*, there is already a concentration of research
at the upper end.
62. To stay alive you have to be 5.
(Margaret Hodge) I have not said that. We want to
fund those at the Level 4 where they demonstrate they are developing
and improving. That is the first thing to say. The second thing
to say is that universities get their money from a variety of
sources, they get their money from research, and we want to incentivise
teaching. One of the ways in which HEFCE will be distributing
the teaching monies over the coming period will lead to changes.
If you increase the premium for teaching disadvantaged students
from 5% to 20% that is a pretty big redistribution of monies towards
those institutions that do teach disadvantaged students. Universities
may well end up getting their money under different schemes. One
of the purposes behind this White Paper and the principles that
underpin it is that we do want universities to focus far more
on their own individual missions.
63. Is it not the case there is a connection
between teaching and research?
(Margaret Hodge) I think what we would accept is that
there is certainly a very, very strong connection between undertaking
proper scholarship round your subject, ensuring you are up-to-date
on the research that is round and the quality of your teaching,
there is a connection between scholarship and teaching which does
not mean there is a disconnection between research and teaching,
nobody is arguing the contrary. You need to ensure that you do
proper scholarship to ensure that you are an effective teacher.
The evidence from the QAA subject review has been very much those
institutions that have not actually carried out a lot of research
do incredibly well at teaching, even in the UK the evidence is
such that—
64. On that very point, Minister, is it not
the case that the institutions that got the highest overall QAA
assessment were the very same ones that had the most intensive
research institutions? Is that not the case? Just a further point,
therefore do you not see the connection between research carrying
on in institutions and being able to attract high calibre people
so it provides that sort of spark that all institutions need?
(Margaret Hodge) I am not sure.
65. On the first point.
(Margaret Hodge) Do you want me to go back to the
first point? Nobody is denying that those who undertake world-class
research can also provide excellent teaching, I am not putting
that forward as a proposition. What I am challenging is the proposition
that you must undertake world class research to be effective teachers.
I think that is an unproven hypothesis. That is where I would
ask you to look at the QAA teaching assessments, where much of
the very good teaching takes place in situations where there is
not an enormous amount of research. That is where I would say
to you that teaching depends on good scholarship, not necessarily
world class research. The other thing I would put in the frame
is, in the States out of the 1,600, or so, higher education institutions
they have only 200 have post-graduate degrees awarding powers,
so there is a much stronger distinction between teaching universities
and research universities. I have not heard anybody who has studied
these things saying therefore the teaching that takes place in
those universities that do not have research degree awarding powers
is of a lesser quality than the teaching that takes place in those
that have research powers. Let me make one final point, let me
take one example, Cambridge. Cambridge in the 2002-03 RAE because
of the current concentration of research got nearly £68 million
under the RAE for research money, it is a research intensive university.
Anglia Polytechnic University, the other university got £370,000
in research. Again I have not heard anybody allege because Anglia
only got £370,000 of research money, whereas Cambridge got
£68 million, Cambridge teaching is in all instances that
much better than takes place in Anglia.
66. Let me give you an example, Minister. Greenwich
University that recently won the Queen's Anniversary Prize and
was the outright winner of the British Computer Society prize
developed the software for models that evacuate people from buildings
in emergencies. It was used, for example, in the Sydney Olympics
and it is to be used in forthcoming Airbus project. That is not
just good for Greenwich but that is good for Britain, that is
good for the world. What concerns me is that you are going to
reduce opportunities like that for all those working-class kids
you are talking about because the new universities provide the
bulk of places, they are not going to have access to that, what
then is going to happen to the young, working-class, ambitious
researcher if it is concentrated in yet more universities?
(Margaret Hodge) You are presuming in the first instance
that the young, working-class student will only go to the non-research
universities and I hope all of the policies we have put in place
round access, round student funding will break that.
67. Take a guess, it is fairly broad brush but
I think I am correct.
(Margaret Hodge) I hope we will break that link. That
is the first thing. The second is that we specifically said in
our chapter on research that we will want to fund those developing
and emerging departments where there is excellence in research,
and some of them exist in the some of the less research intensive
universities. Indeed even on the 5 and 5* ratings there are something
like 90 universities across the country that have a department
rated 5 or a 5*. It is spread across institutions. The third thing
to say is that we have specifically said in our chapter on knowledge
transfer that we would want that money—and the extra money
that is going into it, and that is increasing over this Spending
Review period—to be concentrated on supporting the non-research
intensive universities so that they can engage in the technological
transfer of research that Greenwich has so well engaged in. I
think the mix of those policies will ensure that that sort of
effort that you talked about in Greenwich, which I applaud, will
continue into the future.
68. Do you not think there is any danger that
the signals that you are sending out now are going to have a blight
on recruitment for particular institutions?
(Margaret Hodge) No.
69. Do you think that an academic person is
going to think, they are 4*, the minister is pulling the plug
on those or she has put pressure on HEFCE to pull the plug on
those I am not going to that institution? That will affect the
institution in terms of all sorts of things.
(Margaret Hodge) I would simply say to you there is
a hierarchy of institutions at present and I think one of the
dishonesties in the debate round higher education over the past
10 or 15 years has been to fail to acknowledge that hierarchy.
One of the things we are honestly doing—
Chairman
70. There is a lot of hypocrisy about that,
there may be a hierarchy but what this Committee is worried about,
what Jonathan is worried about, is if you set that in concrete
the Warwicks will not happen any more, the Baths will not happen
any more and you will get no movement of universities that see
an opportunity for excellence in research and get into it and
change. What we are worried about, and maybe you can reassure
us, is that you are setting that hierarchy in concrete for time
ever more.
(Margaret Hodge) We were absolutely clear when we
established the policy that the last thing we wanted to do was
to ensure that there could be no change. I talked when I came
here last time about being like the football league and you wanted
people to be able to go up and down the divisions. I think that
the range of policies that we have put in place, let me mention
two more, one is that we are going to encourage collaboration
between institutions, which means that individuals who may find
themselves teaching in one institution could collaborate on research
with a department in another institution and we are going to launch
some new research fellowships which allow a particular academic
at a non-research intensive institution to go and spend some time
at research intensive institutions if they have a particular capability,
interest or project they want to follow. All of those policies
put together will make sure that it is not set in stone and that
we provide the framework which allows new, good, excellent research
to grow.
Chairman: Minister, we will come back
to that on another occasion. I am very conscious I have been neglecting
Jeff Ennis' opportunity to question you.
Jeff Ennis
71. Minister, going back to the issue—and
I want clarification on this, please—of how many students
will benefit from the maintenance grant, you say that up to one
third of students, particularly those from lower income families,
will benefit from the new maintenance grant, how many students
will qualify for the full £1,000 maintenance grant benefit,
because my understanding is that that figure could be as low as
7%?
(Margaret Hodge) No. You are thinking of students
under 21?
72. Yes.
(Margaret Hodge) Because of the large proportion of
mature students who have low incomes and therefore access to grant,
I cannot let you have that figure today, I do not have it on the
top of my head, I will write to the Committee and let you know.
It is one third of the student cohort who will have access to
the student grants. Let us go further and say in those institutions
that choose to levy their own fees there will be access to bursaries
for them. We will carry on. More students will have fee remission
on the first £1,100.
73. Looking at the Widening Access Agenda, if
we look at two policies side by side, the up-front tuition fees
was a disaster in terms of access, it is a good thing that is
gone now and I think we can all agree with that. If you look at
the impact that the Education Maintenance Allowance has had on
sixth form students, particularly in areas like mine, it is having
a really good impact. I am sure you are aware the Committee asked
you to consider a seamless progression from what I call the junior
maintenance allowance into a higher education maintenance allowance,
as I am sure you are aware, we trumpeted the fact that EMAs would
provide students with a grant of between £30 to £40
a week and the Maintenance Allowance has been pitched at £1,000
a year. I know you say that the EMA is only paid over term time
so the global amount is the same but the point I am making here
is, would it not have been better to try and capture the students
we are trying to capture in terms of widening access if we pitched
the maintenance at say £1,500 a year or £2,000 a year?
(Margaret Hodge) We had a finite pot of money and
the decision we had to take was, would we put the grant at a higher
level and therefore reduce the number of students eligible to
it or would be put it at the £1,000 level and therefore increase
the number with eligibility to it. We went down the second road
and I think that was sensible. The door that is not closed to
us is to review that for the next Comprehensive Spending Review,
and we shall look at that. The other door that is not closed to
us is to look at the maintenance loan and see whether that properly
covers legitimate expenses for students whilst they are at university.
We are just undertaking a new student income and expenditure survey
which will inform our next bid to the Comprehensive Spending Review
just to make sure that we have those limits right.
74. I am sure are you aware, Minister, that
the Widening Access Agenda is certainly number one on my agenda,
and I am sure it is in most of this Committee's agenda as well,
if that is the case why did we not consider paying the whole of
the variable tuition fee for the poorer student up to £3,000
if access is our number one agenda? Another option we have considered
was actually raising the threshold from the £1,100 to £1,500
for all students, why did we reject that option as well? I know
it could be to do with funding, but it is the messages that it
sends out to future students?
(Margaret Hodge) 2006 is a bit of time away. We had
the money available to us in this Comprehensive Spending Review
settlement so we were anxious to introduce grants as quickly as
we can, they are coming in in 2004, we took the decision to set
them at the £1,000 maximum level because that allowed us
to reach about one third of the student cohort. We have said that
as we get closer to the 2006 introduction of variable fees we
will look at how we use the money we have set aside for grants
to see whether or not we cannot concentrate it better to promote
our Access Agenda. We are open to that. We will be reviewing that.
We were anxious to get those grants up and running as soon as
possible, I am sure you would support that. Why did we not raise
the £1,100 to £1,500, because not everybody will be
charging the variable fees.
75. It is an alternative model.
(Margaret Hodge) If you are a student that goes to
a university that charges £1,100 you will immediately not
be eligible for £1,500 because the university gets to charge
£1,500.
Chairman
76. Minister, you say that you had a finite
amount money, one of the things you failed to convince the Committee
about, and I think I speak for most of the Committee, in your
reply to our Report on Student Finance was the argument that was
put forward to this Committee very eloquently by Nick Barr and
Ian Crawford from the London School of Economics, they have now
updated their figures and say the Government is subsidising now
mainly middle-class, professional families to a level of £1.2
billion per annum. Was it because the Department did lots of focus
groups and ran scared because this a still an enormous subsidy?
You could have spent that on widening access, £1.2 billion,
but you have decided to keep the zero interest loans to a lot
of people who do not need that low rate of interest.
(Margaret Hodge) Firstly, I am rather astounded by
that figure.
77. That is from a very reputable 5* department.
(Margaret Hodge) It just shows, do we have the RAE
assessment right? I am surprised by that figure, I do not know
where it emerged from.
78. It emerged in our seminar last week.
(Margaret Hodge) Right. Well Nick Barr might share
it with us.
79. It was £800 million on the previous
system, as you replace it with the proposals in the White Paper
the figures will to rise £1.2 billion.
(Margaret Hodge) We questioned his previous figures.
I am happy to go through that with you again. Can I stick to the
point of principle?
|
