Select Committee on Education and Skills Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 660-679)

MONDAY 17 MARCH 2003

SIR RICHARD SYKES AND PROFESSOR RICK TRAINOR

  660. Professor Trainor, is there unanimity on that one?
  (Professor Trainor) Roughly speaking, yes. One of the most encouraging aspects of the White Paper is the recognition by Government of how important universities are to the future of the country—economically, socially and culturally—and how the various demands being put on the university system require more resources to be put into it, and not least, as Sir Richard says, in terms of academic pay.

  661. Can I move on from that to perhaps what is more contentious, and I will stay with you, Professor Trainor, to ask whether you welcomed equally the flexibility, potentially, for charging at universities?
  (Professor Trainor) I have mixed feelings, I think, because, as the Government has made the decision that the additional money is going to be raised through contributions from the students and their families, as well as from the more general public purse, I am very pleased that this flexibility has been given to all universities, not, as was suggested at one stage, to only a few, because the resource gap has affected all universities, albeit in different ways. The negative side of my feeling relates to a worry about how the new contribution system will affect the willingness of students from socially-disadvantaged backgrounds to come forward. It helps, of course, that the Government has opted for a payment in arrears, rather than a payment in advance, of the additional fee. But there is a big gamble involved there, I think, given the research which shows the extent to which there is real debt aversion in some of the more disadvantaged social groups; and I think we are holding our collective breaths, maybe, for 2006, to see how that will work out.

  662. Sir Richard, can I come back to you and ask whether you think £3,000 was a sensible cap on the diversity of fee?
  (Sir Richard Sykes) No, I do not think it is a sensible cap, because what it does is encourage everybody to charge £3,000. And I think what we should have tried to do here is create a market, because we have a market, not an exact one, but I think if we had put the top level at £5,000 then I think there are institutions who may have charged nothing, there are institutions that may have charged one, two, or five, but I think, with three, it is so close to what we do today that most universities will just go to £3,000. So I think it does not actually achieve what we want. And you have to put it in perspective; it will not really come into effect, seriously, until 2010, and then we know that basically it is capped at that until perhaps 2012. So it is not really helping the universities dramatically.

  663. I think other colleagues probably are keen to come in on this, unless, Professor Trainor, you wanted to comment on that?
  (Professor Trainor) I think Sir Richard has an important point there, that it is not a massive sum of money[2] and, in effect, it is fixed, allowing for what we anticipate to be a small amount of inflation, for quite a number of years ahead. And I think it is an open question, given all the other variables concerned—sort of changes in public expenditure levels, and so on—whether that will be enough to make up the funding gap in the period from, say, 2006 to 2010.

Chairman

  664. Sir Richard, it is attributed to you that in the summer you put fear in the heart of every good, decent, Daily Mail reader, by suggesting that you might have to charge an economic rate of £15,000 a year. I do not know if you contested that you ever said that, I think, once, in private conversation, you did; but is that the true economic rate for the cost of running universities?
  (Sir Richard Sykes) No, no. What we said was, and we were totally misinterpreted, what does it cost; we know this from the Treasury review, of course, it costs £10,500 to educate a student at Imperial, because they are lab-based courses, everything is science and technology and medicine, so the average cost is £10,500. Today, we do not receive that, of course, even from the Government, and, the student contribution, we are about £2,500 short. But if we want to maintain the quality of that course, that is what we have got to do; and so we take the money from somewhere, as you know, and you would probably take the money from somewhere else as well. Even with the £3,000, we still would not be up to the £10,500. The point is, today we charge students who come from outside the European Union £15,000 for some of our courses; so the two things got confused. One, the cost is £10,500, that is the cost, today, and some people pay for some courses, because they are much more expensive than others, £15,000. And our view was that if you really wanted to run a scheme where people who could not afford, financially, to go to university, we would set up bursaries and pay for not only their courses but for their maintenance. And, therefore, if you were going to do that, because we know today 60% of people coming to Imperial do not actually pay the full £1,100, so we know what percentage we would expect to have to pay some sort of bursary to, if you had a scheme that charged, so those who could afford it would have to pay £15,000 a year, those who could not afford it, at the bottom end of the scale, would be getting not only course but maintenance. So that was one model that we proposed where some people would not have had to contribute at all.

  665. So you would have agreed with HEFCE that you would have liked a higher limit, not just £3,000, in 2006. What limit would you have put on it?
  (Sir Richard Sykes) I think, in this climate, I would have a £5,000 limit on it, I think that would have been fair, because I think you have to put a limit on it, otherwise the whole thing gets out of control, but, if we take everything that is given in the White Paper, a £5,000 limit for this period that we are talking about, I think, would have been more sensible.

  666. You have got a reputation of a bit of worshipping at the altar of the free market, Sir Richard; why not just say what it costs?
  (Sir Richard Sykes) Because we are not ready for it. I think that is a transition, and you must not move these things too quickly. When the Dearing Report came out, in 1997, I think if we had done what we have done now in 1997 we would have been in a transitional stage where now we could have gone to maybe £5,000 or £6,000; so if we had started at three then now we would be at five or six, so, in five years, we could start to release it more. But, in my opinion, it would not be a smart move to go from the situation we are in today just to open it up, a free-for-all, because that would be a very strange market.
  (Professor Trainor) I agree with that.

  667. Would you be happy with £5,000 now?
  (Professor Trainor) If we have to pick a figure, I think £3,000 looks like being too constraining. I think perhaps there is a fundamental problem with picking a figure three years ahead.

  668. But you think that every institution is going to go for the £3,000 then?
  (Professor Trainor) I think it is too early to say, Chairman, I think it seems much more likely now than it did when these things were being debated a year or two ago, partly because people see it as quite a modest amount, and that it is three years down the road.

  Chairman: Moving on now to look at expansion in higher education, and David Chaytor.

Mr Chaytor

  669. Can I ask you both to say where you think the expansion in your own institutions will come from? The Government has set its target of 50% of young people, we know that, it has talked about foundation degrees being the main route of expansion, but I think it would be interesting if you could tell us about your own views of expansion?
  (Sir Richard Sykes) I think, in my institution, there will not be any expansion, because we do not have any capacity to expand, basically; no, nothing will change significantly. But then that is a pretty unique environment, in the sense that we are constrained by space and constrained in the courses that we give and the nature of those courses. So, I suspect, not very significantly.

  670. What about overseas students, you have talked about a lucrative overseas market; that is not in itself sufficiently lucrative to finance the purchase of space that you would need to extend?
  (Sir Richard Sykes) If you look at the Treasury, again, the transparency review, running with Treasury numbers, actually we still do not make money on overseas students, we get a lot more money than we do for home students, but still we make a loss on overseas students. So you would have to charge a lot more money if you wanted to do that.

  671. So the only way to expansion is merger?
  (Sir Richard Sykes) Yes; you may say that.

  672. In spite of what happened over UCL, do you think that there is scope for further mergers within London?
  (Sir Richard Sykes) I think there is scope for further merger, I think there is scope for much more collaboration; however, it is not the nature of the sector to merge or collaborate unless pressures really are put on the system. So I think it is going to be quite difficult, even though there are hints in the White Paper that this will be encouraged and developed and there may be money set aside to help this, I think it is going to be quite difficult.

  673. And in terms of just your general views of the sector as a whole, leaving aside Imperial, what is your view of the wisdom of the 50% target and the use of foundation degrees?
  (Sir Richard Sykes) I suspect that 50% was a number plucked out of the air quite some time ago, and then it became very clear that if you really wanted to send 50% of that cohort to universities the cost was going to be absolutely horrendous; and, in fact, maybe, the people are not there. So I think there has been a lot of back-tracking on this 50%. I think now we are coming back down to say, well, a lot of these people will be foundation degrees, and, of course, if you look in the White Paper, we have now got a way for the NHS universities to get established pretty quickly, because you can become a university without offering higher degrees and doing research. So I suspect it will be quite easy to get to that number of 50% by manipulation. So, yes, it is not going to be by the traditional route of going to university, it is going to be foundation degree courses, and I just worry, and I think the question came up earlier, that employers will look at these foundation degrees and say, "What is that; we're used to HNCs, we're used to HNDs, we know the value of these, but what is the value of a two-year degree, a two-year foundation?" And I think we just need to get some clarification there, how these will be seen and valued by employers, I think that is going to be critically important.

  674. Professor Trainor, from the Greenwich point of view, how do you see your expansion?
  (Professor Trainor) Like Sir Richard, I think that there are some difficulties with foundation degrees. A key issue, as he says, is the way in which employers regard them, and, of course, with foundation degrees, they need not just to accept the products but actually to be in at the outset in the programme, and there needs to be some education of employers in that regard, I suppose. Foundation degrees will be part of our expansion, in collaboration with the network of partner colleges (further education colleges) that we have. I think that it would be odd, however, if all of our expansion were to occur solely through foundation degrees; it does not seem to me logical that the new students coming into the sector who are not in higher education at all should have their choices narrowed in that way. So I would see foundation degrees as one part of expansion but by no means the whole. But I think that this link between higher education and further education institutions is probably key to the expansion occurring more generally, and I support the expansion. And perhaps this is based partly on my prejudices I have carried with me from my country of origin, but I think that if there has ever been an overeducated society it has not been discovered yet, and I think the UK has profited a great deal from the broadening of higher and further education in the last 15 or 20 years. As far as mergers are concerned—I think probably I have quite a different perspective on this than Sir Richard, although I think our views overlap, in that I agree with him that there is a great deal of untapped potential in the system for greater collaboration that is well short of merger. Where I disagree with him, I think, is, that I think there is already quite a lot of momentum behind the tendency to these collaborations, so, for example, we are engaging with the University of Kent, and hopefully with other higher education institutions, around our existing Medway campus; also we are part of six higher education institutions in London, south of the river, anticipating, on the basis of a research project, a major collaboration on widening participation. I feel that one of the things that research project has thrown up is the extent to which the orientation of the people not yet in higher education is overwhelmingly local, not just in their educational experience but also in employment terms, socially, etc. And I feel that the existing higher education institutions have a lot to contribute, in collaboration with each other[3]and that quite a lot would be lost, and certainly a lot of time and expense consumed, in mergers. Sometimes, I am sure, mergers make sense, but I see them, in no sense as a panacea for the system.

  675. Your vision is of infinite potential expansion of student numbers then?
  (Professor Trainor) For my own institution?

  676. Yes, and generally for the system?
  (Professor Trainor) Infinity is a long way, is it not?

  677. But you would not stop at 50%?
  (Professor Trainor) I think 50% is an ambitious target, for the moment. I would not say that that is as far as the system should ever go, but getting, in England, from 43 to 50%—where I was for 20 years in Scotland they are already at 50%, so 50% is not an unobtainable figure—but getting securely from 43 to 50%, being sure that the retention in terms of graduation rates remains at what is, in international terms, quite a high level, I think that will be enough of a bite to chew off at once. And perhaps five or 10 years down the line we could contemplate whether we wanted to go another stage beyond that.

  678. In terms of the balance between home students and overseas students, do you have an aggressive policy in recruiting overseas students, and do you think there comes a point at which an institution can be distorted by putting more emphasis on overseas students than UK students?
  (Professor Trainor) I would not call our policy aggressive, it is active, and we have increased our absolute number and our proportion of overseas students significantly. Conceivably, I guess, you could end up with an institution, or a set of institutions, with too many overseas students, but the institution in the UK system with the highest percentage of overseas students, LSE, is a great success, academically, so I think there is not yet proof that many overseas students are bad for an institution. Most UK institutions are a long way short of that. And I think these overseas students are bringing us not just money (and, as Sir Richard says, perhaps, in strict accounting terms, that is not a good reason to want them anyway) I think what they are contributing is a huge amount of social and academic enrichment to the large majority of UK students in the system.

Chairman

  679. Are the EU students a drain on Imperial, Sir Richard, only in the sense that you said there are not fine research institutions in Germany and France and other European countries, and so that means they would be more attracted to places like Imperial, and they would pay the same fees as home students?
  (Sir Richard Sykes) That is exactly right, but the largest number of EU students we have come from Greece, and then after that it would be France, Germany, but they are not huge numbers. It is interesting, I guess, for all sorts of reasons, the maintenance, the costs of just living away from your own country play an important role in that, unless you get some sort of scholarship.


2   Note by witness: In teams of extra resources for universities by 2010 or 2012; it may, of course, be a very large amount for a prospective student from a poor family. Back

3   Note by witness: For example, in attempting to use their existing local links to encourage people from their localities to aspire to higher education. Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2003
Prepared 10 July 2003