Examination of Witnesses (Questions 680-699)
MONDAY 17 MARCH 2003
SIR RICHARD
SYKES AND
PROFESSOR RICK
TRAINOR
Ms Munn
680. I want to try to slide seamlessly from
expansion to access by talking a bit more about further education,
and following up a bit what Professor Trainor was saying about
the links with further education and the amount of higher education
in further education college, and with handing out certificates
to HND and HNC students, who all studied at the further education
college in Sheffield, last Friday. Do you see that as being particularly
an area both for expansion and for increasing access?
(Professor Trainor) Yes, I do. However, I think, if
we are going to use that kind of link more intensively than in
the past then it is important that the connections between the
higher education and the further education institutions become
even stronger than they have been until now. We have been trying
to do this with our own network, because it seems to us that if
an increasing number of `our' students are being educated largely
on further education campuses then it is incumbent on us, not
just for quality assurance reasons but also for the more positive
quality agenda understood in the wider sense to have joint staff
development, to try to ensure that there is joint responsibility
between the two institutions for students, particularly when they
move from one campus to another, and so on.
681. Sir Richard has already mentioned the potential
conflict between the recognised qualifications we have in HNC,
HND and the up and coming foundation degrees; we have had the
concern that if the expansion is purely around foundation degrees
are we saying that the poorer students, students from poorer backgrounds,
which we are trying to attract, are only going to be going into
those areas? If that expansion is around further education, it
does lower the cost to poorer students, because they are more
likely to go to their own home areas and not to incur greater
living expenses, but are they going to be getting a worse experience
then, in the sense that they are not going to be able to access
the three-year, traditional degree, or is it better than nothing?
(Professor Trainor) I think that the White Paper talks
about students—I gather there has been some discussion since—but
students going on from foundation degrees, in some instances anyway,
to complete honours degrees, and I think keeping that option open
would be very important. If I detected in your question an implication
that it would be a pity if the HNC and HND got sort of lost in
the shuffle of all this, well then I share that worry. As I was
saying before, I think foundation degrees have their value, but
I do not think that we should sweep away the HNC and HND systems,
which have proven their worth over a long period of time.
682. Sir Richard, do you have anything to add?
(Sir Richard Sykes) I think that diversity is very
important, but we must always allow the passage of people who
can come through that system to go wherever they have the ambition,
at the end of the day, and the talent. So further education college
is very important, but people must not feel that they cannot progress,
and I think that is where we need still to get things right in
this country, where we have a feeder system where you can actually
get to the top by any route, if that is what you desire and you
have got the talent to do it. It is very difficult, because you
have to look at what is being taught in these further education
colleges, and it would not fit very well with Imperial, where
you need a high level of mathematics to come and do any subject,
otherwise the student would have a terrible time. Now you can
say, well then you need some foundation courses to bring them
in, so you give them a foundation course, and surely that is what
we should be trying to set up, not within the university because
I do not think it is the university's role, but if there were
colleges at this level that could do foundation courses then I
think people could have greater access to the university system
than they do today. Because, in many cases, the schools are failing
these people, and so it would mean another year, or two years,
but at that age it is quite possible.
683. So you say you would not see that as being
your role, but could you see yourself being involved in facilitating
that?
(Sir Richard Sykes) Yes; yes, certainly, we could
facilitate it, but I do not think it should be done in the university
setting. I think certainly we could play a role in it, absolutely.
Chairman
684. It must be frustrating for you, Professor
Trainor, and Sir Richard, that there are so many bright kids not
far from you in London, this vast metropolis, who have real potential
and ability and they are not coming through to you, they are not
there to be chosen at 18 to come to your institutions. Sir Richard,
are you doing anything to find those talented kids and bring them
into Imperial? Say, there is a dearth, and we all know Gareth
Roberts' work on this, also it is not just a British/UK, it is
a western world syndrome, is it not, this reluctance to tackle
the hard sciences and the maths?
(Sir Richard Sykes) We do have a responsibility, because
that is our feedstock, at the end of the day, so we do a number
of things, and some of them have been running for many years.
One is something called the Pimlico Project, where students go
out into schools in the area and teach mathematics, that is a
specific mathematics initiative, and there are software courses
that have been developed to help them, and I am sure many of those
kids will go on into science subjects, and I am sure that data
is available. Also we run summer schools, to encourage young children
to come in, to see what science is like, let them get involved
and encourage them. And, as you know, we started this scheme called
Inspire a year ago, which I think is very, very attractive, because
what it does is get industrial money to fund the schools and then
we have post-docs who spend half their time doing research at
Imperial and half their time teaching maths, physics, chemistry
and biology in the schools. And I know, by talking to the headmasters
and headmistresses of these schools, this really has changed the
whole attitude of people in the school, the teachers have been
tremendously supportive, kids have been tremendously supportive.
Because that is what science and technology is all about, you
have got to get people enthused, you have got to get them involved,
and if you do not have the teaching, if you do not have the excitement,
then they will never get involved in science. So it is our job
to make sure that we go out into schools and help to create an
environment where people do think, "Maybe this is for me,
maybe I should be doing this."
685. Professor Trainor, you have talked already
about your partnerships, but?
(Professor Trainor) Yes. I agree very much with Sir
Richard, and my university and others nearby are doing very similar
things. A couple of other items may be worth mentioning. We are
entering into progression agreements, we have one jointly with
the University of Kent and the Medway towns- "progression
compacts" we call them—but they are designed to try
to maximise the potential of the pupils in the school system in
that particular local education authority, to fulfil the requirements
of one or both of the universities. And at the London end of our
activities we are talking about—and I hope eventually we
will launch—a sort of joint progression centre, with the
local authority in Greenwich and the further education college,
Greenwich Community College, in which each would be offering courses
appropriate to their own mission, but which would maximise the
opportunity for pupils from the locality to make it through to
higher education. But I think this is very important. One of the
things that our study—the Universities for South London
study I referred to before—has shown is how in London, and
I suspect it is true in urban areas elsewhere, these percentages
of participation in higher education[4]mask
extreme variations at the local level. So at the ward level, in
south London, there are some whole wards that have virtually no
participation in higher education at all. And, of course, in many
cases, there are schools that go along with that, and those are
the schools which, I think, all sorts of universities have got
to make a greater impact on if we possibly can.
686. Do you think it would help you guys identify
talented youngsters into your universities if you had a kind of
broader basis on which to choose, and the A levels always seem
to be so constricted, and when you go to the United States, well,
the Select Committee went, it was much broader, there were five
different criteria, including SATs, which many in the United States,
and certainly the Sutton Trust and people with input, argue give
you a pretty clear indication of ability, that the intervention
of the sort of glossing-up process of three A-levels does not
get in the way? Would SATs help you?
(Sir Richard Sykes) I think there are all sorts of
parameters that you can use, but, remember, at the end of the
day, and I keep coming back to Imperial being a rather special
place, because if you do not have a good level of mathematics
you will not survive, so SATs will not tell you that, to any great
degree. So, yes, it is useful, but, at the end of the day, we
have got to make sure that if you are going to come onto those
courses you have the ability to operate on those courses. And
that is why, I think, in our case, we would need to make sure
that people were either brought up to a level, whichever way we
do that, or that they had that level; but I think a plurality
of parameters that you can screen people with is very important,
there is nothing wrong with it.
(Professor Trainor) I think we have to keep in mind
that A-levels are not used exclusively or in a mechanistic way
in the current admission system, and so particularly an institution
like mine is looking at a range of different qualifications, and
I am sure all institutions are taking into account special individual
circumstances. Of course, I come with a certain bias on the SATs,
being a product of that system myself. But I think they may have
some potential for the British system, to try to get round this
problem of being sure that talented young people are not overlooked.
I take Sir Richard's point, that they do not measure proficiency
necessarily, and in a subject like mathematics of course that
is very important. Probably we would need to use them in conjunction
with foundation year type programmes, which we were just talking
about a few moments ago. But although, so far, the SAT approach
has been talked about mainly in terms of helping the "top"
universities cope with their social diversity issues, I think
they might be useful right across the piece. I think if they would
be useful for Imperial, I suspect they would be useful for us
as well, trying to crack this problem with these wards where nobody
is coming to higher education, for example.
Jonathan Shaw
687. The Secretary of State has told us that
the Access Regulator, which will be working with, or part of,
HEFCE, and will monitor agreements, will be robust and challenging.
So do you think, perhaps starting with you, Professor Trainor,
that the access regulator is going to be the effective way of
ensuring that students from all backgrounds get into university,
so young people from Eton go to Greenwich University?
(Professor Trainor) We would welcome them, of course.
I do not think we know yet, at all, how the access regulator is
going to work out. Again, I think the debate in the press has
overlooked the sort of double-headed nature of the access regulator,
because most of the discussion, of course, has been about the
"top" universities. But, of course, the access regulator
is charged to look at not just the social composition of the intake
but also at retention records. And, just as some of the top universities
are hoping that the access regulator adopts a sensitive and understanding
approach to social composition, I think other universities are
hoping that the many problems which students from socially-disadvantaged
backgrounds bring with them, and which have implications for retention,
also are taken into account. Personally, I think I would have
preferred it if the monitoring of both these processes had been
left with the Funding Council—perhaps I should say the normal
mechanisms of the Funding Council—but I think it is a good
thing that the access regulator is to be based in the Funding
Council.
688. So the tie-up with the postcode premium,
for example?
(Professor Trainor) Indeed. Some progress has been
made there, as the Committee will know, in that the postcode premium
has been given more of a weighting this year. But I think it has
to be recognised that, particularly in places like London, it
remains a very blunt instrument for measuring social disadvantage;
so we have a much higher percentage of our students, for example,
paying no fee than are attracting the postcode premium. However,
the Funding Council says that when the relevant data from the
2004 census is available a much more complex model will be adopted,
and indeed the one they adopted in this year's allocations is
already a bit more sophisticated than the postcode premium alone.
It needs to be recognised, of course, that though it did help
universities like mine that we got some additional money because
of the two elements feeding into a so-called widening participation
fund, that money was top-sliced from the teaching grant, so this
was not an entire windfall.
689. So it is not new money?
(Professor Trainor) Some of the money has been redistributed
from one part of the university system to another, and it has
helped to reduce the extent to which the loss of research money
in an institution like mine has harmed our overall grant. But
it is not new money to the system, no.
690. Sir Richard, your views on the access regulator;
robust and tough?
(Sir Richard Sykes) Just on that, I think one is being
disingenuous on that funding, because it is not new funding, so
teaching money has been taken away from Imperial and perhaps given
to other universities. So all you have done is just moved the
money around, there is no new money.
691. That has happened with research funding
as well, has it not?
(Sir Richard Sykes) Yes, that is right. I am not complaining,
I am just making sure that you understand the issue. The access
regulator, I think it is a nonsense, I think it is totally unnecessary.
I think HEFCE is a regulator and has got a big stick, it has all
the money, so HEFCE could do the job; there is no clear evidence
that this access regulator will report through HEFCE, they might
sit in Bristol, and that just happens to be where HEFCE sits but
there is no evidence that they will be part of HEFCE, report to
HEFCE, and that Howard Newby would have control over this system.
So really I do not think it is a good idea, I think it puts just
more regulation on the universities, at a time when you need to
deregulate universities, get off the universities' backs and let
them get on with the job.
Chairman
692. Would it be better if HEFCE had a greater
level of independence from government, would not that be better
all round; if comparison would be, perhaps, with Ofsted, that
reported to Parliament through this Committee, rather than being
such a handmaiden of the Department for Education and Skills?
(Sir Richard Sykes) My impression is that that has
become more onerous quite recently, that ministers are getting
much more involved with HEFCE policy than perhaps they did in
the past.
693. It is not often, is it? HEFCE was in front
of us last week, to hear from the Chief Executive; he had written
an open letter complaining about the £30 million that was
taken away from the fours and given to the five-stars. And that
was the interference, HEFCE had made that decision, the Secretary
of State did not like it and gave it to you. So, presumably, you
would like that?
(Sir Richard Sykes) No, because it is the process
that we are talking about.
694. You do not like the process?
(Sir Richard Sykes) I guess you need some clarity
about the process; what you are saying, should they not have more
power, rather than make decisions and then get interference from
ministers.
695. So you would like a more independent HEFCE?
(Sir Richard Sykes) Yes; as long as people know where
the decisions are being made, I think that is important.
(Professor Trainor) I agree. I think I would voice
one or two criticisms of HEFCE policy, and I have my reservations
about their recent Strategic Plan (with its emphasis on diversity
of mission again) particularly in interpretation, but I think
the existence of a buffer organisation such as HEFCE is very important
to the health of the university system.
Jeff Ennis
696. Another mechanism the Government are going
to introduce to try to widen access is the reintroduction of maintenance
grants. Have you got any thoughts on how successful these will
be, in terms of widening access?
(Professor Trainor) I think it is a good thing that
a single maintenance grant is being brought in—in place
of this very confusing patchwork of hardship funds that we have
had over the last five or six years in particular. But I think
that the amount of this maintenance grant is very low, certainly
it is nothing like the sort of package Sir Richard was describing
earlier, and the levels of income below which the individual family
must fall are pretty modest. So I do not think it is going to
make a huge difference. It is a welcome step, and I think, given
what I said earlier about the huge gamble involved in the introduction
of variable fees, as far as widening participation is concerned,
that it is useful to have it, but it is just a partial solution
to a big problem, I think.
697. Sir Richard, have you got any views on
maintenance grants?
(Sir Richard Sykes) Yes, I have a view, because I
sat on the Dearing committee and we made a recommendation that
maintenance grants must be maintained, that was an obvious thing;
if you are going to charge students, yes, a fee, £1,000,
one had to keep the maintenance grants in place. And I think that
was the biggest problem, taking those away. And to come back with
£1,000, five years later, seems to me like madness. If you
really want to put in maintenance grants, you have to make them
realistic. Because, let us say that we went into some inner area
of Huddersfield and found some students who really wanted to come
to Imperial, it is not the course fee that is the problem, it
is the maintenance, it is the living that costs the money; and
that is the detriment, that is why they will say, "No, I
don't want to go, I'll go to Huddersfield," because that
cost is very, very onerous. So it seems to me that maintenance
grants would solve a big problem here; and you have got to raise
the level, as well, £10,000, yes, it is meaningless. So raise
the level and give more money and then you would start encouraging
really smart kids to any university.
698. Are there any other mechanisms to try to
widen access that the Government should have looked at, other
than postcode premiums and maintenance grants, is there anything
else that they could have looked at seriously?
(Sir Richard Sykes) Yes, the problem with their education.
Chairman
699. Could you expand on that, Sir Richard?
(Sir Richard Sykes) I think it is getting them and
getting the primary schools and the secondary schools, and it
is not an easy subject, I know that, but that is where the problem
starts. It is no good trying to get these kids at 16, 17, you
have got to get them at five years of age, and you have got to
start then getting involved with their education.
Chairman: I think most of the Committee
would agree with that, and we have done a lot of work on that.
4 Note by witness: Averages for whole local
authority areas. Back
|
