23. Memorandum submitted by Goldsmiths
College, University of London
RESPONSE TO THE GOVERNMENT ON THE WHITE PAPER:
THE FUTURE OF HIGHER EDUCATION
The College welcomes much of the content of
the White Paper The Future of Higher Education. We believe
that it admirably highlights the importance of UK universities,
and indicates an awareness both of the value of higher education
to the individuals concerned, and of the benefits of universities
and university research to the economy. We agree with the three
foci of the document: that higher education must expand, while
at the same time redressing the social class gap which remains
too wide; that there is international competition in research,
prompting the need for further investment and the recruitment
and retention of the very best academics; and, in the light of
an investment backlog of approximately £8 billion, there
is a need for stronger links with business and community.
At the same time, the grant letter covering
the spending period up to 2006 indicates real terms growth in
funding of some 6% per annum over the period, including a sharp
rise in student support, including the re-introduction of grants
for low income families. This together with the abolition of up-front
fees, the College welcomes.
The College has some concerns over aspects of
the White Paper and these are dealt with in the following sections.
RESEARCH EXCELLENCE
We note that a new RAE method is intended for
2008, and welcome the proposed increase in Research funding by
£80 million, £107 million and £246 million in each
of the next three years, to include additional capital funding.
Whilst also recognising the need to promote
collaboration across institutions, we are concerned at the emphasis
on more concentrated research units, and that there appears to
us to be an over emphasis on rewarding research in larger units.
We believe that new and emerging research thrives also in smaller
departments: indeed this College is a fine example of this as
demonstrated by our research performance over the last three RAEs
(see Annex). We urge the Government to recognise this by enabling
the HEFCE to restore departments rated 4 in the RAE to their previously
funded levels and doing more to invest in emerging and improving
research wherever it is identified, not just in the largest departments.
We very much welcome the announcement that a
new Arts and Humanities Research Council will be created.
ACCESS
We note that Higher Education Institutions will
have the option to charge a fee of between £0 and £3,000
per year from September 2006. We look forward to receiving details
of how this will work in practice, in particular the linkage of
the fee to the cost of courses and to "graduate return"—i.e.
earnings potential conferred by course, and the role of the access
regulator. We recognise that the introduction of higher fees will
provide a much needed boost to the funding of higher education,
always provided that the effect of this is not nullified by a
commensurate reduction in teaching resource. We strongly urge
the Government to ensure that the additional income implied by
this change can be retained by institutions if the proposed fee
increases are adopted by Government.
We welcome the proposal that students from low-income
families will continue to have the first £1,100 of the fee
met and there will be a new grant of up to £1,000 for students
from lower-income families—benefiting approximately one
third of students nationally. We would question however the appropriateness
of the low income benchmark, ie families with a combined income
of less than £10,000 per year. At this level, only 7% of
households would qualify for the full grant, which is less than
half the value of grants when they were abolished in 1998.
However, we are gravely concerned at the debt
burden which the proposed fee arrangement will impose on many
students, and at the likely disincentive to lower-income potential
recruits of precisely the kind universities need to attract. We
strongly believe that this proposal runs counter to the Government's
aim to increase participation to 50% of 18 to 30 year olds by
2010. We are also concerned that it will widen the gap between
"elite" universities, which will continue to attract
students who can afford the higher fees, and those universities
which will be forced to keep their fees low to maintain intakes.
We believe that the increased debt burden on
graduates will adversely affect the demand for taught and research
postgraduate education. This in turn will have an adverse impact
on both research performance and the supply of high calibre academic
staff in the medium to long term.
We welcome the proposal that tuition fees will
be deferred until after graduation and recoverable through the
tax system when an individual's personal income reaches £15,000
per year, an increase from the current level of £10,000.
However, we believe that this limit should be higher as, especially
in London, it will mean that graduates on low incomes will still
be penalised by the need to repay debt before they receive an
income which approaches a real return on their investment. We
believe that a higher income level, linked more appropriately
to the potential salary differential between a graduate and a
non-graduate, would better reflect the Government's objective.
If not already the Government's intention, we
would urge that the repayment of the fee is made from graduates'
gross income, i.e. before assessing the taxable income.
We note the White Paper's emphasis on foundation
degrees to achieve the bulk of any further growth to meet the
Government's access targets. Whilst recognising that this proposal
will encourage applications from a hitherto untapped sector of
the education market, we are concerned that it misses the opportunity
to recognise growth at other levels where demand is unmet. In
particular, it precludes the funding of additional postgraduate
provision which we regard as essential to ensure provision of
life long learning, and to guarantee a constant supply of future
researchers that will be needed to facilitate the Government's
ambitions on research.
TEACHING AND
LEARNING
We welcome the proposed new money to be made
available for modernisation and rewarding good teaching—proposed
schemes which include "fellowships for the best" and
Centres of Teaching Excellence. We note also the assertion that
there is too little collaboration between HEIs and not enough
emphasis on teaching in HR strategies, which must in future show
how good teachers will be rewarded and promoted. We very much
welcome the announcement that the current earmarked grants for
rewarding and developing staff will be rolled into recurrent grants,
and supplemented by additional grants for this purpose from 2005-06.
We are concerned however, at the apparent emphasis
on the separation of teaching from research in rewarding staff,
as evidenced, for example, by the proposal to award market supplements
for recruiting and retaining best staff especially for teaching
excellence. We remain firmly convinced on the basis of our experience
that the best teaching is research led in our experience, a view
supported by our students' union.
WIDENING ACCESS
We welcome the proposal to unify existing programmes
into the "Aim Higher" programme, to be in place by April
2004. We also welcome the proposal to develop new performance
indicators to replace the existing "postcode" analysis,
which we agree does not reflect accurately institutions' performance
in widening access.
We note that the Access premium will be increased
from 5% to 20% from 2003-04. However, on receipt of our grant
letter from HEFCE, we are dismayed that this results in no additional
real funding, but is merely the consequence of a transfer from
an already stretched teaching allocation.
BUSINESS LINKS
(HEROBC)
We welcome the proposal that the Higher Education
Innovation Fund (HEIF) will be strengthened to enable, inter-alia,
stronger partnerships with Regional Development Agencies to be
built, in an initiative which is estimated to be worth £90
million per year by 2005-06.
ENDOWMENTS
We note, and welcome, the proposal to provide
assistance to build up endowment funds by promoting individual
and corporate giving through the tax system and creating a fund
to give HEIs the incentive to raise endowment finance. We are
of the view that a great deal of help is required in this area,
not just through providing tax incentives, which are already largely
in place, but to persuade a cultural shift in charitable giving
generally. We believe this is a very long-term aspiration, if
indeed it is achievable at all.
Annex
Goldsmiths College: RAE Ratings and numbers
of staff selected: 2001, 1996, 1992, 1989
| UoA | Subject
| Principal departments | RATING 2001
| Proportion of staffselected | 1996 rating
| 1992 rating | 1989 rating
|
| 11 | Other Studies and Professions Allied to Medicine
| PACE (Unit of Psychotherapeutic Studies) |
3a | B | 2 | 1
| 1 |
| 13 | Psychology | Psychology
| 4 | A | 4 |
3 | 2 |
| 22 | Pure Mathematics | Mathematical and Computing Sciences
| 3a | A | 3a |
2 | 2 |
| 23 | Applied Mathematics |
Mathematical and Computing Sciences | not entered
| - | 1 | - |
- |
| 24 | Statistics &Operational Research
| Mathematical and Computing Sciences | 3a
| A | 3b | 3 |
3 |
| 25 | Computer Science | Mathematical and Computing Sciences
| 3b | B | 2 |
1 | - |
| 37 | Anthropology | Anthropology
| 5 | A | 5 |
3 | 3 |
| 40 | Social Policy and Administration
| Social Policyand Politics | 4
| A | 3a | 3 |
3 |
| 41 | Social Work1 | PACE (Social Work)
| not entered | - | 2
| 2 | 1 |
| 42 | Sociology | Sociology
| 5* | A | 5 |
3 | 2 |
| 48 | European Studies | European Languages
| 4 | C | - |
- | - |
| 50 | English Language and Literature
| English | 5 | A
| 3a | 2 | 1 |
| 51 | French | European Languages
| entered in cat. 48 | - | 3b
| 2 | 1 |
| 52 | German | European Languages
| - | 3b | 3 |
2 | |
| 55 | Spanish | European Languages
| | - | 3a |
3 | 2 |
| 59 | History | Historical and Cultural Studies
| 4 | B | 4 |
2 | 2 |
| 60 | History of Art | Historical and Cultural Studies
| 3b | A | 3b |
4 | 1 |
| 63 | Theology, Divinity and Religious Studies
| Historical and Cultural Studies | 4
| A | 4 | 4 |
2 |
| 64 | Art & Design | Design, Visual Arts
| 5 | B | 5* |
5 | 4 |
| 65 | Media & Communications
| Media & Communications | 5*
| C | 4 | 5 |
3 |
| 66 | Dance, Drama & Performing Arts
| Drama | 4 | A
| 4 | 4 | 3 |
| 67 | Music | Music
| 5 | A | 5 |
3 | 2 |
| 68 | Education | Educational Studies
| 4 | C | 4 |
3 | 1 |
Proportion of staff selected in 2001 refers to the proportion
of the staff employed on academic contracts and working within
the subject area who were put forward for assessment (Category
A staff):
A: 95-100% staff submitted; B: 80-94.9%; C: 60-79.9%; D:
40-59.9%; E: 20-39.9%; F: below 20%.
1 Some staff from this category were entered in Unit of Assessment
40—Social Policy and Administration.
April 2003
| 
