32. Memorandum submitted by Professor
David Leaver, Principal, Royal Agricultural College, Cirencester
I write in response to the letter of 3 March
2003 from Barry Sheerman requesting views on the White Paper.
The Royal Agricultural College is a small (600 student) higher
education (HE) College specialising in education, research and
consultancy relating to the rural economy and the food chain.
The need for reform in HE is accepted, and many
of the conclusions in the White Paper can be supported. In particular,
the recognition of diversity of role of universities and colleges,
fair access for students from all backgrounds and the need to
improve the economic contribution of universities and colleges
to businesses.
Nevertheless, although the White paper is strong
in its political objectives, it offers little in addressing the
underlying problems of HE institutions. I shall comment on two
main areas:
FUNDING
It is acknowledged in the White Paper that funding
per student fell 36% between 1989 and 1997. Whilst there is a
proposed 19% rise in recurrent funding by 2005-06, the underlying
problem of the core teaching activity being underfunded, is hardly
addressed. Most of the increased funding for higher education
is for research in a reducing number of departments and institutions,
and for special initiatives.
The potential to increase tuition fees from
£1,125 to £3,000 will provide a means of increasing
funding, but only if cost of living increases in grant are in
line with salary inflation. This has not been the case in the
past. The potential to increase fees must not be used by government
as a means of continuing to allow the funding per student to decline.
No justification is given as to why the introduction
of increased tuition fees is being delayed until 2006, when the
most critical problem for many institutions is current underfunding
of teaching.
The potential impact of the Access Regulator
on the ability to charge additional fees also remains unclear.
It is completely illogical that top-up fees are to be linked to
widening access to students from poorer backgrounds.
RESEARCH
The argument for concentrating research funding
in fewer institutions and departments with high RAE ratings might
appear persuasive in terms of critical mass and research efficiency.
Nevertheless, this process embeds research funding in those institutions/departments
that currently have RAE scores of 5 and 5*, and the long-term
implications of this policy do not appear to have been considered.
Such a concentration of research funding is the antithesis of
the diversity that the White Paper wishes to support. Reducing
diversity normally leads to reduced sustainability.
An underlying assumption in this concentration
of research is that "big is better". Whilst this may
be true in disciplines where expensive research equipment is required,
there is no evidence that success in research is positively correlated
with research group size.
The risks from such a policy include; complacency
in those funded institutions and departments leading to their
ossification, damaging the development of new emerging disciplines,
and failure to allow individuals of talent in other institutions
and departments to develop. The rather limp response to this issue
in paragraphs 2.20 and 2.21 gives little confidence that the proposals
will not reduce the dynamism of UK research.
The abrupt introduction of this policy by HEFCE
from August 2003 has serious consequences for institutions and
departments scoring 3a or 4 in the last RAE. This lack of lead-in
time to the new QR funding formula means that not only will they
lose significant funding at a stroke, staff appointed in good
faith that the QR funding resulting from RAE 2000 was applicable
until the next RAE, will now lose their jobs.
HEFCE have driven forward the establishment
of HR Strategies at universities and colleges, encouraging good
practice in personnel management. The unplanned introduction of
cuts in funding by HEFCE following the White Paper, and their
impact on employment, represents insensitive personnel management,
and certainly not good practice.
March 2003
| 
