41. Memorandum submitted by the University
of Southampton
Here at the University of Southampton the White
Paper has been the subject of much scrutiny and discussion since
its publication in January. I want, however, to focus our response
on seven main points which I will try to make as succinctly as
possible:
1. Although the HE sector accepts the principle
of accountability, we at Southampton would like the Committee
to persuade the Government to listen more to the universities
and the Funding Council and stop trying to "micro manage"
universities, which it cannot possibly do successfully. The White
Paper in particular contains a number of initiatives whose interaction
does not seem to have been thought through and it is a confusing
cocktail of regulation and unleashing of market forces whose consequences
are uncertain. With no time for preparation or adjustment the
White Paper was followed almost immediately by large scale changes
in teaching and research funding which threaten to destabilise
the sector. Moreover, the story seems to change almost daily.
2. We agree that because of the competing
demands for public money the only way to improve the financial
health of universities is through the de-regulation of fees. Therefore,
we support the introduction of so-called "top-up" fees
but believe that the current cap is too low and will be maintained
for too long, blunting the effectiveness of the reform. Moreover,
the severe under-funding of higher education is likely to mean
every institution has to charge the full amount permitted.
3. We support the concentration of research
into fewer institutions to promote excellence but believe that
a sufficient number, say 20 to 30, is required for critical mass.
There has to be a "staircase to the top" for gifted
young academics to climb. Many will be dissuaded from entering
upon a research career if it appears too risky.
The threat to innovation that concentration
implies must be avoided somehow. It does not inspire confidence
that the method of additional research funding this year, the
"double first", was backward rather than forward looking.
The White Paper takes inadequate account of
the difference between disciplines, eg between "big science"
for which concentration has obvious economic attractions and most
of the Arts and Humanities for which co-operation rather than
concentration is what makes sense.
4. This year's funding saw some institutions
"safety netted" because they happened to come out badly
under the new funding arrangements which were sprung on us. Longer
term, if the White Paper's stance on Teaching & Learning is
to be more than mere rhetoric about customer choice then poor
performing institutions must be allowed to fail and not be forever
"safety netted" by the HEFCE.
We believe that "Centres of Excellence"
are unlikely to produce proportionally more teaching funding for
"learning only" institutions if that was the intention
because much of the best teaching in the country happens to take
place in the research intensive institutions. Another, more prescriptive
approach is probably required to establish and fund appropriately
institutions that want to devote themselves to teaching and learning
only.
5. Southampton recruits nationally but that
does not mean that it recruits uniformly across the country, a
distinction that the White Paper seems to ignore. This is true
for almost all universities. On a location adjusted basis Southampton's
performance in widening participation is in line with its HEFCE
benchmarks. But these and other possible measures referenced in
the White Paper were simply ignored in the subsequent funding
for widening participation.
We eagerly await the clarity promised by the
Secretary of State on the standards and methods to be used by
the access regulator.
It is clear to us that the money taken from
the teaching grant for widening participation is not aimed at
us but at other types of institutions. Is the Committee aware
that the barriers for the socially disadvantaged to enter the
country's top universities have been raised in this way? We believe
that the approach chosen, which also reduces the funding for non-widening
participation students in real-terms, is in danger merely of re-distributing
the problem around the sector rather than delivering a real improvement
in participation.
6. Public money to accelerate the transfer
of difficult new knowledge to industry is probably well spent;
public money merely to reduce consulting costs for companies using
the local university as a cheap alternative to commercial consulting
is probably money misspent.
7. Research intensive higher education depends
on the attraction and retention of talent which is helped by a
"the best attract the best" effect. These days recruitment
is international. But as the developing world stops sending its
bright young people abroad and starts to repatriate HE provision,
the market for research talent is set to become much more competitive.
The network effect also operates in decline, with the possibility
of catastrophic collapse, either in a subject at a particular
institution, or of an institution's research capability generally,
and ultimately of the nation's reputation for world-class research.
The relative under-resourcing of academic staff salaries has been
an acknowledged problem for many years. Apart from earmarked funds
for "staff development", the White Paper is woefully
silent on this subject. Perhaps on this point more than any other
the White Paper appears parochial and tactical rather than international
and strategic.
March 2003
| 
