Select Committee on Education and Skills Written Evidence


Memorandum submitted by the British Computer Society (BCS)

INTRODUCTION

  The British Computer Society (BCS) is pleased to send its response to the House of Commons Education and Skills Committee Inquiries into Higher Education on the Future Sustainability of the HE Sector and the Bologna Process.

  Established in 1957, the British Computer Society (BCS) is the leading industry body for those working in IT. It is driving a worldwide programme to develop the IT profession into the equivalent of any other profession. With a worldwide membership now over 56,000 members in over 100 countries, BCS is the qualifying body for Chartered IT Professionals (CITP).

  The BCS was incorporated by Royal Charter in 1984. Its objects are to promote the study and practice of computing and to advance knowledge of and education in IT for the benefit of the public. It is also a registered charity.

  The BCS is also licensed by the Engineering Council to award Chartered Engineer status (CEng) and Incorporated Engineer status (IEng); and more recently by the Science Council to award Chartered Scientist status (CSci). The essential requirement for professional competence coupled with appropriate professional standards lies at the heart of almost all BCS activity and the services that it provides.

  The BCS enables individuals, organizations and society to realize the potential of and maximize the benefits from IT by:

    —  setting and maintaining the highest professional standards for IT professionals including:

—  accrediting individual professional competence and integrity through the award of BCS professional qualifications and those of the Engineering Council and of the Science Council, and by inspection and accreditation of university courses and company training schemes;

—  defining standards for professional conduct through the BCS Code of Conduct and Code of Good Practice.

    —  initiating and informing debate on IT strategic issues with Government, industry, and academia;

    —  advising the UK Government and its agencies on IT-related matters regarding proposed legislation;

    —  representing the profession on issues of importance and liaising with other professional bodies, including other engineering institutions and overseas societies;

    —  examining and initiating debate on topical IT issues, most recently through the BCS programme of Thought Leadership debates;

    —  supporting individuals in their career development;

    —  providing opportunities for networking through the activities of the Branch and Group networks and the Forums.

THE BCS AND HIGHER EDUCATION

  Within HE the Society plays a number of important roles. It carries out accreditation of computing courses within the UK and beyond and has done so since around 1984. Almost all universities in the UK have their programmes of study accredited by the Society. Over the last 12 months a thorough review of its accreditation processes has been undertaken to take full account of each of CITP (Chartered IT Professional), CEng (Chartered Engineer), and CSci (Chartered Scientist). Within this review every attempt has been made to be comprehensive in terms of its coverage of aspects of computing and to reduce as far as possible the administrative burden on academia through the accreditation process.

  The accreditation process itself is carried out via the Society's Academic Accreditation Committee. Through this activity the Society is able to take note of the development and evolution of academic programmes and is careful to undertake its accreditation activity in a spirit of improvement.

  Following on from this accreditation review, the Society has recently signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the UK Quality Assurance Agency. The intention here is to share (in a constructive way) information about computing within institutions. The Society views this as a very positive development and suitable working relationships will need to evolve over the coming months. Another avenue being explored as a result of the review relates to the international recognition of qualifications. At a time of globalization of the workforce it seems particularly appropriate to explore such ideas.

  More generally, the Society is seeking to even further enhance its relationships with Higher Education. A committee has been set up to look at possible further developments. In addition there are discussions underway to have a closer working relationship between the Society and some highly influential bodies representing the interests of academia (namely the Council of Professors and Heads of Computing as well as the UK Computing Research Committee) and to do so in a supportive and non-threatening manner. These developments require mutual trust and understanding and must be nurtured with care and sensitivity.

THE IMPORTANCE OF COMPUTING

  Naturally the Society is keen to stress the importance of computing. These comments are made with some feeling. As a discipline computing tends to fall between engineering and science and often misses out on important funding opportunities. For instance, it was not funded in the recent STEM initiative, nor in the HEFCE initiative for disciplines with falling application numbers (despite the fact that it was the most seriously disadvantaged discipline in this regard).

  There is wide recognition that advances in computing have been responsible for major advances in engineering and in science over the last 20 years or so. To quote from the web site of Computing Research Associates (CRA) in the US:

    —  IT drove U.S. productivity revival [from 1995-2000].

    —  About two-thirds of the 80% gain in economic productivity since 1995 can be attributed to advances in information technology.

    —  IT has changed the conduct of research enabling scientific discovery across every scientific discipline—from mapping the human brain to modeling climatic change.

    —  The opportunities for future advances in information technology research are enormous—in fact, the opportunities are even greater than they have been in the past.

  These comments are then reflected in predictions from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics forecasting that the demand for computing specialists is expected to grow faster than the average for all occupations and predicts a growth rate in new jobs in the IT sector of more than 30%.

  From all of this, there are some important conclusions to which the Society subscribes: computing is the key to innovation, Innovation and therefore computing are fundamental to competitiveness. Consequently a thriving computing community will serve the country well and will underpin and provide the engine to drive the economy. There are some very important issues here.

  BCS is determined to advance IT knowledge and deliver professionalism at the highest standards by "Creating the IT Profession" for the 21st century. Therefore, BCS is pleased to take this opportunity to comment on this issue.

A.  THE FUTURE SUSTAINABILITY OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION SECTOR: PURPOSE, FUNDING AND STRUCTURES

I.  The role of universities over the next 5-10 years

1.  What do students want from universities? What should the student experience involve, including for international students?

  Different students have different expectations and different requirements, many of them dependent on the subject(s) they study. Some have predetermined their career choices, others have not. For the latter group, flexibility of courses choices is important. What students want is in any case not necessarily what they should get. Increasingly, there is a view that students have been spoon-fed by their schools and they expect universities to behave likewise. This view is encouraged by those who categorize students as consumers. This has some very unhealthy aspects: students should be at university to learn and to be challenged, not simply to be taught or pandered to.

  With the phenomenon of globalization of the workforce and all that this entails, there is scope for paying attention to the international competitiveness of students. Apart from issues of standards of education, this also implies an international perspective in the curriculum, and ensuring that graduates can confidently compete with graduates from any other country.

  HE is about education, and this embraces not only learning about the subject and acquiring appropriate skills, but it is also about personal and social development and maturity. Students should be presented with structured learning opportunities appropriate to the subject(s) they are studying. These opportunities should involve both formal and informal interactions with the teaching staff. Students need to learn and understand the principles underlying their subjects and to acquire skills appropriate to those subjects. In particular they should be encouraged to learn how to challenge perceived wisdom on the basis of rational argument. Both within and outside formal teaching they should have opportunities to learn to be tolerant of people from different backgrounds and with different ideas. The presence of international students is very valuable in this respect, for both them and home students. Ghetto situations should be avoided at all costs.

  From perceptions about attendance at many universities—attendances of 50% or substantially lower are not uncommon—changes need to take place. The attendance figures suggest that the courses are not meeting the needs of the students. There are issues here about commitment and work ethic, and ultimately about the quality of the educational experience. Changes are needed, either of behalf of the students or on behalf of the academic staff. In practice, the institutions themselves need to change their practices to address this important matter. It is likely that such changes will require greater staff involvement and so resources.

2.  What do employers want from graduates? Skills base, applied research, links with industry?

  Different employers have different requirements and different perceptions. Where any sort of consensus exists, it tends to be focused on the so-called "transferable skills". A certain diversity in the types of graduate that universities produce is desirable; hence some programmes of study should address fundamentals, others should have an orientation to industry, and so on. This facilitates the desirable scenario whereby each student can find a programme within which they can succeed and so gain confidence in their ability. But students with a good work ethic and a certain pride in their work and their performance are increasingly of particular value.

  With the rate of changes in technology, it is important that students have a certain facility and a love of learning, and that must come through from their early educational experiences. Related to this, HE does need to pay attention to fundamentals, since these matters are less likely to change with time and with the latest fad.

3.  What should the Government, and society more broadly, want from HE?—A stable, internationally competitive, HE sector?—Internationally-competitive research capacity?—Graduates appropriate for a high-skill economy?—Widening participation, contribution to social mobility?—A much greater level of engagement with schools?—Engagement in society and democratic debate, and producing active citizens?

  Generally the universities ought to be providing a strong leadership role in the community. That role has been compromised in recent years when the level of bureaucracy seems to have grown "almost out of control". The Society has tried to play its part by reducing the overheads of its accreditation activities and with the Memorandum of Understanding with the QAA sees ways in which the burden on academics can be reduced; in effect accreditation, combined with institutional audit in a sensible manner, can play a significant role in the maintenance of quality.

  Some additional comments are desirable:

    —  Of course, an internationally competitive research capacity is absolutely vital.

    —  Increasingly, and with greater emphasis than at present, highly skilled graduates are appropriate for a high-skill economy but not exclusively so. Universities should be primarily about education, not training. It would certainly be desirable to see greater attention to the ingredients that support greater competitiveness, ie innovation, entrepreneurship, and so on. In this regard the publication of the report on 14th December, 2006 entitled America's choice: high skills or low wages? by the recently formed New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce seems worth noting. It comments that the current "education and training systems were built for another era. We can get where we must go only by changing the system itself". Some additional quotes also seem relevant:

—  The best employers the world over will be looking for the most competent, most creative, and most innovative people on the face of the earth ...

—  [That kind of leadership] depends on a deep vein of creativity that is constantly renewing itself.

    —  Universities inevitably contribute to social mobility (though normally only in one direction), without any need for this to be presented to them as some form of requirement. Widening participation is not something over which the better research universities have had much influence or control, as has been amply demonstrated in recent years. There is a danger that widening participation becomes associated with sacrificing academic standards, and that is a disservice to everyone.

    —  At one level one can make the following comments. A much greater level of engagement with schools is a fine principle but difficult to implement in practice: which universities with which schools? Indeed many universities do have links with schools in their region and some engage in national activities or projects with schools. But, without additional resources, this engagement with schools can only be at the expense of not doing something else, ie teaching or research. However, HE has a role to play in monitoring developments at schools. For instance, they need to ensure that their courses are accessible to those coming forward with schools qualifications. But additionally if they sense some unsatisfactory aspect of schools qualifications, they should recognize that they have a duty to draw this to the attention of relevant agencies with a view to initiating any appropriate action and helping as required. In the context of computing, the recent decline in applications to HE was one such indication of a need for action.

    —  Engagement in society and democratic debate, and producing active citizens are important and vital for society. But in some quarters this is actively discouraged by almost automatically dismissing as irrelevant university contributions (and indeed that of most qualified experts) to any issue and denigrating the authors.

II.  UNIVERSITY FUNDING

1.  Is the current funding system fit for purpose? Is the purpose clear?

  Certainly the computing community in England is very sensitive and disappointed about the relatively recent reduction in the funding levels of their discipline. The particular circumstances associated with rapid growth in student numbers brought about a situation whereby not all of the funding for students was passed on to departments.

  See also answer to (4) below.

2.  What are the principles on which university funding should be based?

  There are various principles here: diversity is important; quality is important in its many manifestations; opportunity for both institutions and for individuals is important; and so on.

  One important principle that ought to be highlighted is that high quality students should be able to be encouraged to attend the top universities.

3.  Should the £3,000 cap on student fees be lifted after 2009 and what might be the consequences for universities and for students, including part-time students?

  The notion of removing the £3,000 cap on student fees is likely to have the implication that the fee level will be raised to an even higher level than at present by certain institutions. This is likely to have the effect that these institutions will become inaccessible to a broad section of the population. It is also likely to increase student debt. These are huge concerns. It would be undesirable for the most highly qualified students to find it difficult to gain access to the more prestigious institutions.

  There is also a serious long-term funding problem for Scottish universities but it is unclear if they are to be considered within this review.

4.  What should the Government be funding in HE and by what means?

  In many parts of the world greater attention than ever is being given to computing education. For instance, Computing Research Associates (CRA) in the US is holding a summit at the start of January 2007 to look at setting up an activity with a particular focus on education in computing, the Heads of Computing institutions in Europe has set up groups with particular responsibility for educational matters, the ACM (the major professional body in computing) in the US has set up an Education Council as well as an Educational Policy Group, and so on. Much of the concern seems to relate to the future. Unless young people are educated to a very high level, then increasingly work and prosperity will move to India and to China, etc. There is a responsibility to guard against that. Of course, research is very important, but so is education and certainly some consideration might be given to the balance between these.

  A related and important observation is that much innovation (and hence support for competitiveness) is driven by advances in computing. That has been shown to be true—see, for instance, the CRA website. So support for computing education at an advanced level is a particularly vital matter. Initiatives in the US, for example, are placing a greater emphasis on computing education as a matter of priority and something similar is needed in the UK.

  Within the community, there is an unfortunate perception that computing has been all but ignored. It is very serious. Yet it is important to emphasize that computing is underpinning advances in engineering, in science, in business, in education, and so on. All of these are very important for the economy and the future.

  Related to these comments there would be considerable merit in having something akin to the National Science Foundation in the US (and this explicitly has a division which addresses computing) being formed here. Currently the focus of activity in the UK Funding Councils is the funding of the universities, and in the Research Councils is research. There could be much merit in the creation of a body whose task is to drive forward innovation in the education world, with top people applying for awards there and for awards to be highly valued and be held in high esteem.

5.  Should central funding be used as a lever to achieve government policy aims? Is the balance between core or block-funding and policy-directed funding correct at present?

  Universities, like the judiciary, should be free from direct government interference. However, agencies such as the research councils, the funding councils, or an NSF—see (4) above—can be used to bring about desirable change.

  The balance between core or block-funding and policy-directed funding is not correct at present. There is far too much hypothecated funding, largely created to satisfy the need to announce something at regular intervals and to increase state control.

6.  Should research funding be based on selection of "quality"? How should quality be defined and assessed? How might this drive behavior across the sector?

  It is important that high quality groups, but also importantly high quality individuals have the opportunity to flourish. It is very important to recognize quality wherever it flourishes; see comment about—under the answer to question 4 above—an NSF (or equivalent) initiative.

  Regarding considerations of quality, the Society genuinely believes that it can build positively on its recent Memorandum of Understanding with the UK QAA. Through its accreditation activity, subject experts as well as industrial representatives become involved with assessments of quality and do so in a manner that places an emphasis on improvement. And steps have been taken to reduce the bureaucratic load on institutions.

  It is mentioned elsewhere that fundamentally quality is about what happens between students and academic staff. The current problems of attendance at many institutions are a major cause for concern.

7.  How can leading research universities reach internationally competitive levels of funding? Should limited central-government funding be directed elsewhere?

  Certainly the leading research universities need to be properly funded. But they must not be funded to the exclusion of everyone else. Comments have been made elsewhere about the delicate issues of balance here.

8.  How well do universities manage their finances, and what improvements, if any, need to be made?

  Universities do not always pass on resources to particular subject areas. Especially when there is rapid growth, departments need to be protected and that did not happen during the rapid rise in computing applications other than in a few enlightened institutions. That phenomenon has been apparent in computing and has resulted in a reduction in the funding level in England.

9.  Are some parts of the sector too reliant on income from overseas students?

  There are sensitive issues here. In many institutions Masters courses are seen to be primarily for overseas students. Of course, on the one hand gaining resources for HE is desirable and can be used to beneficial effect. On the other hand, that can be seen as exporting advanced technology developments so increasing the possibility of outsourcing and offshoring. There are issues of balance here that are exceedingly delicate.

III.  THE STRUCTURE OF THE HE SECTOR

1.  Is the current structure of the HE sector appropriate and sustainable for the future?

  No comments.

2.  How well do structures and funding arrangements fit with "diversity of mission"?

  Comments have been made elsewhere about issues of balance. The education of young people is very important and yet in HE promotion is scarcely ever based on excellence in education and scholarship. That fails to recognize many remarkable contributions from academics.

3.  Is the current structure and funding affecting growth of HE in FE and part-time study?

  No comments.

4.  How important are HE in FE and flexible learning to the future of HE? Would this part of the sector grow faster under different structure and funding arrangements?

  Comments were made earlier about issues of attendance, and the need for change. That needs to be addressed in some way. One possibility is for institutions to video all their classes (as happens in many German universities, for instance). But quality in HE is largely about what happens in the interaction between academic staff and their students. There really ought to be a return to these basic principles.

5.  Can, and should, the Government be attempting to shape the structure of the sector?

  Here there are considerations of e-learning and related activities. Students need to receive feedback on their work. Where large classes and large projects are involved, it is often the case that students receive inadequate feedback, and that is a great pity.

6.  Is the Government's role one of planning, steering, or allowing the market to operate?

  It is desirable that this is done through agencies such as research councils, funding councils and NSF-like bodies.

7.  Should there be areas of government planning within HE—eg for strategic subjects?

  Again this is best done through intermediate agencies. In part, this lies behind the suggestion of a National Science Foundation kind of organization that would have appropriate aims and objectives. Primarily it would be about stimulating developments leading to high quality educational initiatives. Just as in the US, the Society would like to see a division with special responsibility for computing. Currently the US NSF has a special call out for proposals under a programme called CPATH via which they are looking for imaginative proposals to transform the way in which computing education is performed. Behind this lies the wish to produce a workforce that will ensure US continued competitiveness.

8.  What levers are available to the Government and how effective are they?

  See answer to (7) above, for instance.

9.  Is there a clear goal for the future shape of the sector? Should there be one?

  There would appear to be no clear goal about the future. Indeed it seems desirable that the sector should exhibit a certain level of agility so that it can be responsive to future changes and to new demands. For change just seems to be part of the life of institutions.

  For instance, one agent of change is likely to be Bologna. Here much is likely to depend on the nature of the implementation of the Bologna Process. In the universities in Germany, for instance, the expectation is that a large percentage of students will stay on for Masters study. In the UK at the moment, the numbers of UK students staying on is low. There is reason to be concerned about UK competitiveness in the future if this situation does not change.

10.  Is there a clear intention behind the balance of post-graduate and under-graduate international students being sought? Is this an area where the market should be managed? Can it be managed?

  Currently in many institutions there is an emphasis on overseas students at post-graduate level. There ought to be concerns about the involvement of UK students in advanced study; currently that figure would appear to be relatively low. There are ways of encouraging advanced study in certain discipline areas, eg through attention to the acquisition of chartered status, and certain professional requirements for continuing education.

B.  THE BOLOGNA PROCESS

  This year the BCS sponsored the Informatics Education Europe conference in Montpellier in France. This was a European conference run and organized by Europeans and was a great success. Such events serve to bring folk of different European countries together, this allows them to collaborate on projects and to investigate matters such as student mobility. They have enormous potential, and an additional such event is planned for 2007.

  Even at that conference there was a fear that the notion of a European-wide curriculum was imminent. Of course, within Bologna the wish is to retain diversity of educational experiences and opportunities but to provide a framework within which mobility of students and comparability can occur.

  Also the Society (through CEPIS) is becoming involved in a European project investigating accreditation issues on a European wide basis.

1.  Implications of the Bologna Process for the UK Higher Education sector: advantages and disadvantages.

  Typically UK students lack the language skills that are needed to support student mobility; having said this, English is ever-more the international language. But also certain countries, eg Germany, place a great emphasis on theoretical matters, which tend to be an impediment for many UK students.

  The MEng degree is seen as very valuable within the UK. Yet this degree does not fit well with the requirements of Bologna.

2.  The agenda for discussion at the 2007 meeting in London—clarifying the UK position.

  Possible topics might include the following:

  Does the fact that entry to HE is based on A levels in England and Highers in Scotland create any difficulty or differentiation over the requirements of Bologna?

  What impact does mobility and the requirements of Bologna have on benchmark standards? Do these need to have an international stamp of approval? Or are different benchmark standards needed?

  Where does industrial placement most naturally fit within Bologna? Is it in the first three- year cycle or in the second two-year cycle?

  Presumably mobility most naturally fits at the start of the second cycle or within that cycle? What incentives are there for institutions to encourage mobility or indeed for students to engage in it? An important matter here is: why should a student not go the US rather than to a European country—so motivation is a vitally important matter for the millennial student.

  At the Masters level, are European countries content with the notions of the different flavours of Masters degree—generalist degrees, specialist degrees, MEng degrees. There seem to be issues over the MEng since the final year of the MEng is just the normal Sept—May and not a full 12 months.

  Can the UK quality system be adopted as a basis for European accreditation of degrees (here accreditation should be interpreted as a quality matter rather than as a preparation for a profession)?

  What issues arise in connection with the funding of mobility—fees for students coming from abroad and support for UK students moving abroad?

3.  The implications of a three-phase structure of higher education awards for one-year Masters and short undergraduate courses (HNCs, HNDs, and Foundation Degrees).

  See answer to question (2) above. The MEng seems to be a particularly awkward entity. Yet it is highly valued within the UK.

4.  Awareness and engagement in the Bologna Process within HEIs.

  To a large extent Bologna and the implications of Bologna are being ignored in most institutions. The problems outlined in (2) above are seen as real impediments.

5.  Opportunities to enhance the mobility of students from the UK.

  Some glib comments can be made about student mobility. In reality this is a very sensitive and personal matter. Students should engage in mobility when they are mature enough to do so, and when they see genuine beneficial opportunities in doing so. For a student to decide to move to another country for an entire year or semester is a huge decision that can have a very upsetting and disturbing effect. Opportunities for more modest periods of study abroad, eg short course during summer months could have the attraction of allowing students to "test the water".

6.  The possible implementation of a European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) and a focus on learning outcomes and competencies.

  The UK is well positioned in this regard. Fundamentally the ECTS scheme could be accommodated with relative ease within most credit schemes, and the vast majority of UK institutions employ these.

7.  Quality Assurance systems in HE (teaching and research): the compatibility of UK proposals and Bologna.

  Again the quality mechanisms in the UK are relatively advanced in comparison with those of most other European countries. The Society is involved with a project in Germany whose purpose is to investigate European-wide standards in this regard.

8.  Degree classification reform in light of Bologna.

  No comment.

9.  The broader impact of Bologna across Europe: a more standardized Europe and the consequences for the UK's position in the global market for HE (Bologna and the second phase of the Prime Ministers Initiative for International Education (PMI 2)).

  Part of the activities within the Society involves looking at mutual recognition of accreditation activities with the US, Australia, etc. In short, efforts are being made to arrive at a Washington Accord type of arrangement for computing. So the Society is attempting to lead in this very area, recognizing the challenges of Bologna as well as the wider implications associated with globalization.

CONCLUSION

  In conclusion the Society would wish to re-emphasize the vitally important role that computing in HE can play in the future well-being, prosperity and economic competitiveness of the country. Degree level computing is so vital. Undoubtedly attention needs to be given to this important area. The essential link with economic prosperity needs to be formally recognized and subsequently will require careful nurturing.

December 2006





 
previous page contents next page

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

© Parliamentary copyright 2007
Prepared 9 August 2007