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
| 
