Memorandum submitted by Imperial College
Union
PURPOSE
1. Whilst "education for educations
sake" may be a noble ideal in a modern and dynamic economy
education at all levels, particularly higher education, must be
focused on producing graduates who possess skills necessary to
drive a knowledge based economy. Competition from emerging economies
means that Britain can no longer compete in old manufacturing
industries, and must embrace to opportunities present in emerging
fields in science, technology and medicine such as nano-technology
and stem cell research. In a world of limited means this requires
the government to concentrate resources on those institutions
and programs which are able to develop which are able to develop
in these areas and compete on an international basis.
2. These developments should not adversely
affect the experience of students whilst studying at university.
It is vital that time spent at university remains a period in
which young people can develop emotionally and socially as well
as academically if we are to produce graduates who are able to
adapt to future challenges. This requires that students should
not have to spend all their free hours working to support themselves,
but be given time to use extra-curricular activities provided
by the university and students union to fully develop their potential.
3. If we wish to live in a society in which
students take an active part in decision making and policy then
this should be mirrored within universities. Engaging students
in the governance of their institution at a fundamental, not superficial,
level is a key way in which this can be achieved. Together with
academics, students must always be engaged as members of their
institution, not merely customers.
FUNDING
4. There can be no doubt that the current
level of funding for higher education is unsustainable. As universities
continue to lose money on each and every undergraduate student
the case for funding the full economic cost of higher education
becomes undisputable, leaving only the question of where this
funding should be sourced from.
5. It is our view that students have been
pushed to a point where further increasing their financial burden
is unviable. Student debt is now a significant worry for the majority
of students, and increasing this may serve to discourage those
with limited financial means from applying to university. This
issue is addressed in full by the submission to this inquiry by
the National Union of Students.
6. Leading international universities benefit
from access to large funding streams which are not ring fenced
to any particular area. This often comes from large endowments
and as such is not a model that British institutions can adopt
in the near future. Instead the Government should be prepared
to allow universities that aspire to lead on the international
stage to set their own funding priorities.
7. It is impossible to address the funding
of higher education without accepting that different institutions
and programs of study exist to fulfil radically differing needs
and so if equally differing ways. It is also essential to recognise
that the beneficiaries of higher education include the individual
student, society as a whole and those employing graduates.
8. While the former two categories already
contribute toward the costs of higher education the latter has
no direct input. It would therefore appear entirely appropriate
that the cost of courses which directly benefit a given employer
or industry should in part be met those who benefit.
9. This would disproportionately affect
those courses which are vocational in nature and, due to the reduced
need for student funding, make the same courses more attractive
to prospective students. Increased take up of vocational courses
would reduce number of students taking courses which are not vocational
in nature, thus reducing the need for government funding of these
courses.
10. The savings made through this process
can then be used to fund disciplines which are of strategic importance
to the UK economy at full economic cost, enabling them to compete
on the international stage. We should not be afraid to acknowledge
that these disciplines will inevitably be mostly based in science,
technology and medicine and the institutions which stand to benefit
are those which already have a strong presence in these areas.
11. The second strand of funding concerns
ensuring students have adequate means to survive whilst at university.
Whilst extending the student loan scheme to cover full living
costs is not attractive to either government or students (this
would only serve to increase the burden of student debt) it is
important that loans are increased at the same rate as the cost
of living. This is particularly relevant in London: in the period
1998-2003 living costs rose 22% above inflation[100]—an
increase not matched by student loans. This leads to a shortfall
between incoming (including paid work) and outgoing funds of £1492.[101]
12. This shortfall must be rectified if
we are to ensure that nobody is discouraged from applying for
a given course or institution because they cannot afford to live
away from home.
STRUCTURE
13. While the Government should not seek
to interfere in the operational management of higher education
institutions, it should ensure that resources are directed in
a way which supports the stated purpose of higher education. If
the government aspires to a high-skill economy, then this necessitates
that key areas in science and technology are given priority funding
to continue operating. These areas should be determined on the
basis of scientific integrity, not the whims of individuals or
the latest fad.
14. The recent announcement of £75
million extra funding for these strategic subjects is a welcome
step, but this level of funding needs to be committed on a continuing
basis not as a one-off token gesture.
THE BOLOGNA
PROCESS
1. It is all too apparent that the implications
of the Bologna Process have not been fully understood by many
in government. While the prospect of qualifications which are
accepted universally across Europe is both attractive from a political
and economic standpoint for Britain and will serve to increase
the international career prospects for British graduates, the
process of achieving Bologna compliance is far from trivial and
could prove damaging to Britain.
2. This threat is most keenly felt within
science and engineering disciplines which rely on the four year
integrated masters (MSci/MEng etc) to produce graduates of a calibre
high enough to progress on to further research or professional
work. The fundamental problem is that a four year combined 1st
and 2nd cycle degree will always struggle to contain the number
of hours required to gain the relevant number of ECTS credits
(270 including 60 at masters level). Over a traditional 4 academic
year course this amount to over 50 hours of work per week—as
well as breaking the EU working time directive this is impossible
for students to achieve whilst also undertaking the part time
work which is an essential income stream fo many students.
3. It is unfeasible for both higher education
institutions and students to increase the time spent on a first
degree due to financial constraints, so we believe it is of benefit
to the entire UK higher education system that the emphasis shifts
from a crude measure of working hours to educational outcomes
from a given course of study.
4. However, this requires leadership from
the Government which is currently sorely lacking. The lack of
leadership is also creating a worrying situation where many institutions
are ignoring the implications of Bologna in the vain hope that
it will "be alright on the night". This could lead to
a system where some degrees are Bologna compliant and other not.
While this may be inevitable it is undesirable at it will only
serve to damage the widening participation agenda and pose serious
questions as to how higher education is funded.
5. In light of the above points it should
be stressed that there is serious concern about the uninformed
manner in which the decision to join the Bologna Process was made.
Government should be keenly aware that making sweeping political
gestures without fully consulting those who will be affected (in
this instance higher education institutions and students) is not
an acceptable way to conduct business.
December 2006
http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/education/docs/studentFinancesResearch_mar04.pdf
100 The changing finances of students studying in
London (p10), Prof Claire Callender Back
101
The changing finances of students studying in London (p15), Prof
Claire Callender Back
| 
