Memorandum submitted by Universities UK
INTRODUCTION
1. Universities UK is pleased to submit
evidence to the House of Commons Education and Skills Committee
Inquiry on the future sustainability of the higher education sector:
purpose, funding and structures.
2. Paragraphs 4-35 outline Universities
UK's view on the role the higher education sector plays in respect
of students, employers and the Government, and offers views on
how this might develop in the next 5-10 years. Paragraphs 36-51
address issues relating to university funding, and paragraphs
52-61 deal with the structure of the UK higher education sector.
3. Universities UK believes that the following
principles should continue to underpin the development of higher
education policy in the UK:
— Autonomy: The strength of the UK
higher education sector is founded on its autonomy. Our success
contrasts with that of centrally managed systems, such as those
in many European countries.
— Shared responsibility for funding:
We support the Dearing principle that all who benefit from higher
education should contribute to its costs, including individuals,
employers and the public purse.
— Support for diversity: We have a
broad higher education sector in the UK in which institutions
pursue, and excel in, a variety of different missions. This diversity
is beneficial and should be recognised and supported.
— Sustainability: For too long the
higher education sector in the UK has traded at a loss on teaching
and research activities. As government asks more and more of our
higher education institutions, both parties have a responsibility
to ensure that current activities do not compromise the future
health of the sector.
— Stewardship of the reputation of
UK higher education: Our hard-won reputation for world-class teaching
and research must not be taken for granted. Universities and government
have a shared responsibility to protect the reputation of UK higher
education both at home and abroad.
— Expansion and market responsiveness:
The sector has expanded in all areas during the last 20 years,
and has met all government targets. It will continue to grow in
response to changing student demand, and also to respond to the
needs of the diversity of markets in which it operates.
THE ROLE
OF UNIVERSITIES
IN THE
5-10 YEARS
4. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer made
clear in his statement to parliament on the Pre-Budget Report
2006 the key to the UK's future economic competitiveness lies
in our ability to "out-innovate and out perform our competitors
by the excellence of our science and education".[125]
The UK's universities play an increasing role in meeting the economic
challenge the Chancellor described.
5. But in addition to this, our universities
will be central to the UK's efforts to meet a much wider set of
challenges to the UK. Alongside their core mission of delivering
world-class teaching and research, UK universities have a key
role to play in enhancing social mobility and improving the life-chances
of individuals. By extension, universities can also contribute
to social cohesion and this, in turn, may produce additional benefits,
including reducing risk to national security by promoting better
understanding, tolerance and integration between different sections
of society.
6. Beyond these fundamental contributions,
universities have a growing role in equipping an ageing workforce
to be more productive for longer, understanding and reversing
the effects of climate change, and contributing to efforts to
address the threat of global terrorism.
7. At the same time, to remain successful
universities must be able to respond to both student and employer
demands. The UK's universities already make a massive contribution
on each of these fronts.
Students
8. A major challenge for universities in
the future will be delivering a high quality learning experience
that both addresses and manages the demanding expectations of
highly diverse, technology-literate students. There is a well-documented
tendency for students to see themselves as customers, with accompanying
demands for a personalised service and high quality outcomes.
This tendency will inevitably increase following the introduction
of higher fees, even if they are paid for after graduation.
9. The UNITE Student Experience Report
2006 reported that students' main motivation for going to
university was the desire to learn and to gain qualifications
for a successful future career.[126]
70% of respondents said that their decision to go to university
was motivated by the desire to gain qualifications, and 59% cited
the desire to improve their chances of getting a job.
10. Evidence shows that demand from employers
for graduates remains strong. A study undertaken by PricewaterhouseCoopers
for Universities UK, suggests that a graduate will earn over 20%
more during their working life than an individual with two or
more A levels.[127]
This premium has been maintained throughout the period of expansion
in student numbers. The average starting salary for a graduate
in 2006 was £21,000.
11. On top of the personal financial gain,
studies have shown that graduates are likely to have better health,
be more racially tolerant, are more likely to be involved in their
children's education, and are more likely to vote.[128]
12. High post-graduation employment rates,
high completion rates compared to other OECD countries, and high
reported satisfaction rates amongst both UK and International
students[129]
indicate that universities are generally successful in meeting
student expectations.
13. However, the student profile is increasingly
diverse. The `typical' 18-21-year-old studying away from home
for an undergraduate three years honours course is no longer the
norm. Universities have made substantial efforts to widen participation
in social terms, and it is important to note that 40% of all students
study part-time, and 68% are classed as "mature" (21
and over).
14. Demographic change means that the number
of 18-year-olds will decrease after 2012. 70% of the workforce
of 2020 have already completed their compulsory education. These
two factors, taken together with the increasing need to ensure
that the skills of the workforce are kept up-to-date to ensure
that we can stay ahead of competitor economies, mean that universities
will need to continue to widen their student base.
15. This means that the demands on universities
to meet student needs are also changing. Universities UK's study
Part-Time Students in Higher Education: Supporting higher level
skills and lifelong learning[130]
demonstrates the wide range of flexible academic provision that
has been developed by higher education institutions in response
to diverse student needs, offering what amounts to personalised
higher education. This is a trend that is likely to continue.
16. As the student base expands and widens,
universities will increase the range of courses they offer. Universities
UK's publication Higher Level Learning: Universities and employers
working together showcases some of the ways in which universities
and employers are collaborating to offer courses which fit graduates
for specific employment opportunities. These vocationally focused
courses, frequently labelled "Mickey Mouse" by a sceptical
media, form part of the higher education sector's response to
both employer demand for specially trained students, and student
demand for higher education which will lead to successful careers.
17. There are a number of ways in which
the Government could provide further help to universities in responding
to student needs. Of these, increasing financial support for part-time
students would be a particularly worthwhile step. Although the
Government has already brought forward measures to support part-time
students, relatively few part-time students currently benefit.
In particular, Universities UK has asked the Government to reconsider
support available to part-time students who study less than 50%
of the full-time equivalent, as they are currently excluded from
state support.
Employers
18. The role of employers in contributing
to the future of UK higher education is the element of the "Dearing
Compact" on which the least progress has been made. Recent
government thinking has increasingly focused on how employers
can be more successfully engaged in higher education—and
persuaded to make a greater contribution to the costs of education
at this level. The recently published report by Lord Leitch, Prosperity
for all in the Global Economy, represents a major contribution
to this debate. Universities are demonstrating increasing enthusiasm
for partnership with business and industry—both in terms
of teaching and knowledge transfer. But there is no doubt, and
recent history has demonstrated, that it is easier to identify
the need to engage employers than it is to deliver real change.
Major challenges include:
— Identifying genuine employer demand
(particularly where there is a large number of bodies claiming
to represent employer interests);
— The higher education sector's need
for sustainability versus sometimes rapidly changing employer
priorities; and
— Balancing the interests of employers
with those of students—who may legitimately choose to study
courses which they feel will equip them with generic, transferable
skills rather than career-specific ones.
19. Higher Level Learning: Universities
and employers working together, mentioned above, demonstrates
how universities are increasingly responsive to business needs.
Indeed, according to HEFCE's most recent Higher Education Business
and Community Interaction Survey, 88% of HEIs offer short
bespoke courses for business on campus, and 80% offer similar
bespoke education at companies' premises.[131]
78% of HEIs report that employers are actively engaged in the
development of content and regular reviewing of curriculum at
Level 4 or 5 of a 5 point benchmark scale (ie the highest level).
20. There is a long history of successful
collaboration through work placements as part of undergraduate
and professional programmes. For example, "sandwich"
students currently account for 7% of the undergraduate student
population.
21. As Lord Leitch has recently recognised,
there is no doubt that the sector will play an increasingly important
role in engaging with employers to provide the higher level skills
essential to meeting the economic challenges facing the UK. In
a recent development, HEFCE is currently funding three Higher
Level Skills Pathfinder projects, supporting direct links between
HE providers and employers to develop flexible provision centred
on the needs of employers and employees.
22. However, there are some major issues,
which universities, employers and government will need to address
if we are to achieve substantial growth in provision developed
in collaboration between the higher education sector and employers.
For example, the higher education sector's recent experience of
working with the NHS highlights the financial risk involved in
developing provision for a big single employer. Cuts in training
budgets have led to substantial reductions in the number of nursing
places funded in 2006.
Government
23. The Committee has asked what government,
and society more generally, should want from HE. The major contribution
made by universities to a range of national strategic priorities
is briefly described in paragraphs 4-7 above.
24. Universities UK would argue that it
is in the national interest to have an internationally competitive
higher education sector. The benefits accrue to government, individuals,
employers and society as a whole.
25. Despite relatively lower levels of investment
in UK higher education than in many of our competitor countries,
the UK higher education system continues to perform well in global
terms. According to the Shanghai Jiaotong index, the UK has two
universities in the top 10, and 11 in the top 100.
26. In terms of teaching, our reputation
as a world leader is confirmed by our strong performance in the
recruitment of international students. The UK attracts 12% of
all international students, second only to the US.
27. In research, with only 1% of the world's
population, the UK produces 9% of the world's scientific papers
and 13% of the most highly cited. It wins 10% of internationally
recognised science prizes and has produced 44 Nobel Prize winners
in the last 50 years. UK research productivity is superior to
that of the US: in the UK academics produce 16 research papers
for every £1million invested, compared to 10 in the US and
4 in Japan.
28. The contribution made by UK university
research to society in a wide range of fields is documented in
Universities UK's publication Eureka UK.[132]
It is worth noting that many of the innovations used on a daily
basis documented in Eureka UK began as blue skies research in
universities.
29. UK HE also makes a substantial contribution
to the wealth of the nation. The rate of return on investment
by the Exchequer in higher education students is 11%, and the
UK higher education sector's total contribution to the economy
amounts to £45 billion a year according to Universities UK's
recent study The Economic Impact of Higher Education Institutions.
UK higher education exports are also a valuable source of income
to the nation, worth £3.6 billion to the UK economy.
30. Over the next decade, as both the Government
and the Leitch Review have recognised, universities will play
a critical role both in ensuring that the UK remains economically
competitive, and in equipping an ageing population to be more
productive for longer. Comparisons with our major competitors,
and projected employer demand, indicate that further expansion
of higher education will be necessary. Lord Leitch has recommended
that the UK should aim for 40% of the adult population to have
at least a Level 4 qualification by 2020, an aspiration that Universities
UK has endorsed.
31. In order to increase participation in
higher education, we will need to continue to widen participation.
Much effort has been invested by universities in reaching out
to students who might not otherwise consider higher education.
Some of this work is documented in Universities UK's series of
publications From Elitism to Inclusion, Social Class and Participation,
and From the Margins to the Mainstream.[133]
32. The key to reaching 50% participation
and to widening participation in social class terms lies in increasing
staying on-rates post-16 by improving school performance. Whilst
90% of students with 2 A Levels already go on to Higher Education,
the UK has one of the worst staying on rates for education at
post-16 in the developed world, with only seven other OECD countries
reporting lower enrolment figures for 15-19-year-olds. Universities
have been working hard to attract students through alternative
routes (eg. by recruiting students in the workplace to Foundation
Degrees).
33. Universities UK has welcomed the Leitch
Review and its proposal that the Government's expansion targets
should be broadened. The 40% attainment target for Level 4 qualifications
and above is ambitious, but Universities UK considers it helpful
to go beyond the Government's current focus on 18-30-year-olds,
as this recognises that lifelong learning and older learners will
play an important part in achieving the highly skilled workforce
needed if we are to remain a competitive global economy. In this
respect it is worth noting that universities have been very successful
in providing education to mature students—nearly a quarter
of the labour force achieve a higher education qualification when
over the age of 25.
34. The provision of appropriate financial
support for students is also key to encouraging greater participation
in HE. Universities UK has welcomed the introduction of grants
worth up to £2,700 per year available to full-time UK and
EU undergraduate students, the repayment of fees post-graduation
and the increase in the threshold for repayments in the student
maintenance loans system. These measures, introduced alongside
the Higher Education Act 2004, are a substantial improvement on
the previous system in which there were no grants and tuition
fees were paid by students up-front, in each year of study. Together
with substantial investment by universities in bursary arrangements,
these changes should provide real benefits to students from low-income
backgrounds and encourage not only participation in HE, but also
retention.
35. However, as mentioned in paragraph 17
above, Universities UK believes that the Government should give
consideration to improvements to the support available to part-time
students. This will be increasingly important to our efforts both
to widen participation, and to engage a broader demographic in
higher education as the ageing population increases the national
need for genuine opportunities for lifelong learning.
UNIVERSITY FUNDING
36. Investment in UK higher education is
still relatively low by international standards. The UK spends
1.1% of GDP on higher education, compared to 2.9% in the US. Universities
UK strongly agrees with comments attributed to Gordon Brown at
the launch of the Centre for European Reform's publication The
Future of European Universities: Renaissance or decay?[134]
that this is "not a figure that can stay at that level".
We also note that 43% of US investment in higher education comes
from public sources, amounting to about 1.25% of GDP, compared
to only 0.8% in the UK. We therefore believe that investment from
both private and public sources needs to increase.
37. Between 1989 and 2002 the level of public
funding per student in higher education fell by 37%. During the
same period student numbers grew by 94%. Since 2002, funding per
student has begun to increase in real terms, as the graph below
shows. Measures in the Higher Education Act 2004, which allow
universities in England to charge up to £3,000 in fees for
full-time UK and EU students from 2006-07, will also make a substantial
contribution to reversing the effects of a long period of under-funding
of higher education.
38. The higher education sector has also
benefited from substantial public investment in research and research
infrastructure over the last ten years.
39. While the higher education sector's
finances are improving, they remain delicately balanced. The current
historical surplus of income over expenditure is only 2.1%—lower
than the 3-5% recommended by the Funding Councils. The most recent
institutional financial forecasts project a deterioration in this
position. In the next Spending Review Period, Universities UK
is asking for:
— The unit of public funding per student
to be at least maintained in real terms;
— Funding for further expansion;
— Capital funding teaching infrastructure
to help universities address an investment backlog and to maintain
and renew buildings which are no longer fit for purpose; and
— Additional support for part-time
students.
40. In the US, 57% of higher education income
comes from private sources, compared to about 30% in the UK.[135]
The impact of variable fees in the UK will increase the share
of income to higher education from private sources to about 43%,
and the total level of investment as a proportion of GDP to 1.2%.
41. Private sources of income to UK universities
include contract research for business and charities, post-graduate,
part-time and international fees and Continuing Professional Development
(CPD) activities. Universities continue to seek ways to diversify
income sources. In particular, universities are increasing their
efforts to attract private voluntary donations, including endowments
and other forms of alumni giving.
Is the current funding system fit for purpose?
42. Universities UK believes that an appropriate
balance of contributions from each of the major beneficiaries
of higher education—employers, individuals, and the state—should
be sought and maintained. In this context we have welcomed the
Government's recent focus on increasing contributions from employers
to the cost of training, alongside universities' own efforts to
be responsive to business needs and grow their income from this
source. However, we also note that much work also needs to be
done to stimulate UK business investment in research and development.
43. In terms of government funding, the
block grant system underpins the success of UK higher education,
and Universities UK would want to see it remain as the major mechanism
for the distribution of public funds to universities. The block
grant principle recognises the importance of university autonomy
and enables universities to respond flexibly to market demand.
It has also helped to produce substantial differentiation of institutional
mission. The strength of the block grant system mirrors that of
the Quality Related element of the Dual Support system, in that
it enables the system to respond not only to current priorities
but also, through cross-subsidy, to maintain or develop capacity
where a future need is predicted.
44. While "special initiative"
funding for specific priorities may have a role in some cases,
the Government should be wary of creating too many "jam pots"
which encourage universities to invest time and effort (and therefore
money) in bidding for small sums to chase small scale policy initiatives.
The Fee Cap
45. The Committee has asked whether the
£3,000 fee cap should be lifted after 2009. Universities
UK's view is that it is essential to develop a sound understanding
of the impacts of all the provisions of the Higher Education Act
2004 before forming a view of future fee levels. Extensive research
will need to be undertaken to develop a complete picture of the
effect of the introduction of variable fees on, for instance,
application rates, widening participation, the market share of
different universities, and student retention. Universities UK
is already engaged in contributing to this research by producing
an annual report monitoring the impact of variable fees' with
the first issue appearing early in 2007.
46. It will also be necessary to consider
the full student support package introduced by the Higher Education
Act 2004, not just fees in isolation: has the introduction of
higher grants for the poorest students increased participation?
What has been the impact of institutional bursaries? In particular
we need to understand the effect of deferred payment of fees,
available to all students, on university applications.
47. A major issue, when the fee cap is reviewed,
will be the relationship between the level of the fee, the level
of student support including fee loans, and the cost to the Treasury
of supporting the package—and whether the current level
of subsidy is sustainable with much higher fee levels or, indeed,
with uncapped fees. Alongside this we would want to continue to
stress that in our view it is imperative that public funding for
teaching be at least maintained in real terms alongside higher
private fee contributions. This is a key plank of our 2007 Spending
Review submission.
Research Funding
48. Universities UK believes that the success
of the UK's university research has been underpinned by the dual
support system. This provides public funds for research to institutions
in two streams, one as part of their block grant provided by the
Funding Councils, distributed on the basis of an assessment of
quality, and the other in the form of project based grants. A
key strength of the dual support system is that the Funding Council
grant is unhypothecated, allowing university leaders the freedom
to take strategic decisions about the research activities of their
own institutions. It also means that there are multiple sources
of funding for research, with multiple decision points about what
research should be supported and where research resources should
be concentrated. This creates a healthy and dynamic research base
in the UK. Universities UK strongly supports the dual support
system and wants to see it maintained in the future.
49. Under current arrangements Funding Councils
allocate their funds on the basis of quality judgements. A study
by the Science Policy Research Unit in 2003 highlighted the advantages
of this approach, (although it also concluded that the RAE has
run its course) It has:
— Provided a firm basis for the selective
funding of research, based on excellence;
— Created a strong incentive to improve
individual as well as institutional performance;
— Encouraged the development of institutional
management and strategic planning processes and increased efficiency;
and
— Provided greater accountability for
public funds invested in research.
50. The mechanism by which the "Quality
Related" (QR) funds are distributed —currently the
Research Assessment Exercise (RAE)—has been reviewed. The
broad parameters of the new system were outlined in the Pre-Budget
Report and will be taken forward by HEFCE. The main features of
the new system are in line with the key principles outlined by
Universities UK in its response to the consultation[136].
We argued that funding allocations should be selective and based
on a judgement of quality, with peer involvement. We agreed that
fundamental reform of the RAE is needed but said that any new
system should be consistent with the Government's commitment to
the continuation of dual support and should support the distribution
of unhypothecated funds. We also said that the transition to the
new system should be managed and moderated to avoid any destabilising
effects. Any new system should also provide a sufficiently stable
financial framework that allows institutions to invest and plan
on the basis of some reasonable assumptions about future levels
of income.
51. The Committee has asked how leading
research universities can reach internationally competitive levels
of funding. In response to this we would want to make clear our
view that the concentration of existing research funds in UK universities
has gone far enough. It will be important to provide adequate
funding not only for world-class research, but also for emerging
and future areas of potential excellence.
STRUCTURES
Is the current structure of the UK sector appropriate
and sustainable for the future?
52. Yes, it is. The higher education sector
in the UK encompasses a wide variety of institutions including:
— A very large supplier of innovative
part-time distance learning—The Open University;
— A number of large research-led universities
with high international standing;
— A thriving sector of small, specialist
institutions;
— Large, metropolitan, teaching-based
universities, often with a significant local focus and a large
amount of part-time delivery;
— Broad-based mixed teaching-research
universities with competitive research records; and
— A large number of further education
colleges delivering small amounts of higher education in collaboration
with HEIs.
53. There is a genuine diversity of missions
within the above typology. The net result of this, along with
the wide geographical spread of institutions, is that the current
structure of the UK higher education sector is able to operate
flexibly in a number of different markets, to meet the needs of
a diversity of clients, and to deliver on both national and regional
agendas. The broad based nature of most universities means that
they are able to spread financial risk, which has enabled them
to stay solvent and maintain quality through a long period of
under-funding.
Are current structures and funding affecting growth
of HE in FE and part-time study?
54. Although the delivery of HE and FE and
part-time study are linked, in that they are both means of delivering
increasingly flexible and responsive higher education, there are
quite distinct issues relating to their future growth.
55. As discussed in paragraph 13, part-time
students now account for 40% of all students in higher education.
Three important constraints on the growth of this proportion are:
— Financial support available to part-time
students;
— The level of support from employers
for part-time study; and
— The extent to which there is a disincentive
for the delivery of part-time higher education because, following
the introduction of higher fees for full-time students, supported
by the graduate repayment scheme, full time study has become relatively
better funded than part-time study (this issue is discussed in
further detail in Universities UK's report Part-time Students
in Higher Education: Supporting higher-level skills and lifelong
learning.)
56. The issues relating to HE in FE are
different. 14% of higher education is now delivered through Further
Education Colleges (FECs). Collaborative links have been built
up, based on universities' role in validating programmes offered
by FECs, and initiatives such as Lifelong Learning Networks. These
links have produced great benefits to widening participation and
progression.
57. In 2005-06 there were 47,000 students
taking Foundation Degrees, 79% of which are delivered in FE colleges.
Foundation Degrees have provided a genuine catalyst for collaboration
between the higher and further education sectors.
58. The benefits of this collaboration are
clear. Links between further and higher education institutions
have encouraged progression by students who might not otherwise
have considered higher education, and have therefore become a
key plank of universities' efforts to widen participation. According
to Foundation Degree Forward, the body responsible for promoting
the development of the Foundation Degree qualification, 59% of
Foundation Degree graduates go on to further study, whether full
time or in combination with work.
59. In this context, it is disappointing
that the Government has recently brought forward measures, as
part of the Further Education and Training Bill, which are likely
to disrupt the links between further and higher education, fostered
through partnerships developed to deliver Foundation Degrees.
The Bill will give the Privy Council the power to grant degree-awarding
powers to further education colleges in respect of Foundation
Degrees, removing the need for FE colleges to enter into partnership
with HEIs for the purposes of validation.
60. Universities UK opposes this measure,
and believes that it is unfortunate that the proposal was not
subject to consultation prior to the publication of the Bill.
Although we understand that the Government hopes to increase both
the provision and the take-up of Foundation Degrees by giving
colleges the flexibility to develop and award these qualifications,
we believe that amongst the serious, (and surely unintended) consequences
of the move will be damage to the credibility of the Foundation
Degree brand, and consequently its attractiveness to potential
students and employers.
61. In addition, we think it likely that
by introducing an element of competition into relationships between
HE and FE institutions, universities will have little incentive
to continue developing and supporting provision, which is currently
offered through FECs, which might in the future become the universities'
direct competitors. We fear this will lead to a reduction, rather
than an increase, in the extent of Foundation Degree provision.
The Government's role in shaping the sector
62. The structure of the HE sector is the
result of evolutionary change, as institutions have responded
to the needs of clients (including Government) and markets, and
prioritised within their diverse portfolios. The sector will continue
to evolve rapidly in response to changes in its business environment.
63. Central planning of the higher education
sector by Government would be counter-productive. It would run
the risk of reducing responsiveness thus potentially cutting the
sector off from future markets: it could, in other words, run
counter to some government policies. A market-driven approach
has led to substantial differentiation within the sector, which
has proved to be in the national interest as demonstrated elsewhere.
64. In the global context, the tendency
of our competitor countries has been to move away from a centrally-planned
approach, in recognition of the benefits this brings in terms
of enhancing institutional standing and efficiency. World Trade
Organisation talks on the General Agreement on Trade in Services
(GATS) provide a further rationale for freeing higher education
institutions to respond to markets, since it will become increasingly
difficult to protect national providers from global competition.
However, there is a role for government in regulating the market
and supporting sector-led quality assurance mechanisms. In addition,
the Government shares a responsibility for protecting the "university"
and "degree" brand (see paragraphs 56-61 above).
65. We would urge the Committee to consider
ways in which the Government might support institutions in delivering
higher education to a range of clients and markets. In particular,
if institutions could rely on a stable core of funding that guaranteed
basic financial sustainability then they could focus more on service
delivery and take more risks in moving into emergent markets.
We consider the block grant is the optimum way to deliver this.
CONCLUSIONS
66. The UK has a successful, world-class
higher education sector. Its potential to make an increased contribution
to a wide range of strategic national interests and policy objectives
is also clear. The UK university sector's achievements are firmly
rooted in their status as autonomous institutions and in funding
structures that support universities' ability to respond flexibly
and according to institutional priorities.
67. To meet the strategic needs of the UK,
and to maintain and build on their current reputation for excellence
universities need:
— An increased investment from both
private and public sources as a proportion of GDP;
— Recognition of the role of university
autonomy in delivering success;
— Stability: universities have gone
though a period of rapid expansion and change and reforms, including
the new fee regime, will need time to bed down;
— Continued commitment from government
to funding through block grant and Dual Support for research;
— Support for diversity; and
— Ongoing commitment by government
to better regulation.
68. Universities and colleges have a long
track record of successfully adapting to change and responding
to challenges. The last 10 years alone have seen considerable
turbulence, yet on a wide range of indicators UK HE remains very
successful. This is in large part due to institutional autonomy
that supports academic freedom and the collegiate nature of HE,
which motivates and ensures the high performance of staff. It
is in the national interest to have universities, which can genuinely
claim to be independent of the particular interests of the Government
of the day and home to free inquiry and expression.
January 2007
125 See full transcript on the Treasury website http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/pre
budget report/prebud pbr06/prebud pbr06 speech.cfm Back
126
UNITE Student Experience Report 2006: http://www.unite-group.co.uk/data/Research/default.aspx Back
127
Forthcoming policy briefing by PricewaterhouseCoopers to Universities
UK. Back
128
HEFCE (2003) Revisiting the benefits of higher education,
Higher Education Funding Council for England. Back
129
See UNITE Student Experience Report 2006 and UNITE International
Student Experience Report 2006 both available at: http://www.unite-group.co.uk/data/Research/default.aspx Back
130
Universities UK (2006): Part-time students in higher education:
Supporting higher level skills and lifelong learning, London. Back
131
HEFCE (2006): Higher education-business and community interaction
survey 2003-04. Back
132
Available on request from Universities UK or from our website
at http://bookshop.universitiesuk.ac.uk/ Back
133
All available from UUK's website at http://bookshop.universitiesuk.ac.uk/ Back
134
Reported on BBC website at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/5042210.stm Back
135
OECD figures Back
136
These can be found at http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/research/ Back
| 
