Memorandum 97
Submission from the School of Philosophy
at Birkbeck College
One of the matters the select committee is expressly
considering is the effect of the Government's proposals on the
Open University and Birkbeck College, London. We thought it might
help the committee to have the perspective of some ordinary academics
who teach philosophy at the latter institution ((1)). And we make
two urgent points about matters of implementation ((2) and (3)).
1. Our subject, with its emphasis on analysis
and argument, has long been recognised as an important contributor
to the skills level in the workforce. And having a first degree
in some other subject is often necessary to realise these benefits
of philosophical study. To take two examples: we have had a number
of health professionals whose studies with us have been required
for their subsequent work in medical ethics in the National Health
Service; and we have seen how a philosophy degree can transform
a student who has acquired subject-specific knowledge from a previous
degree into someone more capable of the kind of decision-making
needed in an administrative or executive environment. The proposed
ELQ policy, crude as it is, has no way of taking into account
these kinds of "value-added" contribution; and it will
result in a loss to the wider community that could not be balanced
by any hoped-for increase in the number of students undertaking
degree studies for the first time.
2. As the select committee will be aware,
it is the historic mission of Birkbeck College to make research-led
higher education available to part-time students. As the Leitch
report recognizes, this mission is of great contemporary importance,
and all of us at Birkbeck remain committed to it. It is indeed
hard to see how the goals of the Leitch report could be achieved
(in respect of London) without a thriving Birkbeck. But although
the Government does not seem to have intended to harm Birkbeck,
the ELQ announcement is already causing the college great problems.
Undertaking a part-time degree involves a long-term commitment
on the part of the student. Part-time undergraduates embarking
on courses this autumn will not graduate until 2012; part-time
doctoral students will take even longer. The safety-net funding
offered by Hefce, however, only covers the years up to 2011; there
have been no public assurances about what happens thereafter.
Since the impact of the proposed changes on Birkbeck has been
well advertised in the press, the uncertainty about the college's
future is already deterring prospective part-time students (whether
or not they already have degrees) from embarking on courses with
us. So we respectfully ask the committee to press the Secretary
of State, and the chairman of Hefce, to give public assurances
to the committee about the future of Birkbeck after 2011. Without
such assurances, the college will start to wither.
3. More generally, and whatever the merits
of the arguments of principle about the changes to ELQ funding,
we think the Government needs to allow much longer for such changes
to be implemented. A comparison with events earlier in the life
of this Government is instructive. In 1998, the then Secretary
of State for Education, David Blunkett, decided to phase out the
"college fee" which the State had paid to Oxford and
Cambridge colleges to support the tutorial system in those universities.
Even in Oxford and Cambridge, the withdrawal of this funding was
generally recognized as fair: it was hard to justify a situation
where the State supported students who had been admitted to the
collegiate universities much more generously than those who had
not. All the same, the Government gave the colleges a full ten
years to adjust to the new arrangements: the fee was cut by 10%
per annum over a decade. As those of us who were teaching at Oxford
or Cambridge at the time well remember, many of the colleges needed
every one of those ten years to make the necessary adjustments,
despite the fact that the ancient universities are as a whole
vastly better endowed than Birkbeck. Withdrawing ELQ funding from
Birkbeck is as big change to us as withdrawing the college fee
was to Oxford and Cambridge, and expecting Birkbeck to adjust
in only three years is punitive. So, assuming that the Government
remains committed to phasing out ELQ funding, we respectfully
ask the committee to press on the Secretary of State the merits
of a much slower phasing-out of that funding.
January 2008
|
