1 INTRODUCTION
Higher education in England
1. The student experience of university,[1]
like the sector itself, varies widely. There are 90 universities
in England, and this figure increases to 133 if other higher education
institutions are included.[2]
All are autonomous institutions and undertake research and teaching,
although the "mission focus" and balance of activities
varies. Some institutions concentrate primarily on teaching while
others are more research intensive. In addition, 286 of the 387
general and specialist further education colleges in England received
direct or indirect funding from the Higher Education Funding Council
for England (HEFCE) in 2006 -07.[3]
2. The 1963 Robbins Report on Higher Education noted
that higher education had not been planned as a whole and considered
that what system of higher education there was in the UK "has
come about as the result of a series of initiatives, concerned
with particular needs and particular situations".[4]
Since the 1960s the initiatives have continued. The latest wave
of expansion started in 1992 when the former polytechnics and
colleges of higher education became universities. Since 1997 expansion
has continued with student numbers in England rising from 1.5
million in 1997 to 1.9 million in 2007[5]
(and see table at paragraph 3). In 1998 the Government introduced
tuition fees and a significant change occurred in 2006 when the
Government allowed tuition fees to vary between higher education
institutions. The result of these waves of change is that universities
in England share a number of the characteristics of some English
cities where there has never been an overall plan and development
has been piecemeal: there is a medieval centre and, starting in
the Victorian era, phases of development and expansion. Yet the
public perception of the town focuses on its traditional centre
or, in the case of universities, on Oxford and Cambridge as the
exemplar.
3. We noticed that issues faced by both the Robbins
Committee and the subsequent major inquiry into higher education
chaired by Sir Ron Dearing[6]
in 1997 still remain current: funding, though now made more
complex with tuition fees and state supported student loans; balancing
historic autonomy and freedom with accountability in the use of
public funds; meeting national needs for skills; and improving
academic professionalism. But some things have changed: universities
are having to secure an increasing proportion of their income
through their own entrepreneurial activities; more students are
studying part-time (see table below) and increasing numbers are
returning, or entering university, as mature students; there is
now a perception that students are making increasing demands as
"customers"; universities are competing for students,
especially international students; andin the short termthe
economy is in serious recession. At the heart of higher education
is the student and this is the perspective we have chosen for
this Report.
Table 1: All students on higher education
courses at higher education institutions, by level and mode[7]

4. When we started our inquiry in 2008 the Department
for Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS) was the government
department with responsibility for higher education. In June 2009
DIUS merged with the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory
Reform to become the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
(BIS), which now has responsibility for higher education.
5. In 2009-10 BIS will be responsible for total departmental
spending of £15 billion[8]
on higher education, about half of which will be spent via
HEFCE. Across the UK, the higher education sector operates on
an annual turnover of over £17 billion and employs 340,000
people.[9] According to
Universities UK, economists have estimated that (both directly
and indirectly) UK higher education institutions stimulated activity
in 2003-04 that was worth £42 billion to the economy, plus
over £3.6 billion in export earnings.[10]
Institutions' sources of income have broadened almost across
the board with core government funding providing less than half
the total,[11] and record
numbers of undergraduate students are applying to enter higher
education institutions every year344,000 applicants from
England were accepted for entry in 2008.[12]
Machinery of Government changes:
June 2007
6. When, in June 2007, the Government created DIUS,
it took a radical step by removing higher education from the former
Department for Education and Skills to have post-19 year-old education
in DIUS and pre-19 education in a separate department, the Department
for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF). The reorganisation
in June 2009 has perpetuated the separation with higher education
joining further education, innovation, skills, science, business
and regulatory reform in BIS. In configuring universities with
innovation and skills the Government had a clear objective. The
then Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills,
the Rt Hon John Denham MP, explained on taking up the post in
June 2007 that bringing "together these key elements [skills,
scientific research and innovation] will help Britain stay at
the forefront of the global economy in an increasingly competitive
world". He explained that the "mission" of DIUS
was "to ensure every person in this country has the opportunity
to reach their full potential and highest ambitions".[13]
The Government has a target arising from its acceptance of the
recommendations of the Leitch Review of Skills:[14]
of 40% of all adults in England gaining a university qualification
by 2020[15] (see paragraph
142 and following).
Framework for higher education
7. In a speech on 29 February 2008, John Denham announced
his intention to develop a framework for higher education over
the next ten to fifteen years. He explained:
The world is evolving very quickly and we must
be able to unlock British talent and support economic growth through
innovation as never before.
We need to decide what a world-class [higher education]
system of the future should look like, what it should seek to
achieve, and establish the current barriers to its development.[
]
I want to do this before we initiate the review of undergraduate
fees next year.
As part of this process I am inviting a number of
individuals and organisations to make contributions. Not to write
government policy but to help inform it andequally importantto
stimulate debate and discussion in the sector.[16]
When he gave evidence to our inquiry on the DIUS
Departmental Report on 29 October 2008 Mr Denham told us:
the big question [
] is: how do we ensure
that our university system is world-class in 15 years' time? I
believe it to be world-class today and for the whole university
provision we want to be that good in 15 years' time. As part of
that process, we looked at areas first where policy had not been
looked at recently and we invited people from within the university
sector, mainly vice chancellors, to produce think pieces, provocative
pieces about international higher education, about the quality
of the student experience.[17]
In all, 17 pieces of work were produced and have
now been published.[18]
8. When during this inquiry Mr Denham gave evidence
on 11 May 2009 we asked him when he would announce his conclusions.
He said that the current plan was to "produce the forward
looking [higher education] framework in the summer" and then
after that he would be launching the independent review of fees
and of funding.[19] He
explained that:
the basic idea was that the framework should
set out the forward looking broad vision for higher education
so that this time, when people come to look at funding issues,
there is hopefully some sense of what it is we are trying to fund
rather than trying to deal with the question of funding in the
abstract without debating what sorts of universities, what their
role is going to be, how they are going to develop in the future.[20]
9. Mr Denham added that once the debate on fees was
initiated "nothing else will ever be discussed".[21]
We welcome the Secretary of State's approach and agree that the
debate about fees needs to be put into the wider context, both
of the purpose and structure of higher education in England, but
also from the perspective of the student. We see our inquiry and
report as contributing to this wider debate. We support the
approach of the former Secretary of State, John Denham, in examining
the function and structure of higher education ahead of reaching
decisions on funding. We regret, however, that the Government
did not initiate and complete the examination of the function
and structure of higher education in time to allow the review
of fees to be completed in 2009 and therefore ensure the matter
is fully aired in the run up to the next General Election.
10. DIUS's final Departmental Report, published by
BIS after the merger of the departments confirmed that the debate
initiated by Mr Denham will result in "the publication of
a new [higher education] framework for England setting out a vision
for higher education over the next 10 to 15 years" and that
this "framework will also set the context for the review
of university fees which will begin later in 2009".[22]
We recommend that in responding to this Report the Government
set out a detailed timetable for publishing the higher education
framework.
Future scrutiny of higher education
11. Towards the end of our inquiry, as we have noted,
the Prime Minister reorganised Whitehall and moved DIUS in its
entirety into a new department, BIS. This means that, following
changes to its Standing Orders agreed by the House of Commons
on 25 June 2009,[23]
our Committee will cease to scrutinise higher education from 1
October 2009. More importantly, it raises questions over the future
of higher education policy, an issue which we take forward in
the conclusions to this Report and to which we trust our successor
committee with responsibility for scrutinising higher education
will return to in due course. As we have drafted our Report we
have identified a number of areas that our successor committee
may wish to review. For ease of reference we have listed these
areas in Annex 2 to this Report. There are, however, two matters
we should raise here. First there are two matters that fall outside
the scope of our inquiry. Two areas our successor committee
might find rewarding to examine are: international students and
postgraduate students, including those studying for masters degrees
and also including the terms under which universities require
postgraduate students to teach undergraduates. We have deliberately
kept our focus on the undergraduate.
DEMAND FOR PLACES IN HIGHER EDUCATION
INSTITUTIONS IN 2009
12. Second, towards the end of our inquiry a potential
problem emerged because of the demand for places in higher education
in 2009. When he appeared before us on 29 October 2008 Mr Denham
announced that the Government's plans for the expansion of the
number of student places would be reduced from 15,000 to 10,000
places for 2009.[24]
The reduction raised for us a question about the achievement of
the Leitch target,[25]
though, when he gave evidence to us in May 2009, Mr Denham explained
that the Government had "worked very hard to enable a further
expansion of student numbers for 2010-11 to maintain [the] trajectory".[26]
He added:
We have put [
] funding in and we have confirmed
an additional 10,000 [places] for 2010-11 [
] The balance
that I have to strike is [
] between the funding that we
put in and not allowing so much unplanned expansion that the funding
gets spread too thinly.[27]
13. In a memorandum in June 2009 UCAS[28]
told us that:
The number of applicants for 2009 entry in the
main undergraduate scheme operated by UCAS, ie that for full-time,
undergraduate students, stood at [522,550 for England] on 8 June
compared with [477,324] at the same point for the 2008 entry cycle.
This represents an increase of [
] 9.5% [for England]. This
constitutes a significant increase in applications, and growth
which is very much higher than the year on year trends evidenced
over the last ten years. [
] HEFCE has informed us that,
in practice, for 2009 additional student numbers in respect of
full-time, under-graduate, programmes translate into the number
of last year's intake (around 419,000), plus an additional 3,000
places (ie an increase of less than 1% compared to the intake
for 2008 entry). These figures suggest that there will be a projected
reduction in places available during Clearing for 2009 entry (<18,000
places compared with c44,000 last year) of >25,000.
[UCAS's projections suggest] a rather more uncertain
situation for Confirmation and Clearing 2009 in comparison with
recent years. There are likely to be disappointed applicants who
are unable to find a place in Clearing.[29]
14. UCAS's concerns indicated that demand for places
in higher education institutions might significantly exceed supply
and we therefore raised this matter with HEFCE and the current
Secretary of State for Business, Innovations and Skills, the Rt
Hon the Lord Mandelson. The Chief Executive of HEFCE, Sir Alan
Langlands, replied on 24 June 2009 explaining that of the allocation
of Additional Student Numbers (ASNs) for 2009-10:
4,805 were full time and 5,148 part time. The
full time figure of 4,805 includes an estimate of 3,000 additional
first year entrants. The balance will accommodate second or subsequent
cohorts to new or expanded courses that we have supported in earlier
years. For example, if an institution is supported to develop
a new three-year degree course, we would expect an increase in
new entrants in the first year. If entrant levels are to be maintained,
the institution is likely to need additional places in years two
and three to support subsequent cohorts until student numbers
across all three years of study reach a steady state.[30]
This is not clear. We recommend that in responding
to this Report the Government provide a detailed breakdown of
the 4,805 full-time places (Additional Student Numbers) announced
in October 2008, in particular how 1,800 ASNs were required for
year two and three students.
15. On the day that we formally agreed this Report
the Chairman received a letter from the Secretary of State[31]
and the Government made a Written Ministerial Statement about
the future funding of student support. The Statement announced
that:
an extra 10,000 higher education places will
be made available to universities this year to support more students
in going to higher education this year.
The Government will pay the student support costs
for extra places in courses related to the new industry, new jobs
agenda such as science, technology, engineering and mathsareas
which will equip young people with the skills they need for the
jobs of the future.
The package will fund the financial support for
these students, which includes, for full-time students the fee
loans to cover the cost of the tuition fees charged by institutions.
Institutions wishing to take additional students
will be able to charge students on full-time courses in England
up to £3,225 in tuition fees in 2009-10, the same as for
other students. A tuition fee loan is available to eligible students
to cover the full cost of the fee.
No additional teaching grant from HEFCE will
accompany these additional students. It is for universities to
manage their own admissions and we are confident that many will
want to offer high quality places to students on this basis.[32]
16. The letter added:
The students we have announced funding for today
are fees only they do not attract teaching grant and of course
it will be entirely a matter for universities to judge whether
they want to offer places to students on a fees-only basis: not
all will choose to do so. But we know from discussions with the
sector that there are institutions who will be able to recruit
such students without compromising the quality of their offer.[33]
17. We have three specific points. First, the manner
in which Mr Denham presented the original 10,000 "additional
places" in October 2008 was less than clear. The reasonable
construction that an observer would put on his statement was that
there would be 10,000 places for new entrants to university, whereas
the new places announced at that time boil down to 3,000 extra
places for full-time new entrants. We recommend that in making
future statements about the provision of additional places in
higher education the Government provide a breakdown between full-time
and part-time places and state clearly how many of the additional
places will be available for new entrant, first-year undergraduates.
18. Second, as the recession reduces employment prospects
and those who have been made redundant seek to enter higher education,
in order to learn new skills, demand for higher education places
appears to be rising. We did not have the opportunity to take
evidence on the Government's Written Ministerial Statement made
in July 2009. While we welcome a potential increase in student
numbers, these measures do not appear to meet all our concerns
and have the potential to set an unfortunate precedent in that
no additional teaching grant is being made available, particularly
for science subjects where the costs are higher. Moreover, in
our view, the pressure caused by the strong increase in demand
for places in higher education in 2009 may still require the attention
of our successor committee later in the year, after this year's
A-level results are published, and we therefore flag this up as
an issue for our successor committee.
19. Third, in our view the policy which the Government
set out in Science and innovation investment framework 2004-2014:
next stepsthat making progress on the supply of high-quality
STEM[34] graduates is
essential "if the Government's overall ambitions for UK science
and innovation are to be realised"[35]holds
good. We therefore welcome that part of the Written Ministerial
Statement which states that the "Government will pay the
student support costs for extra places in courses" related
to the agenda set out in the policy statement "Building Britain's
FutureNew Industry, New Jobs" (20 April 2009) such
as science, technology, engineering and maths. We agree that new
places in higher education should meet the strategic needs of
the country for STEM graduates, subject to our concerns in the
previous paragraph.
20. The provision and education of STEM graduates
raises wider issues beyond the funding of places in universities
which include the teaching of STEM subjects in school and careers
advice through to the autonomy of higher education institutions
in respect of the extent to which the Government can and should
manage or direct the supply of courses across the higher education
sector essential to deliver the Leitch target.[36]
We highlight the provision and education of STEM graduates
as an issue for our successor committee, and also it may be an
issue that we examine as part of our revised remit of scrutinising
science and technology across government.
The evidence
21. We issued a call for evidence on 30 October 2008
for our inquiry into students and universities and suggested that
submissions address a range of issues: admissions, the balance
between teaching and research, degree completion and classification
and mechanisms of student support and engagement.[37]
We received 121 written submissions, which we accepted as evidence
to the inquiry. We are grateful to all those who submitted written
evidence.
22. While we received ample and informative written
evidence from universities, academics, and other interested parties,
including the National Union of Students (NUS)[38]
and two student bodies,[39]
we did not receive many submissions from individual students.
Recognising that the usual methods which select committees employ
to invite and collect evidence might not reach, or be attractive
to, students, we therefore took a number of additional steps to
gain their views and feedback.
- We carried out an e-consultation
targeted at undergraduates.[40]
- We contacted a number of students directly through
their representative bodies to invite them to give oral evidence
at the beginning of February.
- We asked those students who appeared before the
Committee in February to review the evidence and we invited them
back to give further oral evidence in April. See paragraph 27
below for details.
- When we visited universities in Liverpool and
Oxford, as well as taking oral evidence on the record from students,
we met groups for informal discussions. In addition, the Chairman
made a visit as a rapporteur to Imperial College London to meet
students and staff.
23. We are grateful to all those who gave oral evidence
(part of which was taken by a dedicated Sub-Committee) during
this inquiry. We were particularly pleased to visit, and take
evidence at, Liverpool Hope University and Oxford Brookes University
and to visit the University of Oxford. We thank those who arranged
and participated in these informative and valuable visits. Transcripts
of the oral evidence sessions are published alongside this Report,
together with written evidence submitted to the inquiry. In drafting
this Report, we also benefited from the notes of the informal
meetings with students at Liverpool Hope University,[41]
the University of Oxford[42]
and Imperial College London[43],
which we have published.
24. We also visited Washington DC, where we met Federal
officials with responsibilities for higher education, the American
Council on Education, staff at the House of Representatives Committee
on Education and Labor, staff and students at Georgetown University,
staff at the University of California Washington DC Office, the
Center for International Science and Technology Policy, George
Washington University, and the North Virginia Community College.
In addition, one of our members, Mr Gordon Marsden MP, visited
and met staff and students at Howard University in Washington
DC.
25. We found it useful to be able to see at first
hand, and talk to, students and staff at universities in the USA,
which has a higher education system with many similarities to
that in England and faces many of the same issues. All of the
students we met at Georgetown University in the USA had studied
in the UK and many of the staff at the higher education institutions
we visited had also studied or taught in the UK and so were able
to compare the higher education systems in both countries. We
are conscious, however, that there are differencesfor example,
as Professor Arthur, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Leeds,
pointed out, the unit of resource per student for an American
student is approximately double that available in the United Kingdom[44]so
care has to be taken in drawing comparisons.
26. Our special advisers for this inquiry were Professor
Ronald Barnett, Emeritus Professor of Higher Education, Institute
of Education, University of London, Bahram Bekhradnia, Director
of the Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI), and Professor
Sue Law, Head of Research, Centre for the Study of Higher Education,
Coventry University. We are very grateful for their assistance.
27. We held nine oral evidence sessions, seven at
Westminster and two at the universities we have mentioned. We
took evidence from 70 witnesses, of whom 29 were students. As
already noted, as an innovation, in order to ensure we obtained
a full perspective from the students, we asked those students
who gave oral evidence on 9 February at the beginning of inquiry
if they would later be prepared to read the evidence and come
back for a follow-up session. We were pleased that five studentsRicky
Chotai, Lucy Davidson, Carrie Donaghy, Gemma Jerome and Anand
Rajawere able to either return to give evidence as a panel,
on 29 April, or provide written submissions.[45]
We thank them for their assistance and comments.
28. In addition to students and their representative
bodiesthe National Union of Students, the Birkbeck College
Students' Union and the Open University Students Associationwe
took oral evidence from:
a) organisations representing higher education
institutions: Universities UK[46]
and GuildHE[47] as well
as the 157 Group,[48]
the 1994 Group,[49] Million+,[50]
the Russell Group[51]
and the University Alliance;[52]
b) several current and former Vice-Chancellors:
Professor Michael Arthur, Leeds, Professor Janet Beer, Oxford
Brookes, Professor Michael Brown, Liverpool John Moores, Professor
Roger Brown, Southampton Solent, Professor Michael Driscoll, Middlesex,
Dr John Hood, Oxford, Professor Gerald Pillay, Liverpool Hope
and Professor Jon Saunders, Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Liverpool;
c) the University and College Union (UCU), which
represents academics and other staff in higher education institutions;
d) organisations and academics studying or developing
the higher education sector: ASKe (Assessment Standards Knowledge
Exchange), the Heads of Education and Development Group (HEDG),
the Higher Education Academy (HEA), the Higher Education Achievement
Report Implementation Group, the Staff and Educational Development
Association (SEDA), the Student Assessment and Classification
Working Group (SACWG) and Professor Geoffrey Alderman, Professor
Roger Goodman, Professor Bernard Longden, Professor Lin Norton,
Professor Alan Ryan and Professor Mantz Yorke;
e) the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education
(QAA);
f) UCAS (the Universities and Colleges Admissions
Service);
g) organisations representing employers: the
CBI, the Engineering Council UK (ECUK),
the Institute of Directors (IoD) and SEMTA;[53]
and
h) Rt Hon John Denham MP, then Secretary of State
for Innovation, Universities and Skills, and Sir Alan Langlands,
Chief Executive of HEFCE.
29. Our aim has been to invite and seek evidence
across the higher education sector and we hope that we achieved
this objective. We found this at times a delicate process and
were surprised at the vigilance shown by some of the organisations
representing groups of institutions within Universities UK in
their endeavour to ensure that their higher education institutions
were fully represented and the organisation's status was fully
recognised. We found it wearying continually to have to ensure
that we balanced representatives from the organisations representing
groups of institutions within Universities UK. At times we wondered
whether this rivalry might be an indication of lack of cohesion
within the sector.
This Report
30. The structure of this Report follows the path
taken through higher education from the point of view of an undergraduate
student. It starts with entry and admission to higher education,
examines the quality of teaching and the student's experience
at university and concludes with graduationexamining degree
standards.
31. As well as the issues we have highlighted in
this chapter,[54] we
have also taken the opportunity to flag up issues for possible
consideration by our successor committee with responsibility for
scrutinising higher education and further education. We have listed
these issues at Annex 2.
Responding to our Report
32. Our Report as is customary contains recommendations
directed to government and a number of conclusions. It is usual
practice for the Government to respond to our recommendations
and conclusions within two months and we expect that it will do
so. We are conscious that some of our conclusions may be for consideration
by the higher education sector, including students and their representative
organisations, and further education colleges providing higher
education, rather than the Government and we invite those to whom
these conclusions are directed or relevant to respond by publishing
their responses on the Internet.
1 We have used the terms "university" and
"higher education institution" interchangeably throughout
this report. Other than where explicitly stated, neither term
includes higher education provided in further education colleges. Back
2
As at August 2008 according to Universities UK. Federal institutions
such as the University of London are counted as one university.
This list excludes foreign higher education institutions operating
in the UK. The Open University operates in all the countries of
the UK; its headquarters is based in England. There are also a
significant number of further education colleges at which higher
education students study; they are not included in the 133. Back
3
"Supporting higher education in further education colleges
Policy, practice and prospects", HEFCE 2009/5, p 8
Higher education is provided in further
education colleges in three broad ways:
Prescribed courses of higher education
directly funded by HEFCE. The types of courses are set out in
legislation and students must be signed up for the whole course,
not just a module.
Indirectly via a higher education
institution-where students are registered with the higher education
institution, but some or all of the teaching is carried out at
a further education college through a sub-contracting or franchise
arrangement. As the HEFCE block grant goes to the higher education
institution there is more flexibility over what can be done with
the money and hence higher education modules carried out in further
education colleges can be funded this way.
Non-HEFCE funded or non-prescribed
higher education-Level 4 courses undertaken at a further education
college funded either by the Learning and Skills Council or through
fees paid by the student or their employer.
In 2008-09 there were 46,930 FTE students
who were on (directly) HEFCE-funded courses in further education
colleges in England; 4.0% of the total (Notification of grants
to institutions, 2008-09 Student numbers from HESES and HEIFES,
HEFCE, March 2009). Back
4
Committee on Higher Education, Higher Education, Report
of the Committee appointed by the Prime Minister under the Chairmanship
of Lord Robbins 1961-63 (the "Robbins Report"), October
1963, Cmnd. 2154, para 18 Back
5
Ev 438 (Universities UK), para 13 Back
6
National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education, Report
of the National Committee, (the "Dearing Report"),
July 1997 Back
7
"Students and Qualifiers Data Tables", HESA, www.hesa.ac.uk/index.php?option=com_datatables&Itemid=121&task=show_category&catdex=3
Back
8
DIUS, Departmental Report 2009, Cm 7596, July 2009, p 61 Back
9
Universities UK, The Economic Impact of Higher Education Institutions,
May 2006, pp 19 and 16; the figures relate to 2003-04. Back
10
Universities UK, The Economic Impact of Higher Education Institutions,
May 2006, p 30 Back
11
DIUS, Investing in our Future: Departmental Report 2008, Cm 7392,
May 2008, p 68 Back
12
"Final figures for 2008 entry-10.4% rise in accepted applicants"
UCAS press release, 15 January 2009 Back
13
"New Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills to
push Britain forward", DIUS Press Release, 28 June 2007 Back
14
HM Treasury, Leitch review of skills: Prosperity for all in the
global economy-world class skills, Final Report, 2006 Back
15
DIUS, World Class Skills: Implementing the Leitch Review of Skills
in England, Cm 7181, July 2007, p 9; DIUS, Investing in our Future:
Departmental Report 2008, Cm 7392, May 2008, p 68 Back
16
"Higher Education", Speech delivered by Rt Hon John
Denham, the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and
Skills, 29 February 2008, at www.dius.gov.uk/news_and_speeches/speeches/john_denham/higher_education
Back
17
Third Report of Session 2008-09, DIUS's Departmental Report
2008 , HC 51-ii, Q 149 Back
18
The commissioned contributions covered:
- International issues in Higher Education
- Academia and public policy making
- Understanding Higher Education institutional
performance
- Part-time studies and Higher Education
- Teaching and the student experience
- Research careers
- Demographic challenge facing our
universities
- Intellectual property and research
benefits
- World leader in e-learning
- Universities' links with schools
in STEM subjects.
A series of reports were also commissioned
from users of higher education, employers in a variety of sectors:
- Nicholas Hytner, Director of the
National Theatre
- Tom Russell, head of the London
Development Authority's Olympic Legacy Directorate
- Sir John Chisholm, Chair of QinetiQ
and the Medical Research Council
- Professor Ann Close, National Clinical
Advisor to the Healthcare commission
- Marjorie Scardino, Chief Executive
of Pearson
- John Griffith Jones, Joint Chairman
of KPMG.
In addition, The National Student Forum
provided an informal response to the first stage of the debate
on the future of higher education.
See BIS website, www.dius.gov.uk/higher_education/shape_and_structure/he_debate
Back
19
Q 496 Back
20
As above Back
21
Q 500 Back
22
BIS, Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills: Departmental
Report 2009, Cm 7596, July 2009, para 2.9 Back
23
Votes and Proceedings, 25 June 2009, p 686 Back
24
HC Deb, 29 October 2008, col 33WS; see also Third Report of Session
2008-09, DIUS's Departmental Report 2008 , HC 51-ii, Qq
142, and 169. Back
25
See para 6. Back
26
Q 509 Back
27
Q 511 Back
28
Universities and Colleges Admissions Service Back
29
Ev 534-35 Back
30
Ev 534 Back
31
Ev 536 Back
32
HC Deb, 20 July 2009, col 87WS Back
33
Ev 537 Back
34
Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Back
35
HM Treasury, Department of Trade and Industry, Department for
Education and Skills and Department of Health, Science and innovation
investment framework 2004-2014: next steps, March 2006, para 1.6 Back
36
See para 6. Back
37
"Students and Universities", Innovation, Universities,
Science and Skills Committee Press Notice No. 82 (07-08), 30 October
2008 Back
38
Ev 261 Back
39
Ev 217 (Birkbeck Students' Union), and 269 (Open University Students
Association) Back
40
A note summarising points from the consultation is at Ev 166.
The consultation ran for six weeks from 23 February and closed
on 7 April 2009. The forum asked for views on six topics and each
received the following number of replies (or posts).
Topic
| Posts
|
Why did you decide to apply to university?
| 29
|
Do you think that the admissions process for universities is fair?
| 34
|
What factors influenced your choice of university and course?
| 31
|
Has university lived up to your expectations?
| 32
|
What do you think of the quality of teaching at university?
| 41
|
Are all degrees the same?
| 29
|
Back
41
Ev 160 Back
42
Ev 161 Back
43
Ev 158 Back
44
Q 425 Back
45
Ev 520, Ev 521 Back
46
Universities UK represents the executive heads (Vice-Chancellors
or Principals) of UK universities and colleges of higher education.
It currently has 133 members. Back
47
GuildHE is one of the two formal representative bodies for Higher
Education in the UK, the other is Universities UK. Back
48
The 157 Group represents twenty six of the largest further education
colleges in England. Back
49
Established in 1994, the 1994 Group brings together 18 research-intensive
universities in the UK. Back
50
Million+, originally known as the Coalition of Modern Universities,
is a university think-tank with 28 subscribing universities in
the UK, which were established as universities after 1992. Back
51
The Russell Group is an association of 20 major research-intensive
universities in the UK. Formed in 1994 at a meeting convened in
Russell Square, the Group is composed of the Vice-Chancellors
and Principals. Back
52
The University Alliance is a group of 24 universities including
pre- and post-1992 institutions who are not members of the 1994
or Russell Groups or Million+. Back
53
Sector Skills Council for science, engineering and manufacturing
technologies Back
54
At paras 11 to 20 Back
|