Examination of Witnesses (Questions 100
- 119)
WEDNESDAY 28 JANUARY 2009
PROFESSOR DAVID
BAKER, MS
PAT BACON,
AND PROFESSOR
JOHN CRAVEN
Q100 Chairman: A brief comment, Professor
Baker?
Professor Baker: GuildHE institutions
would also welcome an idea like that. We would certainly like
to explore it; but I would be concerned if it were seen as the
only thing that needed to be done. It is the tip of a very large
iceberg. It might take the next five per cent from Plymouth Comprehensive,
but what about all the other people who, if they had the right
aspiration, could also make it? And we are not getting to them,
because we need to get them much sooner than 16, 17 or 18.
Q101 Dr Gibson: It is rumoured that
Oxford and Cambridge will start it all off. That would really
be something, I suppose.
Professor Baker: That will be
the day!
Q102 Dr Gibson: I am very pleased
that we have cleared up this business of the contact and workload
that students have and the comparison. The other lot slid out
of it by saying it was contact hours; it is much more than that.
The Chairman pointed that out and so we have that clear. The other
thing I wanted to ask you about is the QAA, Professor Baker. What
do you think of the QAA?
Professor Baker: I would agree
with the comments made in the previous session, that it does have
a lot of teeth. Bear in mind that GuildHE institutions have had
a lot of experience of the QAA over recent years, because we have
not been dealing with them just in terms of institutional audit
but most of our members have been awarded taught degree-awarding
powers; after a rigorous assessment exercise, university title;
and, in a smaller but growing number of cases, research degree-awarding
powers. My own institution went through the taught degree-awarding
powers assessment some three years ago, and it was a two-and-a-half-year
process. Believe me, it was not easy. So I think that the QAA
does have teeth; it does look very long and hard at institutions,
and their quality assurance processes in particular. It does not
give away the confidence vote or the taught degree-awarding powers
award lightly; so I do think that it is fit for purpose.
Q103 Dr Gibson: But you think there
is something missing? In your submission to us you did suggest
that its interaction with the public left a lot to be desired.
Professor Baker: I think that
there are issues about the PR relating to the QAA.
Q104 Dr Gibson: Such as?
Professor Baker: In terms of the
assay group, as we also call ourselves, the fact that we are different
but equal to the rest of the sector. That is the kind of point
I would particularly want to make, in terms of the public being
aware that the QAA is a body that does not regulate the sector
but it is one element of a particularly strong and robust set
of mechanisms, which includes self-regulation internally, externally,
within the sector, and the QAA is an overarching body which does
give the requisite confidence in the system.
Q105 Dr Gibson: Your body language
says you agree with that, Ms Bacon.
Ms Bacon: Yes, it certainly has
teeth as far as further education delivering higher education.
Q106 Dr Gibson: Let me ask you about
the degree classification business. We are comparing degrees now
in this session. A First from the University of Portsmouth or
the University College Plymouth St Mark & St John—is
that the same as a First at Oxford, in your opinion? Or would
my snobbery come out if I were looking at two people with Firsts
from different places?
Professor Craven: It is a different
description. There are different elements to the courses, as colleagues
said in the previous session. I am firmly in favour of the achievement
record as a much better record of what a student has achieved.
One of the points that I think is very important is that more
than half of the degrees in my institution are in one way or another
accredited by a professional body, whether they are architects,
accountants, pharmacists, engineers, or whatever it might be.
We have a very strong belief that they are—"enforcing"
is perhaps not quite the right word—working to national
standards; so I am comforted in those areas that there is very
serious comparability between the degrees in different places.
I think that it is inevitable that universities will have different
reputations—publication of league tables does not help that—and
that employers will take different messages according to the name
of the university on the degree certificate; but I suspect they
differentiate more than they should rather than less than they
should.
Q107 Dr Gibson: Would you stand up
and say publicly that the QAA keeps standards pretty uniform across
the country?
Professor Craven: I bear the bruises
from a recent QAA audit, which came out very successfully. They
were very clear, however, in making sure that our processes for
ensuring our standards were robust and delivered what we said
they did—and that is what they should be doing.
Q108 Dr Iddon: What is the attraction
for higher education institutes and further education colleges
in becoming universities? Why is there that upward pressure?
Ms Bacon: I cannot necessarily
speak for all FE colleges, but I am not looking to become a university.
I do not deliver higher education out of some desire. We are very
proud of where we sit. We know where we sit and we know why we
deliver the HE that we do. I suspect that any academic drift is
likely to be influenced by funding. I do see things in the FE
sector that are being influenced by funding. I think that targets—and
we have touched on league tables—are the kinds of things
that do influence behaviour. I suppose there is an ambition for
a lot of academic staff to be able to teach at what they perceive
as a higher level, and I see nothing wrong with that. I certainly
believe that my students generally benefit from the fact that
we have a core of staff who are able to deliver very successfully
at a higher education level. I guess it is about funding. I think
that there will be a drive coming out of the demographic change.
Interestingly, as I understand it, one of our university validating
partners has just stopped working with all of its existing FE
network. I throw that into the discussion, because I think that,
both with the current economic downturn—which has not been
touched on and clearly will be a key factor—but also the
demographics around that core age group of 17 to 20, it will start
to change behaviour; and we have to be very careful in looking
at what is there now as against what may be there in the future.
Professor Baker: I think that
there is a very clear answer, certainly from institutions like
GuildHE institutions, my own included, where we have university
title or university college title. That is about continuous improvement
and self-determination. The process you go through to be awarded
taught degree-awarding powers, to call yourself a university or
a university college, is a very rigorous one. It is one that we
want to go through to be able to pass the test, to improve in
the process. Certainly our experience in GuildHE institutions
is that we have improved as institutions; we have become more
confident as institutions; that we are on a par; we are different
from but equal to other institutions that already have the title.
The ability to award your own taught and research degrees does
mean that you have a lot more freedom of manoeuvre to respond,
in terms of what you are good at and what the communities that
you serve want.
Q109 Dr Iddon: Professor Craven,
have you anything to add to that?
Professor Craven: I represent
the Alliance, which is the only mission group of universities
that has both pre and post-1992 members. I was in a pre-1992 university
when that change happened and moved to Portsmouth in 1997. By
the time I moved, I was quite clear that the activities of the
university into which I moved at Portsmouth were of comparable
quality in some very broad sense to the institution I had left.
That includes the sort of local engagement that Mr Marsden talked
about; it includes selective research activities. From the point
of view of somebody who has moved across that line, therefore,
I think that the acquisition of university title by those of us
who gained it in 1992 is absolutely justified.
Q110 Dr Iddon: Can I put it to you
that when an HE institute or a college moves up the university
scale it sheds some of its lower-level teaching, which is really
critical to the local economy?
Professor Craven: I do not observe
that in my own institution particularly. We run foundation modules.
Professor Baker: I do not agree
with that. We have not shed anything at all; in fact, quite the
opposite. The flexibility that we now have in our institutions,
including my own, is that we are offering a broader range and
are able to introduce foundation degrees: both in terms of being
awarded at Marjon and also, much more appropriately, in partnership
with FE institutions and indeed sixth-form colleges that we are
working with—so not at all.
Q111 Dr Iddon: What about Merseyside,
where these skills are critical?
Ms Bacon: Absolutely critical.
The Association of Colleges' National Skill Group was meeting
yesterday and one of the things that we were particularly focusing
on was the whole issue of seeing further education colleges as
part of the solution, not just as deliverers of skills. I still
think that there is a whole debate that we need to embrace around
learning as against skills. The colleges have much to offer as
strategic partners. We are well informed by our local communities.
We know what the demands are on the ground, and indeed very much
welcome and hope to see more of the flexibilities to enable us
to deliver. For example, I know that my staff were in a manufacturing
company yesterday, helping them with some skills during the current
downturn. I do not think that we need to be precious about at
what level. It could be about basic skills; it could be about
foundation degree level.
Q112 Dr Iddon: I have one final question
on external assessors. Can I put it to you that most universities
perhaps have too cosy a relationship with their external assessors—I
am talking of course at the undergraduate level—and that
perhaps they ought to be appointed to the universities from an
outside organisation, so that this cosiness no longer exists?
Have I provoked you?
Professor Craven: I do not believe
that it is a cosy relationship. We certainly have a very clear
practice that if somebody from the department of economics in
another university is our external examiner in economics, we do
not reciprocate; so that none of our economists become their external
examiners. That is not the case, therefore. We train external
examiners. They come to induction sessions when they begin. They
have the opportunity to write to me as vice-chancellor, as well
as to interact with the department. When I was an external examiner
I did write to the vice-chancellor of a university, raising a
particular problem, and was properly dealt with. I am not sure
that the selection process for external examiners is the issue,
therefore. I think that it does need to be a professionally conducted
activity, and I believe that in most cases it is.
Professor Baker: I would very
much agree with that. I do not recognise the cosiness. If there
is a phrase that applies to external examiners, it is "critical
friends", with the emphasis on the "critical".
They are there to oversee the appropriateness of our processes
in relation to examinations. Again, practically all the GuildHE
members have gone through the system in terms of taught degree-awarding
powers over the last few years, and that process has been very
rigorously and independently assessed; so I do not see the cosiness
at all.
Q113 Dr Gibson: Have they ever failed
to sign? "I refuse to sign the final paper." In other
words, they say, "This has all been done. We have scrutinised
it and this is the degree stratification". Have you ever
had the experience of someone saying, "This is rubbish. You
guys are dominating the First-Class market for various purposes"?
Professor Baker: Not in my institution.
Q114 Dr Gibson: You have never had
that?
Professor Baker: No.
Q115 Dr Gibson: Do you recognise
it happens?
Professor Craven: I recognise
that external examiners write critical reports and sometimes report
things to the vice-chancellor that need changing. That does happen.
Q116 Ian Stewart: You may have been
in the room in the other session and heard the questions about
part-time students. All three of you have put submissions in with
comments about part-time students. Why do part-time students get
a raw deal, and what needs to be done to change that?
Ms Bacon: Again, the report I
referred to earlier covers this extremely well.
Q117 Ian Stewart: The Campaign for
Learning report?
Ms Bacon: Yes. There is a considerable
expectation, I think, that part-time students will be supported
by employers. It was an interesting statistic in the report, because
it is borne out by our experience. Only half of employed students
in full time work and therefore studying part-time are actually
supported by the employers, and then usually only fees—nothing
else. It drops to only a fifth for part-time. That is an issue.
We see it all the time with our adult students: that, time and
time again, they may be working but they are not necessarily supported.
Some employers will give some time; some may make a financial
contribution. We have had students saying to us, "Please
don't tell our employers that we are studying", because that
may not go down very well. I think that there is therefore a big
gap between what employers recognise they need—and we are
obviously keen to and do deliver—and what individuals need,
in terms of that whole lifelong learning agenda.
Professor Craven: I certainly
agree with that, but I think that "full-time" and "part-time"
is a convenient description. To make it much more flexible for
students to be able to complete a course, sometimes doing what
one would call a full-time load and sometimes not doing a full-time
load, is very important. That is something the fees review, which
we expect fairly soon, has to look into, to make that more flexible.
Professor Baker: I think part-time
students get a raw deal because we are still stuck in a mindset
that assumes that the vast majority of students are full-time
and 18 years old. Life simply is not like that. I hope that we
can move away from a division between full-time and part-time
and just call them students who are learning in different modes.
Q118 Ian Stewart: Should there be
a national bursary scheme?
Professor Baker: Broadly speaking,
I would argue for a national bursary scheme. I would hope that
it would be part of the forthcoming review. For me, it is about
equity, fairness and transparency, and making sure that all those
people who are able to benefit from higher education are able
to do so, regardless of the financial issues.
Q119 Ian Stewart: I think we can
take it that the other two on the panel are nodding?
Ms Bacon: Yes.
Professor Craven: Yes, I am happy
to support that.
| 
