Universities as factories

by Dorothy Bishop and Rowan Tomlinson

In a lecture delivered at the University of West London on 7th July, Professor Roger Brown drew some important lessons for Higher Education from an analysis of economic inequality.

First, he established that economic inequality was greater in the US and UK than in many other OECD countries, and was continuing to rise. The evidence was summarised in Figure 1, using the Gini coefficient (which ranges from 1 – if all the income from a country went to one person – to zero – if everyone got the same). figure Gini coefficient (2)He went on to consider a range of reasons that have been proposed to explain rising inequality: these included globalisation leading to an increased labour pool, technological change reducing demand for less skilled workers, and the shift of economies from manufacturing to services, especially financial services. In addition, there are economic pressures that lead to the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer – to some extent these are inherent in capitalism. Brown suggests that all these factors have played a part in determining inequality in major Western countries. There is, though, variation in economic inequality, and, strikingly, the highest level of inequality is found in those countries that have actively pursued neoliberal policies. These countries have prioritised freer markets, smaller government and lower taxes, and adopted macroeconomic policies that have reduced regulation and allowed international commercial banking to play a larger role in global finance.

Continue reading

Reflections on the REF and the need for change

Discussion piece by the CDBU Steering Group

possible picture for header

Results from the research excellence framework (REF) were publicly announced on 18th December, followed by a spate of triumphalist messages from University PR departments. Deeper analysis followed, both in the pages of the Times Higher Education, and in the media and on blogs.

CDBU has from the outset expressed concern about the REF, much of it consistent with the criticism that has been expressed elsewhere. In particular, we note:

Inefficiency: As Derek Sayer has noted, the REF has absorbed a great deal of time and money that might have been spent better elsewhere. The precise cost has yet to be reported, but it is likely to be greater than the £60m official figure, and that is not taking into account the cost in terms of the time of academic staff. Universities have taken on new staff to do the laborious work of compiling data and writing impact statements, but this has diverted funds from front-line academia and increased administrative bloat.

Questionable validity: Derek Sayer has cogently argued the case that the peer review element of REF is open to bias from subjective, idiosyncratic and inexpert opinions. It is also unaccountable in the sense that ratings made of individual outputs are destroyed. One can see why this is done: otherwise HEFCE could be inundated with requests for information and appeals. But if the raw data is not available, then this does not inspire confidence in the process, especially when there are widespread accusations of games-playing and grade inflation.

Concentration of funding in a few institutions: We are told that the goal is to award quality-related funding, but as currently implemented, this leads inevitably to a process whereby the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, with the bulk of funds concentrated in a few institutions. We suspect that the intention of including ‘impact’ in the REF was to reduce the disparity between the Golden Triangle (Oxford, Cambridge and London) and other institutions which might be doing excellent applied work, but if anything the opposite has happened. We do not yet know what the funding formula will be, but if it is, as widely predicted, heavily biased in favour of 4* research, we could move to a situation where only the large institutions will survive to be research-active. There has been no discussion of whether such an outcome is desirable.

Shifting the balance of funding across disciplines: A recent article in the Times Higher Education noted another issue: the tendency for those in the Sciences to obtain higher scores on the REF than those in the Humanities. Quotes from HEFCE officials in the article offered no reassurance to those who were concerned this could mean a cut in funding for humanities. Such a move, if accompanied by changes to student funding to advantage those in STEM subjects, could dramatically reduce the strength of Humanities in the UK.

Continue reading