Tag Archives: UK

November 5, 2009 · 10:20 pm

Against Mandelson’s view of higher education in Britain

On the 3rd November, Lord Mandelson announced what his Department of Business, Innovation and Skills described as “a new framework for the future success of higher education”.  Perhaps this could lead to a certain kind of success, but it hammers with renewed vigour another nail into the coffin of universities in the UK.

As his Department stated, key measures set out in the framework, along with my responses, are as follows

  • More competition between universities, giving greater priority to programmes that meet the need for high level skills – Universities are not, and should not be seen as being, merely about high level skill provision.  Obviously this depends on how we define ‘high level skills’, but alongside those needed to make a prosperous economy (look how dismally our bankers have delivered over the last couple of years), are those skills associated with critical reflection and an ability to challenge taken for granted assumptions about the ‘good’ of our contemporary capitalist society.  Competition is also most definitely not the answer.  Universities work best when there is collaboration and cooperation rather than competition.
  • Business to be more engaged in the funding and design of programmes, sponsorship of students, and work placements – yes, it is indeed important that universities work closely with the private sector – after all, they benefit hugely from the investment of the state in delivering the cannon fodder of global capitalism.  However, the suggestion that the private sector should increasingly fund higher education smacks of the government trying to find others to pay for its failed commitment to furnish our society with a fit for purpose university system.
  • Creating more part-time, work-based and foundation degrees to make it easier for adults to go to university, with routes from apprenticeships through to Foundation Degrees and other vocational programmes – universities should not fundamentally be about providing foundation degrees – leave these to other types of institution.  The central purpose of a university should be about pushing the boundaries of knowledge forward, through high quality research and the encouragement of able young people to engage in rigorous scientific and scholarly enquiry.
  • Encouraging universities to consider contextual data in admissions, as one way of ensuring that higher education is available to all young people who have the ability to benefit – this is social engineering.  Yes, of course universities should seek to provide outstanding learning opportunities to those most able to benefit, but the simple mechanisms recommended are simply not sophisticated enough to enable the identification of those who can contribute most to the UK’s universities.
  • Universities setting out clearly what students can expect in terms of the nature and quality of courses offered – yes, and the best already do so!  But please, universities are fundamentally about moving the boundaries of research forward, and encouraging the development of enquiring minds in the most able people rather than passing on existing accepted knowledge.
  • Sustaining our world class research base by continuing to focus on excellence, concentrating research funding where needed to secure critical mass and impact – the highest quality research does not necessarily need to be concentrated.  The  most innovative research is often delivered  by individuals working in isolation – indeed, concentrating research activity based on past success criteria, will actually restrict the development of novel and exciting innovation.  Real innovation usually happens ‘at the edges’.
  • Encouraging collaboration between universities on world class research, especially in high cost science – the rationale for this is that we cannot afford high cost science.  But we cannot afford not to!  Furthermore, not all world class research is expensive.  Indeed, many Nobel prize winners actually do low cost research!

As I have argued elsewhere, universities are about far more than providing a second rate ‘education’ for students not really interested in learning.  We can afford a high quality university sector by reducing the number of universities and the number of students wasting their time pretending to study at them.

Why is it that the UK wants to treat universities as businesses when so many countries in the world still provide free higher education to their people – look for example at Finland and many of the German Länder? Why is it that the government persists in destroying a university system that was once the pride of the world? Perhaps most surprisingly of all, why are students and academics not rising up in revolutionary protest as did our comrades in the late 1960s?

The time has come to stand up and be counted.  We must resist this Philistine, ignorant and damaging attempt to destroy what is left of our universities.

4 Comments

Filed under Higher Education

Tagged as ,

October 11, 2009 · 7:26 pm

Solving the crises facing UK universities

The time has come to ignite a debate about the real purpose of universities in the UK.  I believe passionately that universities should be about the advancement of knowledge, and the pursuit of excellence in research and teaching; they are not just about further education for the masses.  All too often universities in the UK are seen primarily in terms of their contribution to the economy. The incorporation of higher education within the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills during the government reorganisation of 2009 is just one symptom of how such thinking has pervaded not only government, but also the private sector and the public at large. All too often, charging fees for students is justified on the basis that graduates earn on average more than those without degrees.  Yet recent research based on figures from the Higher Education Statistics Agency suggests that many graduates do not actually add to their earning power by going to university (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article6832285.ece).

The OECD has long promoted the myth that there is something magical about a country having 50% of its population participating in higher education for the well being of the economy.  This is largely justified on macro-economic evidence suggesting a correlation between the percentages of a population who have been to university and GDP per capita.  However, the existence of such a correlation does not mean that having larger cohort percentages in higher education actually leads to greater economic growth; far from it, it can equally well mean that higher economic growth enables more people to afford to go to university!

In the late 1980s, the UK graduation rate was around 20%, and the government was eager to increase participation both for social and for economic reasons.  By 2004, the rate had risen to 39%, but government funding had not kept pace, leading to the familiar crisis of funding in UK higher education today. Public spending on university education in Britain is just 0.9% of GDP, which is well below Sweden’s at 1.6% (for a 40% participation rate) and the US’s at 2.9% percent (for a 37% participation rate) (figures from OECD’s Education at a Glance 2009 indicators).

What, though, is the evidence that having such percentages in higher education is indeed of benefit either to the individuals or the country, especially if we cannot afford to fund it properly?  Here, I wish to raise four issues that seem to me to be of particular importance:

  • Charging students fees for higher education is socially divisive and distorts the labour market. UK students already now graduate with an average debt of around £21,000, and this figure is set to rise substantially.  Unless they have affluent parents willing to pay off their debts, graduates are desperate to seek higher paid jobs so that they can start generating a real income.Is the so-called ‘education’ that they get, really worth this debt?
  • The academic abilities of many students entering universities is so low that they cannot achieve the academic excellence that universities should be aspiring to.  Many universities make offers to students equivalent to 2 Ds or 3 Es at A’ level.  The quality of education that such students receive can be good, but most students with A’ levels this low are unlikely to be at the cutting edge of knowledge creation in their later lives. How much intellectual benefit do they really gain from their degrees?
  • Going to university is often a lifestyle decision, and many students do not participate sufficiently actively in the pursuit of academic excellence. It is a scandal that students in the UK spend so little time on their academic studies. A report of the Higher Education Policy Institute surveyed 15,000 1st and 2nd year students in 2007 and found that the average time that they spent being taught and in private study was 26 hours a week (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7011121.stm).  This is about the same amount of time that they spend in bars on campus!  In Portugal, students on average spend 40 hours a week on their academic work.  In effect, perhaps half of UK university students are doing what amount to part-time degrees, and yet they expect to get the same grades as those who can devote 40 or 50 hours  a week to their studies.
  • Grade inflation applies just as much at universities as it does for A’ levels.  Business leaders regularly bemoan the declining abilities of graduates.  Is this surprising given how little academic work many students do while at university?  Most university league tables include the percentage of upper second and first class degrees awarded as one of their key criteria.  With such an incentive, is it really surprising that many universities have devised intricate mechanisms to ensure that they award high numbers of such degrees?

None of this is to the benefit of the many keen and enthusiastic students from poor or otherwise marginalised backgrounds who aspire to go to a university to achieve academic excellence, and indeed move knowledge forward. Likewise, there are many outstanding and highly committed students who worthily gain excellent degrees – but my point is that there are far too few of these in our universities today.

Lest I am misunderstood, I should emphasise that academic excellence is something very different from elitism.  We must champion excellence through education and training at all costs.  Indeed, the demise of higher education in the UK owes much to a misplaced emphasis on reducing elitism rather than championing excellence.  Excellence and elitism are fundamentally different concepts.

So, how do we get ourselves out of this mess?  My manifesto for the future of UK universities and continuing education contains four key elements:

  • Reduce the number of universities by approximately half, with funding for research and teaching coming primarily from the government.  Universities are meant to be communities of scholars who undertake research and encourage students to think critically thereby leading to the advancement of knowledge.  This reduction in size of the sector will not dramatically reduce research quality, since this is already highly focused, and it will enable those students who attend university to have a much higher quality of learning environment.  Civilised societies must have excellent universities not only to promote innovation but also to act as their moral consciences through critical reflection.
  • Create a raft of continuing learning institutions to provide excellent training and skills acquisition in fields deemed to be valuable by society.  These could, for example, be in fields as diverse as football, IT skills, dance, plumbing, language training, chefs, line repairers, music, welders, and care assistants.  Businesses, civil society organisations and government should play key roles in determining both the areas of specialism and the funding.  Their key attribute would be that they would encourage people to strive for excellence in their chosen field. Courses would be for up to two years (thereby providing a substantial saving of time and funding on current university three year degrees) and people of all ages would be encouraged to use them to gain the skills required for particular jobs.
  • The system would be underpinned by rigorous selection processes to help ensure equality of access based on skills and aptitude, thereby enabling those best able to benefit from different types of post-secondary learning to do so.  At the heart of this new system will be a rigorous evidence-based procedure to ensure that appropriate advice and opportunities are given to people as to the type of post-secondary learning that they embark on.
  • A redefinition of qualification titles. The awards given by the new continuing learning institutes must also be deemed by society to be as valuable as university ‘degrees’.  This will depend greatly on the quality of learning provision, but if they can provide learners with the skills to enable them to gain highly paid jobs, as for example professional footballers or chefs, then their status will be assured.  Indeed, it is even possible  that those wishing to pursue research careers at universities may well find themselves being paid much less in the future than mechanics and plumbers (http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=429176&in_page_id=2).

These are radical proposals, and will be unpopular in many quarters.  However, unless we engage seriously with the crisis facing universities and skills acquisition in the UK, we will continue to muddle along in perpetual mediocrity.  We once had a university system of which to be proud. Let us not be beguiled by recent announcements suggesting that ‘British universities dominate the world Top Ten rankings for the first time this year (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/student/article6865260.ece, 8th October 2009).  UK higher education is in crisis, and it needs dramatic surgery to make it excellent.

5 Comments

Filed under Ethics, Higher Education

Tagged as ,

June 21, 2009 · 11:38 am

Digital Britain

The UK’s Department for Culture, Media and Sport (I still think this is a crazy mixture, but…)  published its final report on Digital Britain on 16th June 2009.  It claims that “The Digital Britain Report is the Government’s strategic vision for ensuring that the UK is at the leading edge of the global digital economy. It is an example of industrial activism in a crucial growth sector. The report contains actions and recommendations to ensure first rate digital and communications infrastructure to promote and protect talent and innovation in our creative industries, to modernize TV and radio frameworks, and support local news, and it introduces policies to maximize the social and economic benefits from digital technologies”.

The key measures it recommends are:

  • A three-year National Plan to improve Digital Participation
  • Universal Access to today’s broadband services by 2012
  • Next Generation fund for investment in tomorrow’s broadband services
  • Digital radio upgrade by the end of 2015
  • mobile spectrum liberalisation, enhancing 3G coverage and accelerating Next Generation mobile services
  • robust legal and regulatory framework to combat Digital Piracy
  • support for public service content partnerships
  • a revised digital remit for Channel 4
  • consultation on funding options for national, regional and local news

One of the most interesting statements in the executive summary is that “For individuals a quiet revolution has delivered seamless connectivity almost everywhere. That revolution ranges from personal pocket libraries of music, audiovisual content and increasingly electronic literature on a scale inconceivable ten years ago; inexpensive broadband which allows efficient and family-friendly working patterns in the knowledge sector of the economy – and broadband at increasing speeds – the next generation of which, already available to nearly half Britain’s homes, allows us to send or receive 200 mp3 music files in five minutes, an entire Star Wars DVD in 3 minutes and the total digitised works of Charles Dickens in less than 10 minutes. It has given us access to a wide range of social networks, allowing us to share experiences and swap and create content. The digital revolution has also led to a huge expansion in the creation and availability of professional content. Today, the typical British consumer spends nearly half of their waking hours engaged in one form or another with the products and services of the communications sector”.  The report goes on to assert that “The UK is already a digitally enabled and to a significant degree digitally dependent economy and society. The Digital Britain Report aims to be a guide-path for how Britain can sustain its position as a leading digital economy and society”.

To my mind, the report is overly up-beat.  It fails satisfactorily to address the real challenges associated with a digital Britain, and especially:

  • it focuses primarily on the technological and economic dimensions – and not enough on the social, cultural and political issues raised by these
  • there is nothing overtly on the ethical and moral issues raised by this particular vision of a ‘digital Britain’ (‘ethics’ and ‘moral’ are words that are not even mentioned in the report)
  • although trying to grapple with some of the issues surrounding unequal access, its solutions are unlikely to have a significant impact on the lives of Britain’s poorest people and communities – the concept of a ‘digital divide’ is only mentioned three times, and there is no mention of words such as ‘inequalities’ or ‘inequality’; ‘equity’ is only mentioned twice.  The market cannot provide effective solutions for the most marginalised – and it should be the role of government to intervene to ensure that as many people as possible can benefit from the potential that such technologies can offer
  • insufficient attention is paid to the negative effects of the digital economy – in terms of the ways in which it reinforces power relationships, and enables ever greater ‘control’ and manipulation of the majority by the few.  The anarchic potential of the Internet is also insufficiently explored – and is treated negatively in the only place where it is addressed (“Most consumers, except the minority of the anarchic or those who believe in ‘freedom to’ without its counterbalancing ‘freedom from’, who believe in unsupported rights without countervailing duties, would prefer to behave lawfully if they can do so practically and with a sense of equity” p.110).  “Web 2.0” is likewise only mentioned once!
  • as I have argued elsewhere, one of the implications of Britain sustaining “its position as a leading digital economy and society” is that this will necessarily mean that it will relatively disadvantage those in poorer countries of the world.  Given my own interest in trying to ensure that poor people and marginalised communities can also truly benefit from digital communities, I am concerned by the complete lack of attention that this report pays to issues of ‘development’ – Africa is not mentioned at all, and ‘developing countries’ are only mentioned once to exemplify the impact of mobile ‘phones therein!  I wonder what colleagues in the UK’s Department for International Development have to say about this – another excellent example of lack of joined up government!

The UK government needs to understand that ICTs are about much more than simply the technology and the economy – if we are truly to use them to make the world a better place, we must emphasise the social, political and cultural aspects of their use much more than does this report on Digital Britain.

For other commentary in the UK press see:

  • James Ashton in the Times: A blurred vision for Digital Britain
  • Matthew Horsman in the Daily Telegraph: Only a sketchy road map of Digital Britain
  • BBC News: Digital Britain countdown begins

Leave a comment

Filed under ICT4D

Tagged as , ,

April 28, 2009 · 7:44 am

UK Government announces that it has no plans to create a central database for storing communications data

The UK’s Home Office has recently announced that it no longer has any plans to create a centralised database to store all communciations data.  In its consultation paper presented to Parliament in April 2009, and entitled “Protecting the Public in a Changing Communications Environment“, the Home Secretary Jacqui Smith commented that “this consultation explicitly rules out the option of setting up a single store of information for use in relation to communications data”.  This is excellent news for all those concerned that the government was indeed considering establishing such a centralised database of all digital communication (see my comments in February about this). The consultation paper is a very important document, and lays out clearly the various options facing a government eager to get the balance right between privacy and security.

The consultation paper asserts that “The Government has no plans for a centralised database for storing all communications data.  An approach of this kind would require communications service providers to collect all the data required by the public authorities, and not only the data required for their business needs.  All of this communications data would then be passed to, retained in, and retrieved from, a single data store.  This could be the most effective technical solution to the challenges we face and would go furthest towards maintaining the current capability; but the Government recognises the privacy implications of a single store of communications data and does not, therefore, intend to pursue this approach”.

With reference to third party data, two approaches are identified as possible ways forward:

  • “The responsibility for collecting and retaining this additional third party data would fall on those communications providers such as the fixed line, mobile and WiFi operators, who own the network infrastructure”
  • “A further step would be for the communications service providers to process the third party communications data and match it with their own business data where it has elements in common; this would make easier the interpretation of that data if and when it were to be accessed by the public authorities”.

In the light of this, the government intends to legislate “to ensure that all data that public authorities might need, including third party data, is collected and retained by communication service providers; and that the retained data is further processed by communications service providers enabling specific requests by public authorities to be processed quickly and comprehensively”.

The government is particularly eager to receive responses on four main questions:

  • Q1  On the basis of this evidence and subject to current safeguards and oversight arrangements, do you agree that communications data is vital for law enforcement, security and intelligence agencies and emergency services in tackling serious crime, preventing terrorism and protecting the public? Found on page 22
  • Q2  Is it right for Government to maintain this capability by responding to the new communications environment? Found on page 22
  • Q3  Do you support the Government’s approach to maintaining our capabilities?  Which of the solutions should it adopt? Found on page 30
  • Q4   Do you believe that the safeguards outlined are sufficient for communications data in the future? Found on page 30

As the consultation paper concludes, “The challenge is to find a model which strikes the right balance between maximising public protection and the ability of the law enforcement and other authorities to do their jobs  to prevent and detect crime and protect the public, and minimising the intrusion into our private lives”.

Leave a comment

Filed under Communication, Ethics, Uncategorized

Tagged as , ,

March 8, 2009 · 11:41 am

UK surveillance update…

The Times yesterday published another article on CCTV cameras and surveillance in the UK, noting that the frequently cited claim that there are 4.2 million CCTV cameras in use in the UK is based on a survey of only two streets in London seven years ago!  Police forces across the country are now being asked to locate and record the location of every camera in the country – so that they can be used to identify suspected ‘criminals’.

Leave a comment

Filed under Ethics, ICT4D

Tagged as , ,

February 8, 2009 · 12:36 pm

Is the UK becoming a police state?

The Sunday Times published a front page report today noting that: ‘THE government is building a secret database to track and hold the international travel records of all 60m Britons. The intelligence centre will store names, addresses, telephone numbers, seat reservations, travel itineraries and credit card details for all 250m passenger movements in and out of the UK each year. The computerised pattern of every individual’s travel history will be stored for up to 10 years, the Home Office admits. The government says the new database, to be housed in an industrial estate in Wythenshawe, near Manchester, is essential in the fight against crime, illegal immigration and terrorism. However, opposition MPs, privacy campaigners and some government officials fear it is a significant step towards a total surveillance society.’

This is yet another example of the ways in which the state is using technology to gain unprecedented information about its citizens.  What right does it have to do so?

Even those who believe that the state can legitimately gather such information should be careful –  given the dismal failure of the state so far to keep such information from being ‘lost’ or ‘falling into the wrong hands’, what reassurances do we have that these data will be secure?

We need to encourgae a vigorous and participatory debate about these issues.

4 Comments

Filed under Ethics, ICT4D general

Tagged as , , ,