In my previous entry I introduced the issues outlined in Lord Browne’s review of higher education. Referencing Stefan Collini’s article ‘Browne’s Gamble’, I briefly discussed the elements of the planned reforms that had been the focus of the media and political scenes, namely student fees. Once again drawing from Collini’s article, I want to refer to some of the less heralded and less known issues that will arise, and how these may impact Universities and specifically study of Arts degrees.
Firstly, the reforms suggest an almost complete removal of the ‘block grant’ currently allocated to Universities by the government. This is around £3.9 billion which is divided between the Universities every year as part of the government’s support for further education. This is guaranteed money for the universities that allows planning and funding to be set out each year for projects, courses, etc. Course fees and research income then supplement this block grant but, of course, income from these sources will vary and fluctuate from year to year.
What will replace this block grant? Higher fees. It is this that has grabbed the public attention, with all focus going on whether students will be able to afford University. What the cutting of the block grant also does is introduce a free market ideology to Universities. In competing for students, and money, it will completely change the way the Universities structure their degrees and target students. Browne argues that this will give greater student choice and control, yet they will pay significantly more for the privilege. The idea that this is for the benefit of students is disingenuous, as the report goes from advocating student choice to stating that government will offer financial support to certain areas of study, such as medicine, economics and the sciences. The report says that students decide what courses will survive, but then states that ‘targeted investments’ in these areas will be made by public finances, to compensate for students not choosing these courses because the ‘costs are higher’ or ‘these courses are perceived to be more difficult’.
There is a significant contradiction at force that strips the idea of free market universities of credibility. Give students control and choice over what courses they study, but if they choose the wrong ones then throw money at medicine, science, and economics to compensate. Courses such as English Literature, Language, History, and Theology may be forced to fend for themselves, whereas courses with perceived greater vocational and economic value work to a different set of rules, receiving a ‘leg up’ when required.
Whether these reforms are all applied, in this form, is still to go through Parliament. I think it is vital for courses in the Arts and Cultures to survive this potential reform, so that they don’t become a niche that the ‘quirky’ few indulge in. Of course medicine, economics, and the sciences are vital for the future, I have no argument against that. But the Arts are vital as well, for if we lose these disciplines the cultural impacts will be felt by all. Things that we all take for granted: film, museums, libraries, television, book shops, art galleries, these could all lose their significance in decades to come if we don’t have artists, writers, and cultural scholars to maintain them. These things don’t just exist because they should, they exist because of the passion of those that run them, a passion that is strengthened and cultivated when studied in the late teens/early twenties. If the Arts aren’t studied and appreciated in sufficient numbers, then they will wither. Strip the country of the Arts, and it is suddenly a much duller place to be.
Until next time,
Thomas
Facebook
Twitter
