The Browne Report

As someone likely to be affected by the recommendations of this report, both personally and in terms of the university department that I manage, I have been reading it in some detail since its publication earlier this week. While there are aspects of the report that are undeniably accurate - most obviously the fact that higher education in the UK has been historically woefully underfunded - the solutions on offer are, for the most part, deeply worrying. I can see how certain institutions teaching certain subject areas will welcome the report's proposals and I have no doubt that some will be rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of the funds that will accrue to them specifically as a result of it. However, many institutions will be dismayed at the ideological underpinning to the report that places value (both economic and cultural) on certain types of academic activity while devaluing others. At one level this dichotomy has always existed, characterised by the assertion that the sciences are important and lead to jobs while the arts are simply for 'art's sake' and therefore in productive terms are a complete waste of time and money. It is embedded in Browne's report in the recommendation that government subsidy is removed from all subjects except those designated 'priority' (see pages 42, 45, 47). And yet, even in Lord Browne's own terms this position is not tenable. Thus chapter one of the report opens with the following statement:

'Higher education matters. It helps to create the knowledge, skills and values that underpin a civilised society. Higher education institutions (HEIs) generate and diffuse ideas, safeguard knowledge, catalyse innovation, inspire creativity, enliven culture , stimulate regional economies and strengthen civil society. They bridge the past and future; the local and the global' (Browne Report 2010: 14)

All true. To suggest that only students themselves benefit from the degrees that they study for (see Browne 2010: 25) is to fail to recognise the various ways in which the UK economy, our society and our culture benefits. The Creative Industries in the UK are highly valued for the jobs they create and the income they generate but Browne's model won't fund the graduates that produce the creative ideas that generate this significant amount of income (and cultural and reputational prestige). The burden of investment in this area will have to be borne by individuals, despite the clear rewards that accrue to our society at large.

So, higher education underpins and creates immense rewards for civilised society - this we know; however, the report proposes to create a marketplace in HE, the effect of which will be to fund only certain of the subject areas that generate these vital benefits (it is anticipated that these areas will lose up to 80% of their current HEFCE funding when the CSR is announced on Wednesday 20th October, see here and here). So the plan is to introduce a market to HE but then tie the hands of certain subjects behind their collective backs while reinforcing the market position of others with government subsidy. Further, because the connections between a degree in Film Studies or English Literature, for example, are less immediately obvious than those in Medicine, it is highly likely that fewer students, now required to bear costly fees (£7,000 will be necessary just to stand still for band C and D subjects - arts, humanities and social science, as Browne notes on page 31) will opt to study the former. And yet it is precisely these kinds of subjects that 'underpin a civilised society', as Browne has already asserted in the opening to his report...

Browne asserts that institutions will be able to recruit as many students as they wish in the future (although the small print runs counter to this) and that as a result some will grow while others will 'need to raise their game to respond' (2010: 28). Quite apart from the fact that this is no game, competition will favour the priority areas rather than those currently being undermined for their apparent lack of value. In addition it will favour those students from wealthy backgrounds prepared to take on the debt that others will be less willing to contemplate. To suggest that students, as consumers, will dictate where quality lies via their investment demonstrates a failure to understand the nature of what it is that universities do. Yes, the student experience is paramount, as is employability but it wouldn't exactly be a surprise if the institutions chosen by students are those that already have a large share of the market. They have brand advantage and possess significant budgets that can be deployed to further enhance their market position. This has nothing to do with quality and everything to do with big business. Marketisation is not the answer to everything - there are contexts in which the brutal illogicality of the marketplace is simply not appropriate. We are tampering here with the future of generations of individuals and with the very economy of the UK...

Links to a series of interesting articles on the implications of the marketisation of HE in the Browne Report can be found below:

Martin McQuillan, 'If you tolerate this... Lord Browne and the Privatisation of the Humanities'
Stefan Collini, 'Browne's Gamble'
Jonathan Freedland, 'In Cameron's pay-as-you-go state, a degree is about earning, not learning'
Jessica Shepperd, 'High tuition fees will deter poor students, ministers warned'
Hannah Richardson, 'University fears over grant cuts'
Channel 4 News, 'University tuition fees set for huge rise'