There have been some articles in the past few days about how
the elite Russell group of UK universities are still a very difficult place for
the more disadvantaged in society to access. http://bbc.in/1bMtdS8 As someone who comes from a poor background and works in a Russell group
university I have been prompted to write this blog based on my own journey to
my current career.
Some of the more erudite among you will realise that the
title of this post is derived from a talk/ lecture, paper by that noted
Catholic academic theologian Cardinal John Newman. There are I believe some
fantastic ideas expounded in that series but I am no Cardinal Newman and what I
wanted to do here is just lay out and discuss some of my own thoughts and ideas
about the University system in the UK at the moment. Why I wanted to write this
piece is as I go about my day to day activities and come in to contact with
various people I find that there are some strange ideas out there about the
University sector is and what Universities actually do.
Generally in the UK it is said that the Universities have
three missions. Teaching, research and the mysterious third mission. Exactly what this third mission is not as
easy to describe as the relatively straight forward first two but it has
something to do with the involvement of universities with society. Sometimes
the terms outreach and engagement are used in relation to this sort of activity.
To illustrate this with my own working load model as I work at a research
institute most of my work involves research but occasionally I do teach mainly
as a guest lecturer. In addition, almost on a voluntary basis, I work with a
number of community groups / agencies and
charities in a mainly advisory capacity and I see that as an aspect of fulfilling
my third mission activity.
In relation to the wider UK University sector the situation
is not that straight forward. Although
over the past thirty years we have seen a massive increase in the amount of
people accessing HE at the same time it has to be said that not all
Universities have been created equal. For instance back in the 1970s -80s you
had Universities and Polytechnics and then in 1992 under John Major’s Government many of the Polytechnics and Higher Education
colleges became “New Universities”.
However, simply allowing these institutions to have the same name does
not mean that they are the same type of institution. Over these past twenty years institutions have
developed in to at times being teaching Universities or research Universities.
For example in 1994 the Russell Group of the top 20+ research universities was
formed. These Russell group Universities
receive approximately three quarters of all research grants in the UK.
Therefore, even with this exponential growth the sector is
far from a level playing field. The Universities who do not get so much
research funding are also therefore more dependent on their income on student
fees so recruitment, retention and marketing is a key concern for them. In that period of time, between 1993 and 2010
in the UK the percentage of people with a University degree has gone from 12%
to 25% . Of course this has increased competition between graduates for posts
and again unsurprisingly all degrees are not equal. I was recently talking to a recruiter for a
London based technology company who told me that they are so overwhelmed for
applications for graduate level jobs that their first sifting process for
reducing the number of applications they consider is taking out all the
applications that do not have a 2.i or a First class degree from a Russell
group University!!! Now that does strike
me at somewhat harsh but I suppose that is just the reality of the sector
response to market forces. While it is
still the case that generally if you have a degree you will have a higher salary, the market is
very competitive out there these days and it is not just having a degree but
what degree you have.
The reason that I am recounting these changes in the higher
education system over the past twenty years is with this expansion of the
sector the market is becoming increasingly difficult to understand and as is
always seems to be the case those who know how to play it are doing better
under the system. When I went to
University in my late 30s as a mature student over ten years ago now( how that
came about should be another posting) I didn’t understand these differences
between universities and the main reason that I went to the one that I did,
which was a “good” university but not one that was considered among the top
flight, was simply that it was on my doorstep. Now that the market has
increased with a lot more University places on offer and the possibility of
graduates coming out with debts of
£27,000 it is those with a better knowledge of how the system works who can
most benefit from it, as it always has been.
As is always the case the rich and well connected know the
system and know how to play it. You only
have to look at senior figures in the government, business, judiciary and
academia and their backgrounds to realise that.
If the UK were in fact in anyway a meritocracy would we have so many
Eton and the like old boys (and it is mainly boys) in positions of power? The working classes account for some 37% of
the UK population while university recruitment from the working classes is
32.5%. That throughout the whole sector while for Oxford and Cambridge it is
not much over 10%. Just in general within the Russell group recruitment from
the working class (whatever that means in this day and age of under and unemployment) is below average.
The
exclusion of the poor from the higher education sector is further compounded
when you realise that within this categorisation of the working classes the
long term unemployed are not counted. So the figures seem to indicate that for
the poorer that are going to University they are not reaching the so called
“elite” institutions with the corresponding increased opportunity for a future
career.
So who is to blame for this situation? Is it the Russell
group, is it the schools, Is it the universities in general, is it the
government. Is it the poor because of their lack of aspiration and unwillingness to challenge the system? My own view on this is to
quote the old sociologist joke. (And goodness knows I am an old sociologistL)
Q: How many sociologists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: There’s nothing wrong with the light bulb it is the whole
system which is at fault. :-)
