adapting to disruptive times…II
In the second session, it was the battle of the Vice-Chancellors, in this case Geoffrey Crossick of University of London and Malcolm Gillies of London Metropolitan University.
It was Crossick’s view that the new regime of student demand led funding would result finally in a true acceptance of the diversity of the sector, hitherto disguised by the block grant and the language of the quality regime, as institutions sought to differentiate themselves by diversifying and specialising. He argued that international competition rather than public/private sector competition would provide the greater challenge on the horizon. He wanted to see a competitive level playing field, not only through scrutiny of private provision but also a greater recognition of the public good elements of what universities do. He ended by identifying the challenge for UK HE to preserve its distinctiveness in producing graduate with the ability to think critically when delivering in newer, flexible and non-traditional models. He also warned against the danger of a social divide emerging between the traditional experience of HE that might become the preserve of those who could afford it, and the newer, more flexible, and by implication, cheaper but less prestigious modes of delivery.
Gillies took a deliberately more bullish stance. Assuming that sticking with the status quo was not an option, he saw the main choice as being between adaptation (doing some things differently, such as processes and programmes; choosing not to do some things, such as subject areas; and doing things that have not been done before, such as overseas ventures) and revolution (doing some things very differently such as going private; choosing not to do some things, such as face-to-face teaching in favour of going virtual; and doing things that have not been done before, such as focusing on teaching without research).
He identified a number of global themes or challenges about post-secondary education:
- Mass education not elite education
- Affordability/value for money and accessibility/participation
- In country or virtual rather than cross-border provision
- Ability to pay (individual, family, employer, or state) more important than public or private divide
- Skills leading to jobs rather than qualifications
- Family opportunities rather than individual empowerment
- Global questions of change are being addressed by an unglobalised HE industry.
Whether or not one agrees with Gillies, he posed some questions that could be useful for any institution in considering its position in the face of current and future challenges:
- Are we about revolution or adaptation? How much continuity or discontinuity do we need and can we handle? Who are we – what is our identity?
- Is our purpose right? Where do we stand on the nexus between education and research? How much risk are we prepared to take in changing or not? Are we going to be leaders or followers?
- Is our mission still viable? How much reputation do we have which creates its own market (e.g. Oxford) or are we in search of a market? How aspirational can our mission be? How do we seek to balance private and public service?
- What is our domain? International, national or local? What community do we serve?
- How do we best serve our academic interests? By promising ‘excellent’ or ‘decent’?How tight or expansive s our curriculum? Are we a sole entity as an institution or a mothership?
- How do we best supply administrative and support functions? Sole entity or mothership? In situ or virtual? Core and peripheral?
The two men’s presentations embodied the differences between the two institutions they represented. Crossick opened his remarks by drawing upon the Annales school differentiation between surface perturbations and structural currents of change. He tried to step aside from the immediate funding issue, in essence characterising that as one in a series of surface perturbations, and focused, as one might expect for someone from an older and internationally recognised institution upon the adaptation of the traditional model of UK liberal education to new circumstances, on international competition, and on social inclusion. Gillies, on the other hand, positioned his institution as good enough rather than globally excellent, equipping students with the skills to get jobs, being financially accessible and locally focussed. Without the backing of international reputation and tradition, he positioned his institution as one that was prepared to think more radically about its goals.
