Professor Andrew Wathey presentation to University APPG 16 November 2016

Professor Andrew Wathey 21 November 2016

Thank you for the invitation to speak.  Vice-Chancellors have had a lot to think about lately and it is a mark of just how much is going on – amid Brexit and linked issues of overseas students and migration – that the Higher Education and Research Bill might seem like a calm island of certainty in a wider sea of change.  It is, however, the first major HE Bill since 1992, and arguably more far-reaching than any since the 1960s.  The landscape around the Bill, moreover, has changed: a year ago there was limited enthusiasm in some quarters - some saw it as a Christmas Tree on which a variety of Devon Treats might be hung.  Now, I think, there is a greater acceptance of its reforms among VCs and in the wider sector: in a sharply different context, it has become a point of continuity, stabilising regulatory issues that could prove awkward in the new post-Brexit environment.  The minister’s thesis is that current regulation was designed for a wholly different world (with grants, numbers caps, etc.), and now needs to move to catch up.  A counter was that we are muddling along ok, and, as noted at the Commons Bill Committee, the Bill, if highly desirable, is not considered to be essential by some.  But there are, inevitably, risks in retaining old regulatory fabric, as Bagehot observed: ‘an ancient and ever-altering constitution is like an old man who still wears with attached fondness clothes in the fashion of his youth: what you see is the same, what you do not see is wholly altered’. 

From a VC/sector perspective, none of the big things in the Bill are opposed.  Recognising the highest teaching quality, a manifesto commitment now rendered as the TEF, provides a corrective to the balance of teaching and research that was probably long overdue.  While it is true that research assessment is what one makes it inside an institution, and even though the sector’s global standing is driven by research, having an exercise for each of the two symbiotically linked and defining pillars of a University – namely T&R – will help to reset the balance and to deal with some of the knottier behaviours.  For example: imbalances in perceived rewards for T&R; too much teaching by PhD students; staff (allegedly) pining for paradise island where there are no students, only research; etc.  It is salutary to reflect that even at the apex of the US system professors who don’t teach barely exist, and that the most distinguished aspire to teach the first-year class, knowing their junior colleagues can teach upper-level, close-to-research courses perfectly well.  As the REF generally is, the TEF in itself is likely to be a good thing (though by no means straightforward, and at best a proxy measure of excellence); and though the linkage to fees could drive complexity, the government's acknowledgement that it is developmental has helped and gives the sector something to work with. 

Success has many parents, and it was interesting to see the ST league table, which compiles data on several of the TEF ingredients, assert its claim to be a proto-TEF.  Likewise, on the regulatory and sector architecture, UUK’s 2015 report Quality, Equity and Sustainability, prefigured some of the Bill’s provisions in seeking a regime with greater emphasis on the needs of students, and support for UK HE’s world-leading reputation for excellence in teaching and research.  The Bill goes some way on that.  It provides a single point of entry into the sector through a register of higher education providers.  It embeds risk-based regulation, not one-size fits all.  It enacts a commitment to enable the fee cap to rise by inflation.  And it enables a more transparent regime on data held around the sector (and in government). 

Overall then, the thrust of this Bill seems positive, and its motivations judicious, expert and progressive.  The minister’s own personal commitment, and predisposition to listen, have been widely appreciated in the sector, as has the work of his Bill team and policy officials.  And the publication on Monday this week of new amendments on some key areas of concern is especially welcome – particularly in revising the powers of the SoS to frame guidance, directions and terms and conditions of grant by reference to specific courses (one of the most contentious areas of the Bill, owing to concerns about its negative impact on academic freedom and institutional autonomy).  But there also remain points where the concern is that the words of the Bill do not (yet) match the more nuanced intent of the Government, as expressed in numerous very positive engagements, and could enable a less benign or intelligent future regime to cause damage to universities, advertently or inadvertently.  Fundamentally, this comes down to concerns over autonomy, and the risks this poses to the dynamism and responsiveness of the sector. So where, then, are the remaining worries?

To continue reading please open the PDF below.