Everyone seems to agree we need greater variety in higher education – world-class research universities, regional universities focusing more on teaching, specialist institutions and, even, some private providers of professional training without too many academic frills. The buzzword is differentiation. The implied criticism is that what we have instead is a one-size-fits-all approach.
But the evidence is rather thin. Most universities have their own distinctive missions and priorities, whether it’s performing wonderfully in the Research Excellence Framework, reaching out to more diverse student constituencies, or feeding the future workforce. No one imagines Cambridge and Coventry universities are trying to do the same thing. Also, universities are now so big that they are often highly differentiated internally. Top research departments coexist with enterprise units. Business schools live alongside history departments.
Maybe, though, there is just about enough evidence to sustain the one-size-fits-all charge. Most universities are trying to do most things, although to very different degrees. Cambridge cares about widening participation (up to a point), while Coventry doesn’t write itself out of the research game. More specialist institutions, meanwhile, struggle in a funding and regulatory environment clearly designed for large multi-faculty universities.
So maybe we do need to increase differentiation – or at least not strengthen the convergent and homogenising forces at work – not just because of standard funding and fee regimes and quality frameworks but also the shared values of the academic profession. But how?
Sadly, the worst possible way is the one that enjoys the most political support: creating a “market” among colleges and universities. A walk along any high street or shopping mall demonstrates how markets create uniform landscapes – and these are (fairly) genuine markets, unlike the top-down politically rigged “markets” that are the best we can hope for in higher education.
League tables are the most blatant manifestation of these faux “markets”, distorting the behaviour of universities and individuals and judging all universities on the same criteria. The now ubiquitous “brands” of universities use the same language (excellence, opportunity and the rest) and the same images (smiling, attractive students on sun-drenched campuses). Vive la différence is not much in evidence.
The most effective way to produce differentiation is for the state to take an active role. This is what happened when the former distinction between universities and polytechnics was introduced, only to be abandoned 25 years ago. This is how the great American state systems were created through master plans that distinguished between research universities, regional institutions and community colleges.
Of course, that approach is no longer possible. The state, in the misguided neoliberal ideology that goes unchallenged almost everywhere, is now defined as the problem, not the solution. Indeed, its intervention may no longer be desirable because a politically mandated classification of institutions is too rigid to capture the complexity of differentiation, or to enable institutions to adapt their missions to changing circumstances.
So we need to find a middle way that does not rely on the brute force of the state, or the siren calls of the “market”. The key can be summed up in a single word: solidarity. Instead of the Russell Group trying to define itself as a standalone Premier League, and therefore being tempted to behave in a similarly selfish way, the great universities it’s comprised of should see themselves as leaders of the wider higher education system.
Instead of universities with serious research ambitions jockeying for spurious advantage, research networks need to be built so that excellent researchers in teaching-focused institutions can realise their potential, to everyone’s advantage.
Outreach, or enterprise, networks should be built so that all universities can play to their strengths, within shared collaborative frameworks. Surely in the approaching age of Moocs (massive open online courses) we should be able to share our courses, rather than pretending they are “products” in pursuit of competitive advantage.
This may sound utopian. But higher education has deeply felt collegiate values and is powered by altruism – note the poorly paid external examiners and unpaid peer reviewers. Most disciplines are real communities of scholars and teachers who only indulge in modest rivalry, for all the baleful effects of performance targets and silly rankings.
This third way would not be a soft option or an escape from tough decisions. In fact, building networks and partnerships would make us think more creatively about the essence of institutions and encourage novel reconfigurations and new forms – joint ventures, even revived federations – in ways that are impossible in a world of all-against-all corporate universities. In short, this third way would stimulate the differentiation desired by so many.
Peter Scott is professor of higher education studies at UCL Institute of Education