New College of the Humanities

Some facts about AC Grayling’s shabby initiative, as presented to the Emergency Public Meeting held at UCL on Monday 6^th June:

New College of the Humanities Limited is a company limited by share set up by Grayling and an ‘investment manager’, Peter Hall last year as Grayling Hall Ltd (Company # 731 7195).  Hence, it is potentially profit-making for its shareholders – Grayling, the CEO and Directors and some of its professoriate who have taken an equity stake in the company.  Its business plan is not public, but the £18 000 fee will cover not only its initial startup costs but, at some point in the future, provide a return to its owners.

New College of the Humanities Limited is not a university or a ‘university college’ – these are protected titles. It does not have degree awarding powers and will be teaching towards the University of London External Programme.   As yet, it has reached no formal agreements with UoL or its colleges over use of facilities. 

“NCH is not, and will not be, a part of the University of London.”

The one-to-one tutorials will be covered by junior academic staff, not the professoriate some of whom will give only one talk per year. 

Its advertised courses and course content has been lifted from other sources. Here is an account from Gabriel Egan who spotted his own handiwork.

A separate charity, New College of the Humanities Trust, (Registered Charity Number: 1141608), will oversee the studentship programme which aims to support 20% of places (fees only, not maintenance unless you win a prize!) and fundraise accordingly.  

As such, New College of the Humanities is an overpriced, for-profit crammer with no facilities, not even premises.  It represents a crude, carpetbagging approach to the proposed transformation of the HE terrain from a bunch of media-glazed amateurs – much more sophisticated approaches will be developed after the promised White Paper (delayed again until early July). Crucially, NCH has misunderstood the intentions of the current government who would rather see such ‘new providers’ undercut established higher education in England.