An article from last summer published by Afterall on the threatened closure of Philosophy at Middlesex and the transfer of the Centre for Research in Modern European Philosophy to Kingston University.
http://www.afterall.org/online/the-matter-at-middlesex
Gains further relevance today as it speculates that the closure of Philosophy was not managerial incompetence but tied to the strategic focus on the expansion of Middlesex’s overseas campuses (Mauritius, Dubai and coming soon … Delhi).
The parliamentary vote on Thursday relates only to the raising of the current cap on tuition fees to £9 000 per year. It is being done with minimal consultation and little time for proper debate.
We have still had no clear proposals relating to two key aspects of Lord Browne’s review – the number of students who will be eligible for the new Student Finance system and the information that would need to be provided to create applicants who are informed consumers. Both of which were meant to be key to assessing the fairness of higher fees.
Where Browne’s review indicates that all universities would be required to publish data on student satisfaction, employability, contact hours, etc., Willetts has pointedly only made reference to these requirements with respect to institutions that would charge over £6 000 per year (or are in receipt of central funding for priority subjects).
In the draft guidance on access published today (8 December 2010), OFFA appears to have been granted no new powers or sanctions. What is asked of those seeking to charge more than £6 000 is what is currently required of all institutions charging ‘top up’ fees. The message seems to be that those institutions charging under £6 000 for arts, humanities and social sciences degrees will be relieved of the burden of widening participation, and, more generally, subject to a light touch regulatory framework somewhat analogous to the independent status currently adopted by the University of Buckingham. Where Browne appeared to propose the regulation of the entire higher education sector, the government’s proposals have rejected that vision.
In conjunction with Willett’s vague, but repeated, references to ‘new providers’ entering the sector, things appear under a different perspective. Competition will be brought into the arts and humanities by allowing new providers to undercut the established provision. Willetts apparently has “a stream of new providers who believe that there is potential to offer an alternative. I believe that the challenge for universities is to look very carefully at their costs, not simply assume [they can] take today’s costs and put them into the new world.”
Who does Willetts have up his sleeves? Read more…
Back in December, before the parliamentary votes on raising the tuition fee cap, we were constantly encouraged by members of the coalition government to study the proposals for financing higher education. The difficulty facing anyone considering this advice was, and is, that no draft legislation has yet been put before the public which would allow the proposed scheme to be considered in its entirety.
February saw the drip of additional information (Guidelines to the Office for Fair Access – Offa, further information on the National Scholarship Programme and the Student Charters, David Willetts’s speech to Universities UK). It is now clear that the majority of the Browne review has been rejected. David Eastman, a panel member, expressed his exasperation in a recent Times Higher Education article and put his finger on two issues where we still do not know what David Willetts and co are proposing:
- Whether they intend to remove the recruitment caps placed by HEFCE on universities. The Browne review championed student choice and was premised upon removing this state control on ‘supply’ thereby allowing a ‘free market’ in which popular universities could expand to meet demand.
- Which students will be allowed to access the loan scheme and thus determine the size of the government’s outlay.
These points are obviously connected. Read more…

