by Tim Brown & Chris Neville Smith
For your information, here is a summary of those parts of the government's white paper on higher education which relate to postgraduate education. Following that is the policy recently passed by NPC
In short, we have:
Increased research funding for the best 5* departments;
Support for promising but low RAE rated departments;
The AHRB is to become the AHRC;
Concentration of PhD provision in research consortia with high standards of
training, with the possibility that in time only these consortia may have
research (or maybe postgraduate in general) degree awarding powers;
The national student feedback survey (for undergraduates only, however) is
going
ahead;
NUS will take the lead in publishing an accessible guide to HE;
Legislation will create an independent reviewer of student complaints (which
should, inter alia, abolish the office of Visitor of course);
ILT, LTSN and HESDA to be merged into one body covering teaching quality;
The title "university" will be awarded based on taught degree awarding
powers, student numbers and range of subjects offered, and NOT research
degree awarding powers;
Changes to university statutes will no longer require Privy Council
approval.
Here are some detailed snippets:
2.15 . . . a further RAE is not due until 2008, and we believe there is a
case for more discrimination between the best before then. In the last RAE,
55 per cent of research active staff were in departments rated 5 or 5*. We
will ask HEFCE, using the results of the latest RAE, along with
international peer review of additional material, to identify the very best
of the 5* departments which have a critical mass of researchers - a "6*" -
and will provide additional resources to give them an uplift in funding over
the next three years. At subject as well as at institutional level, it is
critical that we focus our resources on the strongest, who bring us the best
returns.
2.21 . . . we will ask HEFCE to look at how funding for departments with
lower ratings under the existing system can be related to potential to
progress further, and linked to good planning for future improvement. This
needs to go alongside the identification and funding of emerging and
potentially important areas of research in order to build capacity in
disciplines that are strategically important. We are asking HEFCE to take
the first steps in 2003.
2.23 . . . This recommentation [that the AHRB should take on the status of a
fully-fledged research council] will be put into action as the legislative
timetable allows, with the aim of achieving a fully functioning, statutory
research council by 2005.
2.26 The training of PhD students also merits close attention. The Roberts
Review looked at the need for high standards of PhD work, adequate
supervision of students and training in transferable skills. As set out in
"Investing in Innovation", we will ask HEFCE to set high minimum standards
for the training of PhD students which must be met before higher education
institutions can draw down funding for PhD places, though they could still
fund PhD places from their own resources if they wished to do so. This may
lead to larger graduate schools in fewer HEIs, as some institutions decide
not to offer PhD places, and others are in a position to play to their
strengths in PhD training by expanding their postgraduate provision. In
time, this might play into a model where postgraduate degree awarding powers
are restricted to successful research consortia.
[NB Note the apparent confusion between "postgraduate degree awarding
powers" and "research degree awarding powers" here. A slip, or not?]
4.2 To become intelligent customers of an increasingly diverse provision,
and to meet their own increasing diverse needs, students need accessible
information. We will ensure that the views of students themselves are
published in a national annual survey available for the first time in Autumn
2003, which will explicitly cover teaching quality. We also expect
institutions to make progress on their own internal systems for securing
student feedback.
[NB This is the remit of the HEFCE Student Feedback Project Steering Group,
which I sit on as the NPC's representative. It is presently proposed that
the survey cover undergraduates only.]
4.5 . . . we have agreed with the NUS that they will take the lead in
publishing a comprehensive and easily accessible guide to higher education,
that covers not only course data but other key factors such as whether the
provider is a centre of excellence, the quality of its IT provision and
other facilities, entry requirements, results and the employment record of
its graduates. We will make it available in user-friendly formats, with
clear charts and explanations to help students compare courses, and find the
best one for them.
4.12 We will, therefore, legislate for the establishment of an independent
adjudicator [to hear student complaints] in the forthcoming higher education
bill, but have asked the sector to press ahead with establishing a voluntary
independent adjudicator in the meantime. The aim is for the office of the
independent adjudicator to be in place by June 2003 and ready to receive
representations and adjudicate from September 2003.
4.25 The final report of the joint HEFCE/UUK/SCOP group, the "Teaching
Quality Enhancement Committee" . . . recommends the creation of a new
unitary body (referred to in this document as a "teaching quality academy")
. . . The new organisation that it proposes would bring together the
functions of the Institute for Learning and Teaching in HE (ILTHE), the
Learning and Teaching Support Network (LTSN) and the HE Staff Development
Agency (HESDA). Its overarching role would be to support CPD for teaching in
HE, by sponsoring and developing good practice, setting professional
standards, accrediting training, conducting research and helping develop
policy on teaching and learning. It would work closely with the emerging
sector skills council, which will be led by employers with responsibility
for skills in higher education and the wider adult learning sector across
the UK.
4.31 At present, the "university" title is reserved for institutions that
have the power to award both taught degrees and research degrees. The right
to award research degrees requires that the institution demonstrate its
strength in research. This situation is at odds with our belief that
institutions should play to diverse strengths, and that excellent teaching
is, in itself, a core mission for a university . . . It is clear that good
scholarship, in the sense of being aware of the latest research and thinking
within a subject, is essential for good teaching, but not that it is
necessary to be active in cutting-edge research to be an excellent teacher.
4.33 We propose to change the system, so that the University title is
awarded on the basis of taught degree awarding powers, student numbers and
the range of subjects offered. This will send an important signal about the
importance of teaching, and about the benefits for some institutions of
focusing their efforts on teaching well.
4.35 These changes to the criteria for degree awarding powers and University
title will be taken forward via a review which we will commission from the
QAA, consulting widely within England and with the develoved institutions,
and introducing new legislation as necessary. We expect changes to come into
force during 2004-05.
7.10 . . . the Privy council's powers to approve changes to the statutes of
universities can delay institutional changes. Provided the important Nolan
and Dearing reforms are safeguarded, we do not believe that the Privy
Council needs to approve minor changes in the way universities go about
their business. We will bring forward proposals with the Privy Council to
lift this burden.
Also, in section 5: more support for foundation degrees, which will absorb
HNCs and HNDs and will gain their own independent degree validating body,
"Foundation Degree Forward", for institutions wishing to award foundation
degrees and not engaged in a collaborative arrangement with an HEI.
And, of course, the headline proposals in section 7 on undergraduate
funding!
NPC Policy;
Research Funding
The National Postgraduate Committee notes:
1. Paragraph 2.17 proposes to concentrate research funding towards highly rated research units to achieve truly world-class collaborative research.
2. Paragraph 2.20 proposes to support emerging research with a promising future.
3. Paragraph 2.21 currently identifies that RAE does not have means at present to determine the potential of emerging research.
4. Paragraph 2.27 proposes that higher rates of pay will be available to researchers if funding is directed to higher rated research units.
5. Paragraph 2.26 acknowledges that postgraduate degree awarding powers could be restricted to successful research consortia.
The National Postgraduate Committee believes:
1. Successful research quality does not necessarily bear relation to teaching or the training and equipping of research students.
2. Research is a vital foundation to quality teaching in higher education where learning is complimented by cutting edge knowledge.
3. Improved teaching standards are necessary in research intensive institutions.
4. Postgraduates could be deprived of many opportunities without access to research.
The National Postgraduate Committee resolves:
1. To oppose an over-concentration of funding in higher-rated departments when it would be a detriment to the teaching quality of the institution.
2. To campaign for access to students interested in pursuing postgraduate research in an institution suitable to their interests.
3. [An amendment from Imperial that I don't have the text for at the moment. This part has some fairly substantial amendments made to it - the original draft ran into some scepticism from Imperial who made a case for maintaining funding in highly-rated departments.]
Training for Research Students
The National Postgraduate Committee notes:
1. Paragraph 2.26 acknowledges the need to enhance the training of PhD students as recommended by the Roberts Review.
The National Postgraduate Committee believes:
1. There is a significant lack of training for research students both during their research and skills development to use following their research.
2. An appropriate framework for training and other standards of PhD work will require the interaction of postgraduate representation.
The National Postgraduate Committee resolves:
1. To commend the suggestion to increase training provision and setting higher standards for PhD students.
2. To continue to work with the funding councils in ensuring suitable standards are agreed.
National Student Feedback Survey for Postgraduates
The National Postgraduate Committee notes:
1. Paragraphs 4.2 to 4.6 bring about a framework for ensuring quality is meeting the student s expectations.
2. The focus, however, on feedback appears to be focused towards undergraduates.
The National Postgraduate Committee believes:
1. The intake from both taught and research degree programmes provide a significantly higher rate of income to institutions.
2. An obligation is upon institutions to give suitable returns level with or even higher than that of undergraduates in exchange for the premium tuition fees.
The National Postgraduate Committee resolves:
1. To campaign for national student feedback to be extended to postgraduates.
2. To seek opportunity to create the introduction of feedback mechanisms.
Learning and Teaching
The National Postgraduate Committee notes:
1. Chapter 4 presents useful proposals to expand teaching and learning.
2. National professional teaching standards are recognised in paragraph 4.14
3. Active campaigning for postgraduates who teach has been carried out with the National Union of Students, the Association of University Teachers, the National Association for Further and Higher Education and the Educational Institute in Scotland through producing employment charters.
4. Paragraph 4.21 promotes the need to increase funding to recruit and retain academic staff.
The National Postgraduate Committee believes:
1. Improved teaching and learning standards are focused on undergraduate programmes as costs increase while a significantly higher amount of income is obtained from postgraduate education at market rates.
2. Postgraduates have an increasingly important role in teaching and should therefore have appropriate teaching standards to work by.
3. Increasing the recruitment and retention of academic staff will increase the intake of postgraduates.
The National Postgraduate Committee resolves:
1. To campaign for increased learning and teaching standards for postgraduate taught courses.
2. To campaign to include postgraduates who teach within the improved teaching standards.
3. To support the increase of funding for the recruitment and retention of academic staff.
Merger of ILTHE, LTSN and HEDSA
The National Postgraduate Committee notes:
1. Paragraph 4.25 proposes the bringing together of the Institute of Learning and Teaching (ILT), the Learning and Teaching Support Network (LTSN) and the Higher Education Staff Development Agency (HESDA) to form a new Teaching Academy.
The National Postgraduate Committee resolves:
1. To support the proposal along with the ILT in bringing together the efforts of all three organisations.
Endowment Funds
The National Postgraduate Committee notes:
1. Paragraph 7.16 promotes increased funding for higher education through endowment and is considered "he way forward"
2. Paragraph 7.17 proposes to allow charitable status such that donations to endowment are eligible for gift aid claims.
The National Postgraduate Committee believes:
1. Contributions to endowment funds should be encouraged and the opportunity should be widened.
2. Promoting endowment funds, however, as a source of funding to rely on are considered unreasonable and out of the question in light of proposals leading to increased debt.
The National Postgraduate Committee resolves:
1. To encourage endowment funds as a bonus to higher education.
2. Oppose endowment funds as an essential source of income.
The following parts were referred to the next OGM:
Knowledge Transfer
The National Postgraduate Committee notes:
1. Paragraph 3.3 proposes to create knowledge transfer in less research intensive institutions through close links with business.
2. Paragraph 3.19 has shown the merits of knowledge transfer at foundation and undergraduate level.
3. Paragraph 4.31 indicates that the title of University will not be based on the grounds of research and teaching but teaching only.
4. The white paper gives no examples, or any indication of knowledge transfer being carried out at postgraduate level.
The National Postgraduate Committee believes:
1. Access to research is essential in both taught and research degree programmes at postgraduate level.
2. Knowledge transfer intensive institutions will potentially reduce, or even remove the intake of postgraduate students.
3. Any postgraduate programmes based on knowledge transfer will lack access to research.
The National Postgraduate Committee resolves:
1. To oppose the introduction of knowledge transfer at the expense of losing research.
2. To campaign for the government to address the problems of knowledge transfer reducing the provision of postgraduate taught and research degrees.
[This was opposed by NUS and Emily Orme who supported Knowledge transfer an appropraite courses. The consensus now reached is that knowledge transfer should be supported when it is appropraite, but should not be supported as a _substitute_ for research within a HE institution.]
Removal of Privy Council
The National Postgraduate Committee notes:
1. Paragraph 7.10 proposes to remove the control of the Privy Council to approve degree-awarding powers as a means of removing bureaucracy.
The National Postgraduate Committee believes:
1. Removal of such control will have an effect on quality assurance by relaxing control of universities.
The National Postgraduate Committee resolves:
1. To oppose the proposals to remove the Privy Council.
[There wasn't such a clear consensus here. It was broadly agreed that there should be some body that keeps an eye on university statutes, but there were disagreements as to whether or not NPC should support a different body doing what the Privy Council currently does.]
There was also an amendment submitted by Emily Orme which was only referred to the next OGM because there wasn't time to type this amendment up and distribute it to everyone. (This was something I should have checked earlier - sorry, I'll try to make sure this doesn't happen again next time.) However, it was supported in principle, and the consensus reached was that for NPC to:
* Oppose the introduction of differntial top-up fees.
* Support abolition of the existing fees.
* Empahsise that accumlated debt on the current scale - even debt you don't have to pay back when on a low income - is going put off potential postgraduates.
* If tution fees are not going to be abolished, to support raising the repayment threshold to somewhere around 25K.
* To support the reintroducation of grants.
* To encourage the Government to find the money from elsewhere.
