tag:theconversation.com,2011:/global/topics/quality-of-higher-education-10874/articlesQuality of higher education – The Conversation2015-07-08T11:08:27Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/442502015-07-08T11:08:27Z2015-07-08T11:08:27ZAre Oxbridge tutorials still the best way to teach students how to think?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/87624/original/image-20150707-1302-m97hm5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">On the way to challenge some student thinking. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/arne-halvorsen/10015319016/sizes/l">aha42 | tehaha/www.flickr.com</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Special government funding given to Oxford and Cambridge to help pay for the universities’ undergraduate tutorial teaching system is <a href="https://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/oxbridge-to-be-stripped-of-special-funding-feeding-the-tutorial-system">coming</a> to an end. Oxford will lose £4.2m and Cambridge £2.7m “institution-specific” funding from the Higher Education Funding Council, which is also used to help fund the universities’ undergraduate interview process. </p>
<p>A total of <a href="http://www.hefce.ac.uk/lt/howfund/institution/">25 higher education institutions</a> have traditionally received the special funding. After a recent review, the <a href="http://www.hefce.ac.uk/media/HEFCE,2014/Content/Pubs/2015/201510/HEFCE2015_10.pdf">rules have changed </a> so that only institutions where 60% of their activity comes from one <a href="https://www.hesa.ac.uk/content/view/102/143/1/2/">student cost centre</a> – a subject area such as art and design or clinical medicine – are eligible. This has ruled out less subject-specific institutions such as Oxford and Cambridge. The remaining eligible institutions, which still includes the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and the Royal Academy of Music, <a href="http://www.hefce.ac.uk/media/HEFCE,2014/Content/Pubs/2015/201510/HEFCE2015_10.pdf">will be able to</a> to apply for the funding. </p>
<p>The cut will come as no surprise to either Oxford or Cambridge. The subsidy has been threatened before, <a href="https://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/queries-over-special-funding-for-oxbridge/420748.article">amid calls for more transparency</a> over its use. But it looks unlikely that this will spell the end of the Oxbridge tutorial. </p>
<p>Despite the financial burden this teaching system places on colleges, the tutorial (or supervision, as it is known in Cambridge) system is deeply embedded in both universities’ intellectual psyche. Oxford’s <a href="http://www.ox.ac.uk/about/organisation/strategic-plan">current strategic plan</a> describes it as a “cornerstone” of its undergraduate education. </p>
<p>Key to the tutorial’s resilience is its adaptability. The only constant is the presence of a few people in a room for an hour, with a tutor leading a conversation, and usually giving feedback on the written work (anything from essays to maths problems) that students have prepared beforehand. Beyond that, the permutations are endless. </p>
<h2>Stimulating debate</h2>
<p>Over the course of an eight-week term, Oxbridge students are likely to have between 12 and 16 tutorials, spending an average of 13 to 15 hours preparing for each. Their individual reading, thinking and writing is where much of the learning is meant to take place. Along the way, students gain academic self confidence and the ability to organise their ideas. The tutorial’s history and changing purpose is usefully reviewed by contributors to a 2008 collection, <a href="http://oxcheps.new.ox.ac.uk/Publications/Resources/OxCHEPS_OP1_08.pdf">Thanks you taught me how to think</a>, edited by the bursar of New College Oxford, David Palfreyman. Most of the authors reflect on their own experiences of tutorial teaching to defend its role in fostering critical and independent analysis. </p>
<p>Research by <a href="http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/27328/1/Variation_in_students'_experiences_of_tutorials.pdf">Paul Ashwin</a> at Oxford has highlighted that in the best tutorials, knowledge is seen as contested. Topics are opened up for debate, tutors admit to gaps in their own knowledge, and students are treated as academic equals. But Ashwin’s interviews also highlight that many students, fresh from the prescriptive approaches and high-stakes testing of secondary education, are uncertain about their role. Some felt the purpose of the tutorial was to clarify misunderstandings, while others felt it was to gain new knowledge. By the same token, tutors are also increasingly uncertain about the academic skills to expect of their students.</p>
<p>His findings show that the best tutorials remain demanding, stimulating and thought-provoking, for student and tutor alike. The weekly discussions feed into the learning that takes place for the next essay, and the tutorial becomes one link in a chain of learning, dialogue, feedback and academic development. </p>
<h2>Not for everyone</h2>
<p>For all these strengths, the tutorial system does have its weaknesses. Some feel that its highly accelerated timescale (can you really read and digest three or four books in a week?) places unrealistic expectations on the students and is detrimental to the quality of the finished product. Even in the 1960s, the <a href="http://www.oua.ox.ac.uk/enquiries/congandconvsix.html">Oxford University Franks Commission</a> worried that the tutorial was being both misused (to convey more information than was necessary) and overused (to improve exam results). </p>
<p>Critics <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13562510020029590#.VZzpGrcb4TU">such as Lewis Elton</a>, writing in 2001, have argued that Oxford tutorials continue to be a didactic and teacher-centred experience. The Oxford University Students’ Union has highlighted a risk that tutorials <a href="http://oxfordstudent.com/2012/11/29/blagging-vs-thinking/">foster a culture of “blagging”</a>. Social class, gender and educational background all impact on a student’s academic confidence. Not everyone has the independence to relish the “sink-or-swim” tutorial environment. Increasingly, the colleges are responding by providing study skills advice for students. </p>
<p>The tutorial has other downsides. The commitment to employing a large fellowship to provide this model of teaching places a significant financial commitment on colleges. While the precise costs are <a href="http://oxcheps.new.ox.ac.uk/MainSite%20pages/Resources/OxCHEPS_OP13.pdf">politically sensitive</a> and hard to calculate, the richer colleges can rely on their endowment incomes, while the poorer colleges are much more vulnerable. One <a href="http://oxcheps.new.ox.ac.uk/MainSite%20pages/Resources/OxCHEPS_OP13.pdf">analysis</a> at Oxford put the annual cost of running tutorials for an undergraduate’s education at just over £4,000 a year. </p>
<p>Tutorials also make heavy demands on the time of established academics, many of whom are juggling a range of research responsibilities. Some pass on their tutorial responsibilities to doctoral students and postdoctoral researchers, many of whom are keen to get mentored teaching experience. But their abilities vary, and assuring the quality of provision is tricky. And no matter who is teaching, it is difficult for students to raise concerns anonymously. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/87626/original/image-20150707-1291-1qfa0cw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/87626/original/image-20150707-1291-1qfa0cw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87626/original/image-20150707-1291-1qfa0cw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87626/original/image-20150707-1291-1qfa0cw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87626/original/image-20150707-1291-1qfa0cw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87626/original/image-20150707-1291-1qfa0cw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87626/original/image-20150707-1291-1qfa0cw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Prepared for the real world?</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">PoohFotoz / Shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Recently, Jonathan Black, the head of Oxford’s careers service <a href="http://www.cherwell.org/news/uk/2015/04/08/head-of-oxford-careers-service-defends-tutorial-comments">admitted</a> that the tutorial was not always the best way to nurture the team-working skills demanded by employers. Recognising this, some tutors experiment with a mixture of different group sizes and small group teaching techniques.</p>
<p>Despite these challenges, the <a href="https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/resources/Small_group_teaching_1.pdf">tutorial continues to evolve</a>. New generations of tutors introduce fresh ideas, creative approaches and new technologies. They bring to the table a more nuanced understanding of the academic challenges that face students when they leave secondary school. Some mix one-on-on tutorials with larger classes, or individual essays with group-projects. Others incorporate social media and other online resources. If the strength of the tutorial is its adaptability, reports of its likely demise are greatly exaggerated.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/44250/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Oxford and Cambridge are to lose special funding for their undergraduate tutorial teaching system.David Mills, Lecturer in Pedagogy and the Social Sciences, University of OxfordPatrick Alexander, Senior Lecturer (Education) Oxford Brookes University; College Lecturer in Social Anthropology, St. Hugh's College, University of OxfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/416492015-05-12T13:24:52Z2015-05-12T13:24:52ZThe battles ahead for Nicky Morgan and Jo Johnson’s Tory education reforms<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81394/original/image-20150512-22571-1fz46bq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=1%2C0%2C1022%2C533&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Back to school for Nicky Morgan. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/number10gov/15356754893/sizes/l">The Prime Minister's Office/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>At the <a href="http://www.naht.org.uk/">annual conference of headteachers</a> just days before the general election, the buzz was clear: Nicky Morgan was making her first appearance at the event as secretary of state for education, and it could be her last.</p>
<p>Now the wholly unexpected Conservative majority, <a href="https://www.tes.co.uk/news/school-news/breaking-news/nicky-morgan-confirmed-education-secretary">and her subsequent swift reappointment</a>, instead send a clear signal that Morgan is trusted in the brief and has the opportunity to implement the <a href="https://theconversation.com/manifesto-check-conservatives-hold-the-course-with-schools-plan-40192">manifesto policies</a> for which her party has gained a mandate.</p>
<p>Morgan is well-suited to the task. Having had a chance to find her feet, she has been a more congenial education secretary to many in the profession than her predecessor Michael Gove, notwithstanding the predictable lament from <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/teachers-speak-out-over-nicky-morgans-reappointment-as-education-secretary-10239170.html">elements of the Twittersphere</a>. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"597152901056884736"}"></div></p>
<p>Morgan has, according to union leaders, at least to some extent drawn out the sting associated with Gove’s fast-paced reforms while still engaging with the profession in a substantive way. That she intends to continue in similar vein was reflected in her initial comments on her reappointment: “<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-32697243">it’s about listening</a>”</p>
<p>As Steve Besley, head of policy at education company Pearson, has shown, one major challenge facing Morgan will be <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=xwm4BgAAQBAJ&pg=PA129&lpg=PA129&dq=Steve+Besley+Gove+Legacy&source=bl&ots=g6yeoLlCm9&sig=ZvwGOkw77jrEPpSOh9Yn8TFK6Q8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=gcFRVYqoOMPeUciIgJAM&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Steve%20Besley%20Gove%20Legacy&f=false">vocational education and skills policy</a>. Gove made under-appreciated strides in this area, notably enacting the recommendations of the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/180504/DFE-00031-2011.pdf">2011 Wolf Report</a>. </p>
<p>Yet in Besley’s words, the “woeful state of careers advice” has not been appropriately addressed, there remains a “lack of a coherent transition route from school to work or further training” and there is a “lack of support, guidance and opportunities for the most vulnerable”. These are knotty problems which will require significant political investment for Morgan to make headway on – not least with the different categories of institution operating to educate 14 to 19-year-olds. </p>
<h2>Tight belts for schools</h2>
<p>Another huge challenge will simply be money. Gove – along with colleagues across government – <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN01078.pdf">did well to keep education spending at around £90 billion</a>. As the UCL Institute of Education <a href="https://theconversation.com/conservative-victory-means-englands-school-system-will-look-like-few-others-in-the-world-41553">director Chris Husbands has noted</a>, the Conservatives did not opt to guarantee spending for further education and there will be continuing pressure in relation to salaries. </p>
<p>Staffing also remains an issue. The introduction of the School Direct route into teaching and the continuing focus on schools-based initial teacher education did not in itself trigger a recruitment crisis, but “exacerbated” it, in the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2015/jan/19/school-direct-is-choking-university-teacher-training-courses">words of former head of Ofsted, David Bell</a>. Morgan will remain at the forefront of a battle to make the profession more attractive to graduates.</p>
<p>There will also be the question of the Department for Education’s (DfE) relationship with <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/11485893/Government-backs-plans-for-College-of-Teaching.html">the new College of Teaching</a>. This initiative is intended to raise the status of the profession by giving it a self-governing apparatus which will allow it to “professionalise itself”. </p>
<p>However, some of the pre-election rhetoric emerging from the DfE implied that the college on its own might be enough by itself to raise the status of the teaching profession. The profession <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-teachers-should-be-sceptical-of-a-new-college-of-teaching-35280">remains unconvinced</a> and Morgan has work to do to convince teachers that she is both willing and able to invest political capital in addressing their needs. Particularly at a time when the squeeze, both financially and in terms of personnel, has seldom been tighter.</p>
<h2>Jo Johnson new universities minister</h2>
<p>Within higher education, turbulent years lie ahead. <a href="http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/jo-johnson-is-new-minister-covering-higher-education/2020168.article">Jo Johnson, newly-appointed as minister for universities and science</a>, and brother of London mayor Boris, has the credibility within and outside of government to be a success in the post. However, he will have to deal with a sector which already feels bruised after the 2010-2015 coalition.</p>
<p>The government retains high ambitions for higher education (“world-leading” is a phrase that persists in its literature), but its manifesto contained contradictory policies on <a href="https://theconversation.com/manifesto-check-conservatives-talk-tough-but-bring-nothing-new-on-immigration-40336">Europe</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/manifesto-check-conservatives-talk-tough-but-bring-nothing-new-on-immigration-40336">immigration</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-does-the-next-government-hold-for-higher-education-40588">higher education</a>. Johnson will be forced to reconcile these, or steer the choice between them. Given that he has written about the virtues of foreign students and their significance to UK higher education <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cdec9fa0-9d1b-11e1-aa39-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3Zua9kNNB">in his past life at the Financial Times</a>, it will be interesting to see how he addresses the ongoing issue of student visas, especially since the manifesto also announced a clampdown on universities elsewhere in the UK opening new campuses in London.</p>
<h2>Teaching REF will raise hackles</h2>
<p>The commitment to <a href="https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/manifesto2015/ConservativeManifesto2015.pdf">a formal mechanism for assessing teaching quality between institutions</a> – in parallel to the <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/research-excellence-framework">Research Excellence Framework</a> for research quality – is likely to generate significant resistance. This is primarily due to the existence of the annual National Student Survey which already drives teaching quality assessment in many, if not most, institutions. </p>
<p>Academic staff are now routinely appraised on teaching quality, and subjected to regular questionnaires and focus group feedback to senior management from students. Capability procedures on issues of performance are also increasingly favoured across the sector. So the idea of a teaching REF in addition to the existing one will likely be met with fury – and will pose a challenge not just to the minister but to the lecturers’ own union, UCU. </p>
<p>The new government’s policy in higher education represents the continuing purchase of “marketisation”. <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=JedKE9adlrIC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false">As my colleague Roger Brown notes</a>, this has ensured that even as the state has nominally-withdrawn it has gained yet more power over the priorities of the sector through “steering” mechanisms. </p>
<p>The privatisation of the Quality Assurance Agency, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-29521363">slated for 2017, will now go ahead</a>, and it may be that its successor is rather more like Ofsted. The Social Market Foundation, a right-leaning think-tank <a href="http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/comment/opinion/degree-standards-time-to-call-time-on-the-monopolists/2017652.article">has also called for universities to be subject to exam boards</a>. If, as Husbands claims, the Cameron years will leave Britain with a school system unlike many others in the world, this will be still more true of higher education. </p>
<h2>Tuition fee question still looms</h2>
<p>The biggest question remains: will a Conservative government allow fees to rise above £9,000, a natural evolution of marketisation in this area? Under pressure from vice-chancellors, <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/student/news/tuition-fees-could-rise-past-9000-under-new-government-plans-9636322.html">it’s likely that such plans will remain under consideration</a>. What the journalist Andrew McGettigan calls <a href="http://www.plutobooks.com/display.asp?K=9780745332932">the “great university gamble”</a> seems set to continue.</p>
<p>Across education, the coalition achieved a great deal in purely policy terms, though opinion differs on its legacy. The Conservatives’ majority now offers them the opportunity to pursue their ambitions further in the sector – but ministers will need to build bridges with both the schools and higher education sectors if they are to achieve their aims in the new parliament.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/41649/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mike Finn is a member of the Labour Party, the Co-Operative Party and the University and Colleges Union.</span></em></p>From a College of Teaching to vocational education, international students and whether to raise tuition fees, there is a lot in the ministers’ inboxes.Mike Finn, Director of Centre for Education Policy Analysis, Liverpool Hope UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/302332014-09-11T05:11:37Z2014-09-11T05:11:37ZWho benefits from huge federal subsidies to US for-profit colleges?<p>A number of high-profile cases have put for-profit higher education in the US under the spotlight in recent months. In July, Corinithian Colleges, one of the largest for-profit providers in the country, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/jul/28/corinthian-colleges-for-profit-education-debt-investigation">agreed to sell 85 of its campuses and close another 12</a> after a number of investigations into its finances and marketing. </p>
<p>This followed a case brought by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s <a href="http://www.consumerfinance.gov/newsroom/cfpb-sues-for-profit-college-chain-itt-for-predatory-lending/">against ITT Educational Services</a>, accusing it of predatory student lending. Each institution has over 70,000 students and annually receives over US$1 billion in federal financial aid. </p>
<p>Public policy debates surrounding for-profit higher education are less about whether it can actually be profitable – <a href="http://www.wcvb.com/money/forprofit-education-stocks-on-fire/27922708">because many providers are doing well</a> – than about who profits. But what is forfeited when the higher education system subsidises these for-profit colleges, also known as proprietary institutions?</p>
<h2>40 years of expansion</h2>
<p>For-profit higher education has dramatically expanded in the last 40 years in the US. Between 1970 and 2009, enrollment in for-profit, degree-granting institutions <a href="http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/lkatz/files/dgk.pdf">grew by more</a> than 100-fold to 1.85m students, nearly 10% of all enrollments. This was compared to a 2.4-fold increase in not-for-profit higher education. From 2000 to 2009, degree and non-degree-granting enrollments tripled in the for-profit higher education sector, versus a 22% increase in not-for-profit higher education. </p>
<p>Before President Barack Obama’s election, for-profit higher education received bi-partisan federal support, evident in the continuation of rules that underwrite a business model dependent on federal subsidy. </p>
<p>Under the 90/10 rule, introduced in 1992, for-profit institutions cannot receive more than 90% of their revenues from federal student financial aid – that does not include federal aid for veterans’ benefits. But <a href="http://capseecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/ForProfit_Nimble-Critters_Feb-2012.pdf">many of the largest for-profit</a> providers such as the University of Phoenix, Kaplan, receive over 80%. The sector as a whole receives 73.7% of its revenues from this source. These “for-profits” really are “for (federal) subsidy” institutions.</p>
<h2>Higher debt and lower results</h2>
<p>All this has come amid reduced public funding for public higher education and widening gaps between escalating tuition and limited grant aid that has contributed to massive student debt (over 1$ trillion) and default. In this context, is near-full federal subsidy of for-profits a prudent use of public monies? </p>
<p>Students in two and four-year proprietary institutions are <a href="http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2013/2013165.pdf">far more likely</a> than those at public two and four-year non-doctorate and doctorate-granting institutions to take out student loans, and more likely to accrue higher debt. </p>
<p>Completion rates for BAs are <a href="http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/lkatz/files/dgk.pdf">much lower</a> in four-year for-profits than public universities, as are levels of satisfaction with academic programmes. </p>
<p>Employment outcomes are poorer. And, controlling for individuals’ characteristics, students at for-profit two-year and four-year colleges are 26% and 16% <a href="http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/review_of_higher_education/v037/37.2.hillman.html">more likely to default</a> than those going four-year public colleges. </p>
<p>Such economic and educational outcomes are even more problematic given that proprietary institutions enroll <a href="http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/lkatz/files/dgk.pdf">disproportionately high numbers</a> of low-income and minority students. There is a substitution effect – at the public purse’s expense. For-profit institutions have <a href="http://www.ihep.org/assets/files/publications/m-r/Portraits-Low-Income_Young_Adults_Attendance_Brief_FINAL_June_2011.pdf">increased their share</a> of poor students, from 13% in 2000 to 19% in 2008, as the proportion of such students in public four-year institutions decreased, from 20% to 15%.</p>
<h2>Tightening of controls</h2>
<p>To be sure, there is great diversity in the for-profit higher education sector. Yet, almost all the growth is in for-profit chains such as the University of Phoenix and Laureate International Universities that operate across many states or even countries, with most enrollment online. </p>
<p>The focus of recent government actions and proposed regulations relate not just to the sector as a whole, but also to some of its biggest for-profit chains. One of the Obama administration’s initiatives is an effort to <a href="http://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/2012/gainfulemployment.html">promulgate a “gainful employment” regulation</a>, denying federal financial aid to for-profit institutions (and not-for-profits’ vocational programmes) that have high default rates or average graduate employment insufficient to repay student loan debt. </p>
<p>That stems from the existing data on debt and default and from concerns about institutions’ fraudulent reporting, marketing, and recruiting.</p>
<p>The initiative is an executive action by Obama, so doesn’t need to pass through congress. The Department of Education is now preparing to implement the regulations after receiving comments from across the sector. </p>
<h2>Impact on the public HE sector</h2>
<p>More than such abuses, and the direct costs of publicly subsidising proprietary higher education, there are indirect costs and effects too. For-profit institutions not only take monies out of a financially strapped public sector, they also drive public universities towards privatising practices of <a href="http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Academic_Capitalism.html?id=A-7bFoyY8wcC">“academic capitalism”</a>. These <a href="http://www.aft.org/pdfs/highered/academic/june04/Rhoades.qxp.pdf">include</a> escalating tuition, spending relatively more on marketing, recruitment, management, and (often failed) revenue-generating initiatives, and less money on instruction.</p>
<p>So who profits, even if some for-profits fail? Private shareholders, not public stakeholders. That profit is extracted at the expense of the public purse, and particularly of the least advantaged populations. </p>
<p>Perhaps most destructive, though, is a privatised system’s forfeiture of responsibility and commitment to the broader public interest over the interests of the would-be private firm. That pattern is now too often heard and seen in the discourse and practices of managers at public universities too. </p>
<hr>
<p><em>This article is part of series on for-profit education. Read the other <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/for-profit-education">articles in the series here</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/30233/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gary Rhoades does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A number of high-profile cases have put for-profit higher education in the US under the spotlight in recent months. In July, Corinithian Colleges, one of the largest for-profit providers in the country…Gary Rhoades, Head, Department of Educational Policy Studies & Practice, and Professor and Director, Center for the Study of Higher Education, University of ArizonaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/308252014-08-25T20:48:01Z2014-08-25T20:48:01ZIn higher education quality is in the eye of the beholder<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/57150/original/sshjrqz5-1408683321.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">What the government sees as a quality university isn't necessarily the same as what students see. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/simonjtp/14083981886">University of Nottingham. Flickr/Simon Paterson</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In his <a href="http://www.pyneonline.com.au/media/speeches-media/national-press-club-address-spreading-opportunity-and-staying-competitive">National Press Club address</a>, Christopher Pyne argued that higher education deregulation will “transform opportunities for Australians, particularly young Australians to get the quality higher education in Australia that they deserve” and enable Australia to “create some of the best universities in the world and the best higher education system in the world”. The problem is that the government’s version of quality <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0260293930180102#.U_Z0xfmSx8E">is not necessarily the same quality</a> that potential students, their families and academia may have in mind.</p>
<h2>Competition won’t lead to quality teaching</h2>
<p>Pyne suggests that by increasing competition in the higher education sector, domestic students will have access to quality teaching and learning. This will come about as a result of institutions vying to attract prospective students and the availability of “information about the quality of courses and institutions”. In this model, <a href="http://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/people/marginson_docs/JEP_2013.pdf">students act as consumers of education</a>, making objective decisions about their consumption in line with the principles of competition. </p>
<p>Positioning student demand as the driver of teaching quality, however, is problematic. Prioritising students’ conception of “quality” is likely to motivate higher education institutions to keep students happy rather than educate them. As students have an interest in <a href="http://www.untag-smd.ac.id/files/Perpustakaan_Digital_2/NEOLIBERALISM%20Global%20neoliberalism%20and%20education%20and%20its%20consequences.pdf">more than just the academic quality</a> of a course – the credentials a course offers and potential employment opportunities the course will make available will also be relevant – there is a risk that educational quality will actually be undermined. </p>
<p>More importantly, placing the student in the role of consumer sends dangerous messages to prospective students about the nature of education. </p>
<p>In the market-based model a student-consumer can simply buy an education. If things go wrong or the student ends up lacking the promised knowledge and skills, it is the seller’s fault in that the product is deficient. Education, however, is not a one-way delivery system in this sense; in order to learn, students must engage with what is being taught, learn to analyse and challenge ideas. Encouraging students to view themselves as consumers, in the same way that they are consumers of other goods or services, risks encouraging them to disengage from the learning process.</p>
<p>Further, in the market model, higher education institutions are driven to maximise resources rather than ensure the integrity of the educational services they offer. As a result, institutions are likely to focus on the provision of <a href="http://geoggingclub.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/2002-giroux-neoliberalism-corporate-culture-and-the-promise-of-higher-education.pdf">economically relevant knowledge</a> and skills at the cost of less commodifiable education that may, nevertheless, have other societal benefits.</p>
<h2>Research quality won’t keep international students enrolled</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.pyneonline.com.au/media/speeches-media/national-press-club-address-spreading-opportunity-and-staying-competitive">Pyne argues</a> that a market-based approach to higher education, in which higher education institutions are able to make their own “informed choices”, in particular in relation to “what fees they charge”, will improve Australian higher education institution rankings. Higher rankings will entice international students to study in Australia, bringing with them increased revenue for higher education institutions. The result should be improved quality and increased revenue in the sector.</p>
<p>Rankings, however, are largely based on <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-rankings-dont-tell-you-about-university-excellence-18704">research, not teaching</a>. In order to improve in rankings, institutions need to fund their research. The most likely source of funding in the market model is student tuition fees, which will likely be inflated as a result of perceived institutional “prestige”.</p>
<p>In other words, “quality” higher education institutions may be excellent at research, but because they need to devote their resources to research they are unlikely to dedicate resources towards innovation in teaching. International students may be attracted to rankings, but they are unlikely to stay enrolled at an institution where the teaching is not also “quality”. </p>
<h2>A better alternative?</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.pyneonline.com.au/media/speeches-media/national-press-club-address-spreading-opportunity-and-staying-competitive">Pyne asserts</a> that “Australia’s current higher education and research system is unsustainable” and he has a point. Increasing demand for higher education does pose an issue in terms of financing the higher education sector.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, rather than introducing a market model, which is generally unsupported by research, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/24/christopher-pyne-no-university-reform-could-mean-research-funding-cuts">or threatening to cut research funding</a> if the reforms are not introduced, alternatives should be considered. The market model is unlikely to produce real academic quality, but that doesn’t mean that we should stop looking for a model that will.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/30825/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jane O'Callaghan Kotzmann works for Deakin University.</span></em></p>In his National Press Club address, Christopher Pyne argued that higher education deregulation will “transform opportunities for Australians, particularly young Australians to get the quality higher education…Jane Kotzmann, Associate Lecturer in Law, Deakin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/287802014-07-07T10:25:20Z2014-07-07T10:25:20ZTick-box surveys aren’t the only way to measure student satisfaction<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/53049/original/jgp63gyf-1404469759.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Happy at the end - but what about on the way through?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/51975360@N02/5966591793/sizes/l">pigeonpie</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>It’s come as a surprise to many in higher education: students are increasingly satisfied with their experience of English university. A <a href="http://www.hefce.ac.uk/news/newsarchive/2014/news87666.html">new report</a> published by the Higher Education Funding Council for England has analysed data collected from 2m students over the last nine years for the National Student Survey (NSS). </p>
<p>Overall, students are 5% more satisfied than they were a decade ago – with most improvements coming in the amount of academic support, assessment and feedback and university organisation. The survey also broke down the groups that have been the most and least satisfied: black African students were more satisfied overall than white students. But black Carribean students were less so.</p>
<p>When it comes to subject, those studying to be vets are some of the most satisfied, compared to students of mass communication, who are the least satisfied.</p>
<p>The findings are surprising in the context of two contradictory but common perceptions. First, they fly in the face of much anecdotal evidence I’ve heard that indicates students are less satisfied as a direct consequence of having to pay £9,000 a year fees for their studies. Second, and again anecdotally, some staff working in higher education think university managers use poor results in the NSS to browbeat their staff. What it suggests to me is that a different approach to gathering student feedback is necessary.</p>
<h2>No longer ignored</h2>
<p>It seems clear that the NSS has forced institutions to take student feedback about their experience seriously. Many of us can recall the days when students’ opinions were held to be of little consequence. Often, students were seen as a barrier to getting on with proper work, rather than people to be consulted. Today, the student voice through feedback surveys is regarded with a greater degree of attention.</p>
<p>By the 1980s, feedback from students was being collected assiduously on every aspect of their experience. But nothing was being done with it – perhaps because it was not seen as important. Only a few institutions, such as the <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13538320308164?journalCode=cqhe20#.U7aoXNFOVwE">University of Central England</a>, had clear and effective processes where student feedback, collected annually, informed improvements to the institutional environment.</p>
<p>The NSS is currently being reviewed, and an <a href="http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/rereports/year/2014/nssreview/#d.en.87657">independent report</a> has been published into its design. But we are yet to have to see what changes if any will be made. </p>
<p>Yet there are problems with the survey. In particular, it has created a league table that is built on very faulty basis of a customer feedback survey. Huge falls in position on the (quite small) league table are often the consequence of very small changes to aggregate scores. At a more local level, academics often complain that students condemn programmes without having fully attended or engaged.</p>
<h2>Ask me now, not at the end</h2>
<p>The NSS is also problematic because it is principally a summary evaluation of student experience at the end of degrees – little can be done to improve the experience of individuals who are moving on. Research in my own institution is beginning to indicate that evaluation processes that take place at strategic points with a view to enhancing the student experience of a programme are much more popular than end-of-course evaluation questionnaires. Both staff and students are often cynical about what they view as “tick-box” processes.</p>
<p>What increasingly emerges as a problem in discussions about the NSS is that it focuses on students’ experience of a programme, and not on wider issues. Evaluation of particular course modules within my own university shows that surveys are felt to be largely a waste of everyone’s time, simply because what works best at this level is dialogue between students and staff. </p>
<p>Instead of a series of post-course surveys, I would recommend a radical (but in fact rather old) solution. Scheduled discussion sessions between staff and students, managed well, can be far more effective in stimulating change than a questionnaire survey.</p>
<p>This is not to argue that large scale surveys have no place in modern higher education. Experience of implementing student feedback surveys during the 2000s has shown me that they work well at institutional level if they pick up on the wider student experience of the institution and are used to improve issues of concern. This cannot be done at national level, because each institution is different. So a survey works better when it is relevant to the needs and experience of the students themselves.</p>
<p>A dual solution of dialogue between staff and students and a large scale survey at institutional level has worked before at several universities and continues to do so across Europe. For example, this has worked well at the University of Lund in Sweden, which used the University of Central England model from the early 1990s. </p>
<p>Sadly, our continuing enthusiasm for university league tables of all kinds in the professional and popular press may mean that we are likely to be lumbered with variations of the NSS for years to come. </p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/28780/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>James Williams received funding from the Higher Education Academy.</span></em></p>It’s come as a surprise to many in higher education: students are increasingly satisfied with their experience of English university. A new report published by the Higher Education Funding Council for…James Williams, Senior Researcher, School of Social Sciences , Birmingham City UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/272932014-06-09T04:42:04Z2014-06-09T04:42:04ZMore regulation still needed to prevent ‘cashpoint colleges’<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/50487/original/jf8n34sz-1402046737.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=1%2C70%2C1022%2C610&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Fees for nothing. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/xtrah/4853491803/sizes/l">ShuttrKing|KT </a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Although the independent higher education sector is small in England, it is growing – and gaining some negative publicity along the way. Without primary legislation to more effectively regulate the newly marketised sector, which <a href="http://www.policyconnect.org.uk/hec/research/report-regulating-higher-education">I led calls for in a report to parliament last year</a>, more “scandals” are likely to be uncovered in the sector, even if these do not provide the full picture. </p>
<p>Secret filming at the London School of Science and Technology as part of an <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/may/21/london-college-funding-students-cannot-learn">investigation into “cashpoint colleges”</a> by The Guardian, has suggested that students apparently had to do little studying to receive awards in return for fees. </p>
<p>This seems to reinforce the views of some that most of these new providers are little better than “<a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/16c6064a-4a9c-11e0-82ab-00144feab49a.html#axzz33qeMTIVo">bogus degree mills</a>” that should never be allowed to start in the first place. The <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10849889/Probe-launched-into-waste-of-money-at-cashpoint-college.html">National Audit Office has been asked to investigate</a> the allegations. </p>
<p>Current government plans are that independent, non-publicly funded higher education institutions should be encouraged to expand in numbers and standing – not least to offer wider choice to students. Behind this lies an aim, <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/10198076/David-Willetts-our-privately-funded-university-revolution.html">set out by higher education minister David Willetts</a>, that competition from newcomers will encourage those traditional institutions that receive government funding for teaching and research to be more responsive to the student market.</p>
<h2>Struggle for respectability</h2>
<p>But without elite private universities of the kind found in the United States, this new sector is always liable to struggle for respectability. The absence of promised legislation by the government means that we lack a systematic regulatory framework that would more rigorously weed out the bad apples and also confer an element of equal standing for the others with their publicly-funded counterparts. </p>
<p>Dubious admissions practices in a few US private colleges have created <a href="http://www.harkin.senate.gov/help/forprofitcolleges.cfm">quite a stir in the US Senate</a> and the wider media. They have done little to promote the credibility or trustworthiness of the sector there. Could this be spreading across the Atlantic? Or perhaps commercial markets and the “public good” characteristic of higher education like water and wine – are best never mixed. </p>
<p>Most students in this new independent sector are concentrated in a few large institutions around London. We know little about them and the government has only recently bothered to collect annual data. In 2013, it <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/207128/bis-13-900-privately-funded-providers-of-higher-education-in-the-UK.pdf">published analysis identifying 674</a> privately funded higher education providers, with an estimated 160,000 students. </p>
<p>But many are usually new or recently emerged out of other entities and are difficult to track. The Higher Education Funding Council for England is setting up a <a href="http://www.hefce.ac.uk/news/newsarchive/2013/news83207.html">register of “recognised bodies”</a> but it is not yet in a position to get anywhere capturing all such providers. </p>
<p>Very little is known, especially about overseas institutions who have arrived in this country to offer non-UK degrees. At the very least, some process of registration as a higher education entity for these transnational bodies would be a start in offering a level of UK consumer protection. </p>
<h2>Meeting unserved demand</h2>
<p>We do know that this growing sector is very heterogenous – whether in terms of size, what they offer, the fees that are charged, the awards available, and most likely the quality of the provision. The major players are the six recognised entities. Four are charities: Regent’s University London, the University of Buckingham, ifs University College, and Ashbridge Business School. There are also two for-profit companies – BPP University and the University of Law. Kingston University researcher <a href="http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/ihe/article/view/5523/4918">Steve Woodfield’s recent article</a> offers a more comprehensive account. </p>
<p>Yet the sector as a whole appears to be strong in promoting access to students who would not typically go to more traditional institutions. Woodfield’s research found that around two-thirds of students are over 25, around the same proportion are in employment, and many have family responsibilities. A sizeable tranche of overseas students is also a feature. </p>
<p>It is hard not to think that the vast majority of these colleges are meeting a need of some kind that is not being met elsewhere. Mostly, it is in providing professional-type courses in information technology, the arts, law and various business subjects. A number of vocational sub-degrees are on offer, including those examined by large private companies such as Pearson and EdExcel. </p>
<p>To date, large successful conglomerate companies have yet to enter the field in the UK to any real degree. If they did they could use their brand leverage to help the independent colleges compete with a different model to that of the conventional providers. </p>
<h2>Not the Wild West</h2>
<p>The government’s regulatory thrust is to ensure a gradual if piecemeal progression to a “level playing field” for all providers. The newer entrants are thus encouraged to take on the practices and symbols of the traditional sector. They are seeking degree-granting status, university title and, perhaps most crucially of all, access to publicly-funded student loans.</p>
<p>Yet whether this means that all providers should eventually be subject to exactly the same regulation is by no means clear given the lack of recent governmental responses on these issues.</p>
<p>Nonetheless, all institutions that provide courses leading to UK awards (including here and abroad) are regulated for quality. This really is not the “Wild West”, despite the impression given by the recent Guardian investigation. </p>
<p>Educational oversight and quality assurance is operated by the Quality Assurance Agency. Programmes for professional bodies are regulated by the <a href="http://www.hebetterregulation.ac.uk/OurWork/Pages/Professional,StatutoryandregulatoryBodies%28PSRBs%29.aspx">relevant professional, statutory and regulatory bodies</a>.</p>
<p>Controls are also in place over the designation of university title and degree-awarding powers, the ability to offer degrees in collaboration with universities and colleges that have degree-awarding powers, and over access to student loans. </p>
<p>Yet gaps in the regulatory coverage of the sector remain. Unlike for the publicly-funded sector, it is only a voluntary requirement for independent institutions to provide data to the Higher Education Statistics Agency, and to submit access plans to the Office for Fair Access. Membership of the Office of the Independent Arbitrator is also voluntary.</p>
<p>The most vociferous calls for new regulation – and more controls – come from the larger new independent players, as shown in the evidence provided to the <a href="http://www.policyconnect.org.uk/hec/research/report-regulating-higher-education">recent inquiry on regulating the sector</a> by the Higher Education Commission. They know that without it, everyone is likely to be tarred with the same brush.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/27293/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Roger King was the co-chair of the Higher Education Commission inquiry 'Regulating the new landscape of higher education'.</span></em></p>Although the independent higher education sector is small in England, it is growing – and gaining some negative publicity along the way. Without primary legislation to more effectively regulate the newly…Roger King, Visiting Professor, School of Management, University of BathLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.