Ways of making higher education cheaper to run: Part 2

1. Universities may be encouraged to admit adult students without the usual entry qualifications “just because they are adults”. This may well mean that such students end up having to study more (while usually having to work in a job as well, likely to lead to stress) and likely to require much more support from teachers. This costs the university money (or forces their lecturers to overwork). It would be better to redirect them first to providers of school-leaving qualifications for adults – then they can later enter university with the requisite qualifications. Alternatively they could be channeled to specialist providers who have the services, skills and scale to support such students cost-effectively (in particular the Open University). Perhaps a small number of other universities need to be approved for part-time study at scale? In such a context, for such universities (including the OU) it is quite unrealistic to expect them to conform to the same norms of “progress” as other universities. (This mistake is made in several other countries as well.)
2. Many universities admit students to Modern Foreign Languages courses who do not have school-leaving qualifications in the relevant language. Thus these universities have to spend time teaching them the basics of the languages. Since such languages are taught in some schools this does not need university-level staff at university-level salaries and workload. There are many providers outside schools offering Modern Foreign Languages to A level, often online.
3. More and more universities admit students to Classics courses without school-leaving qualifications in one or both of Latin and Ancient (Classical) Greek. At present these universities have to spend time teaching them the basics of the languages – at university cost levels. There are several providers offering Latin to A level and a few offering Classical Greek to A level – no doubt more would emerge if the demand were there. In particular, there is nothing in the proposals here that would prohibit a university setting up a classics language school. (Some are tiptoeing into this area already.)
4. Somehow despite the apparent advantages to students (one more year of earning, lower student debt) it has not been feasible or popular to set up many 2-year degree programmes. (“Must try harder” is my verdict.) This needs attention from goverment and a small number of universities (across the various parts of the sector) prepared to take it seriously. Issues needing attention are the appropriate fee to charge the student and specific funding support from government. (The mechanisms exist in OfS, for high-cost subjects.) Additionally much more effort should go into all-through Masters of 3 years duration. (These also offer some financial advantages in terms of higher student fee levels.)
5. In some subjects like Mathematics, universities insist on re-teaching subjects when many parts are covered at school. If universities claim that a subject is not taught “properly” at school, that is the issue to fix first. Better articulation of school-level provision to university-level provision is needed. If A level Mathematics is “defective” in some way, universities as a whole need to alert the schools sector and exam boards to this.
6. More generally, is it not time to find a better balance between the subjects one can expect to study from scratch and those where an A level is required? There would be a presumption of somewhat restricting the number of “study from scratch” subjects. Infill would again come from A level providers.
7. Universities are required to teach study skills, communication skills and employability skills to new students. Is this not a topic that can be done either in some kind of foundation semester or gap year programme? (At lower cost than if done at universities.) It is not as if schools do nothing in this area – far from it.
8. The Oak National Academy for schools in England has indicated that standard content (not just syllabi) for the majority of subjects can be justified, confirming what OER enthusiasts and many reports have been saying for years – noting that a few other home nations and countries have been doing this in their schools sectors for a while. There are a number of subjects (often professionally regulated and/or for first two years of study) where there is substantial commonality at HE level despite what is often claimed. The failure of the university sector (I did not say just universities) to build on the JISC OER initiative was regrettable.
9. Universities should begin to predict and plan for a reduction in teacher hours per student by using comprehensive online content and AI for tutoring. If they cannot provide evidence that much reduction is possible then investment of resources and time in the AI area should be curtailed until the evidence is compelling. Pilots in this area need careful management (and in schools too). Much effort is being wasted in duplication.
10. There has been much agonising in the press recently about “universities closing”. Yet small departments are closing or merging with much less visibility. (One suspects that the former HEFCE would have taken a more pro-active role.) Some rationalisation of the number of small departments in several subjects is needed. It seems unlikely that “market forces” – i.e. universities themselves – will make the best decision in terms of regional and socio-economic coverage. Is the current regulatory model too hands-off in some areas yet too hands-on in others? What is the proper role of government in such matters?

There are several other points that could be made. VAT issues are one. (Separate posting on this shortly.)