ARGUMENT
The true university?
PETER J. SMITH
Dr Peter 1. Smith here replies to the article, 'The non-university?' in last week's SPEC.' TATOR, in which Dr Rhodes Boyson criticised the Open University.
In writing in support of the Open University I must declare an interest, as they say. I am a member of its staff; and so I suppose that whatever I say I will be open to the charge of bias. So be it, if it must be so; but I shall, nevertheless, try to answer as objectively as possible just a fav of the charges which have been levelled in our direction.
But first a general point based on personal observation. Prior to a recent two year so- journ in the United States I would, I fear, have shared at least some of the prejudices which have been expressed since the Uni- versity of the Air was proposed in 1963. The University is, I would then have said, just another of Harold Wilson's gimmicks, an unthinking step towards the ludicrous egalitarianism with which much left wing thought in this country is inevitably tainted. But one thing one comes to appreciate more and more in America is the distinction be- tween individual equality and equality of opportunity. It is a simple distinction, in all truth, but one which not a few people are unable or unwilling to make. It is thus a tragedy when legitimate condemnation of the former doctrine becomes confused with the moral right of the latter.
For the Open University is about, among many other things, equality of opportunity in a land where, despite the lip-service paid to it, equality of opportunity in education remains sadly unfulfilled. By this I mean that equality of opportunity is meaningless when supply and demand are so unevenly matched. Six capable people competing under similar conditions for one prize is equality
of opportunity in name but neither in spirit nor fact. Yet what is immediately apparent from the American experience is the social, cultural and economic benefit to be derived from a system which enables a high propor- tion of the population to receive higher edu- cation. The number of university places available in any society is, of course, largely a matter of finance. But why is it that in Britain this important, but arbitrary, factor is elevated to the level of a philosophy—the philosophy of elitism? The size of the higher education estate at a particular point in his- tory is neither sacrosanct nor immutable.
Having said that, I have, I suspect, already refuted the real objection of the Open Uni- versity's most outspoken critics—and if so, I fear that neither my reply nor anything else I say will have any influence upon them. Nevertheless, there are certain more specific criticisms which demand a reply if only because they are based upon a misunder- standing of what the Open University is about and what it plans to do.
The overriding issue is, of course, quality —the quality of the teaching at the Open University reflected in the quality of the degrees its students will receive. Now the first thing to be said about any degree in this country is that its quality is certainly not to be confused with its status. It is self-evident that the value of a degree relates as much to the status of the institution at which it was obtained as to the quality of the grad- uate concerned. One simply cannot guard against this sort of snobbery but only hope to stamp it out gradually. The degree of public esteem in which Open University degrees are held will thus bear little relation to their quality for a long time.
Slightly more rational criticism of the Open University centres on the supposition
that, in terms of time, its courses will not be comparable with those in a conventional university. This is the numbers game. It is not a particularly relevant game to play simply because it is based upon a completely erroneous premise, as the following compari- son shows. The first year Science Foundation Course (one credit) at the Open University involves a commitment of 360 hours of formal teaching, including practical work. My own first year university course involved somewhat less than 360 hours. Nor is it appropriate to suggest that in a traditional university formal teaching is supplemented by vast amounts of private study. It is my experience that in Science (and I speak throughout only of science), private study carried out by the average present-day student is largely mythical, except immedi- ately prior to examinations. The private study concept is a hangover from the days when the university regarded its function as educational. Today, the majority of univer- sity science courses are unashamedly tailored to the basic essentials needed to secure the qualification for a job.
There lies the crux of the matter. For the mistake that every critic of the Open Uni- versity makes is in the implicit or explicit comparison with the conventional university —the assumption that unless the two become equivalent, the Open University will have failed. This is arrant nonsense, but leads to the curious sight of critics chasing their own tails. How, they ask, is the Open University to do with students formally unqualified what the traditional university does with a highly qualified entrance? This completely misses the point. What the critics would be doing. if they had any constructive interest in the matter at all, is to inquire into the nature of a viable system of formal education for inexperienced students. They might then make a valid contribution to the advance- ment of education in what is, by most modern standards, an educationally deprived nation.
And if they were to do this, they would soon realise that the bulk of their criticism is groundless. The criticism that Open Uni- versity students will end up not being able to do research, for example, becomes irrele- vant. I feel sure that the Open University has designed its courses in such a way that anyone ultimately wanting to do research will be quite capable of doing so. But, per- sonally, I have never supposed that we will be primarily training people to this end. Indeed, my main criticism of the conven- tional university course is that it attempts to do just that—but for all. Have not the critics heard of the McCarthy study? Do they not know that Britain already trains too many scientists for specialist research posts which do not exist?
My great hope for the Open University is that it will signal the birth in this country of large scale education in science as opposed to conventional specialist fact-cramming. If it does, it will become what a conventional university no longer is, a true university. There is a desperate need in Britain for an extension of scientific culture, and all that that implies. One need look no further than the House of Commons to see what I mean by that. To this end, but not this end alone. we shall be teaching not only hard scientific fact but the wider issues of science—what it is, its history, its philosophy, its methodology and its relation to society in general. Our students will not end up with inferior degrees but, in all probability, with different degrees. The distinction is critical and important.
Previous page
