Course of the Media
Max Beloff „,The Open University Opens edited by Jeremy ilMstall (Routledge and Kegan Paul £2.50) The largest university in Britain — its 35,000 Rart-time students outnumber London university's total of full-time students — is al,so the least known; least well-known, above all, as the surveys have shown, to its Intended beneficiaries, meaning by its intended beneficiaries those members of the cornIn,anity intellectually able to reach a univer4',IY standard in education but deprived of the en,ance to do so at the normal age by personal ' family circumstance. Despite the fact that e University is 'open' in the sense of "en-landing no initial qualifications for entry, Uch 'second-chance' students account for ".,111Y 10 per cent of the student body and more „an half of those — a rather small proportion °E the whole — who drop out before the cornpletion of their course. Since the Open University spends public tnoney and is given privileged access to Publicly owned broadcasting media, such igIblorance is to be deplored and Mr Tunstall's ook removes any excuse for it, at least ril°ng the book-reading public. Despite the act that Mr Tunstall himself holds a teaching Priosition at the Open University the book is e,r3t in any sense a propaganda handout. It fts'ntains assessments of the University's hisZI'Y and activities from outside writers as well from a selection of the staff and, illuminat1(nglY, from the students as well. It raises many not all) of the right questions and gives erniaterial for answering most of them. It is also „early written for the most part; though one ,...7cePts from this commendation the conLobution by Professor Norman Birnbaum who Pears to have something of importance to ,Y about the Open University's connection With the British tradition in adult education, !lid with the aims of socialism as the first 41130st-bourgeois university," but suffers like so any American (not only American) i"..ciologists from an inability to use the 'glish language to express his thoughts. 0 It is a pity that this should be so because of the difficulties about assessing the Zile of the Open University is precisely the iTcertainty about its place in the spectrum of
her education, and this is a topic not often
fItched upon by essayists who see it largely ro in the inside, as a series of tasks — rsits, be it added, more demanding hc'r both students and staff than are :4)1Thally the lot of those engaged in _conventional' universities. The only other "ontribution which deals with this point Lsthat by Mr Willem van der Eyken of ,7nel University who regards the low level ("' student costs, one-sixth of what is normal Which is demonstrable), and the lack of need "r preparation for courses (which is still cflUestionable) as undercutting the entire case tee'r 'conventional' universities and their aching methods. The admission of eighteen ar olds for the first time is not seen then as Ireluctant bowing to outside pressure but as harbinger of a new situation altogether: ;le have the means to choose" believes Mr 4,4r1 ,der Eyken, between "mass higher educago , n and "selective higher education" and hether we like it or not, in creating the e"`I,Pen University, we have made a major ange in the whole structure of the British 'lineation system." St is doubtful whether many of those as
sociated with the Open University would go that far; indeed one might ask whether the "selective" versus "non-selective" issue is a real one, unless one believes that only examinations give the materials for selection; the student body of the Open University, and to some extent the staff as well, seem to be highly self-selected on particular, but perhaps ultimately definable, criteria.
What makes the debate so difficult is that the history of the project is so unrevealing as to its purpose, as is shown by Mr Brian MacArthur in his "interim history" at the beginning of the volume. In Mr Harold Wilson's mind, influenced at once by Moscow and Chicago, the idea was largely one of using technology in the service of what might better, have been described as an addition to 'further' education. It was Jennie Lee assisted by the mandarins of the educational establishment (how odd that Mr MacArthur does not see them for what they are — the DES's stage army) who insisted on it being a "real university," not a "ghetto for proletarians." But the precise relationship between a correspondence college and the new technologies could only be worked out by the unique mix of academics, production engineerF and media-men who now control the destinies of the new institution.
In all this there is nothing new or surprising; there is no institution of higher education in this country which would not by now astonish its original promoters and benefactors; indeed the field is one where the British penchant for pragmatism is at its most obvious. Indeed there are one or two suggestions in the body of the book that the extraordinary speed with which the enterprise was got going at all has prevented sufficiently careful planning for the future; nor of course can it escape the fate of all institutions wholly dependent upon public funds — foolish economies. It seems absurd to limit its student body to 35,000 when the plant would be most economically used with 70,000 students. Indeed for an economy-conscious government it seems a curious target to choose; to put it at its lowest, the Open University does a more satisfactory job in terms of what its students get out of it than some of the plate-glass universities. At least its buildings are unlikely to be occupied; its files on computer tape are unreadable; its students have the kind of motivation which makes 'strikes' unlikely.
Provided one does not attach cosmic significance to the Open University, its existence can hardly avoid being of use to the community, if only because it is at least an exception to the growing uniformity imposed by government on the rest of the university system. Its uncovenanted benefits are more likely to be in particular areas of study than in its general impact. The point is put most forcibly by Mr Peter J. Smith, senior lecturer in earth sciences. He asserts that the safeguards for standards are satisfactory and that there is no question of adopting the American device of institutions called by the same generic name but having different standards. What is different about the science course at the Open University is content and attitudes not level: it is here that it diverges most from the pattern of the conventional university and this must "be seen against the background of the failure of the conventional 'university system in general to respond quickly, or at all, to the changing relationship between society and science, or even to maintain its role as an instrument of true education as opposed to purely vocational training"; what they wish to produce are "not graduates completely oblivious to the interactions between science and modern society but people capable of making rational decisions about science in a science-based society." These are large claims, but if justified they are important.
Professor Beloff is principal-designate of the University College at Buckingham.
Previous page
