SOCIETY TODAY
Education
Crisis in higher education (1)
Rhodes Boyson
In 1963 at the time of the Robbins Report it was indeed bliss to be alive and a junior university lecturer. The future seemed to promise continued expansion, and certainly in higher education the participants had 'never had it so good'.
The Robbins Report encouraged further university expansion by recommending that university places should be provided for 53 per cent of the number of pupils gaining two 'A' levels, and it was confidently expected then that there was almost a bottomless 'pool of talent' which, liberated by comprehensive secondary education, would pass more 'A' levels every year. It is as well to remind ourselves that there were only Some 192,999 students in higher education then, although this was a great increase on the number undertaking such studies in 1938.
Robbins recommended an increase to 281,000 in 1967, 305,000 in 1971 and 510,000 by 1981/2. As if this was not large enough, government enthusiasm was such that when in 1971/2 the figure of 464,000 was reached, itself a doubling in ten years, a target of 1,000,000 places in higher education by 1981 began to be mentioned.
By 1972, however, there were signs that the expansion had gone too far and there were over 3,000 empty places in universities and probably many more, especially in the sciences, in the thirty newly upgraded polytechnics then expected to take some 75,000 students. By 1974 there were 6,000 vacant university places and 10,000 polytechnic vacancies. The idea that there was a difficulty in qualified students obtaining higher education places was in full retreat. It was estimated that 93 per cent of the science applicants, 88 per cent of the arts applicants and 92 per cent of the engineering applicants, who gained the minimum qualifications for university entry and were prepared to go to the clearing house, gained university places.
The government faced by financial stringency welcomed the fall in applications. In 1937/8 the annual public expenditure on universities was £3,600,000 but by 1971/2 it was £300,000,000 with a further £205,000,000 in other parts of higher education. Thus in December 1972 the government cut the projected higher education student figure for 1981 to 750,000 and this has since been trimmed to first 700,000 and then 640,000. Yet the projected expenditure for 1976/7 on higher education to and beyond first degree level is now £1,160,000,000.
In 1971 the polytechnics spent E10,000 in two weeks advertising their student vacancies in the Observer and one polytechnic spent £8,000 in advertising its image on television and in newspapers. Last September the universities advertised vacancies in fifteen subjects and this year sixteen subject vacancies have been displayed to the general public. Some of the polytechnic advertisements look like holiday camp enticements. Newcastle-uponTyne Polytechnic tells us that "entertainments, markets, shops, parks and sports" are attractions in a city "still recognisably the home of Georgies, the Blaydon Races, and of course, Brown Ale."
Why has there been a falling off of applicants for higher education? The obvious answer is that the bottomless pool of talent soon ran dry. Many fewer are sitting 'A' levels than iere expected and these seem to be of falling quality. In 1974 only 7.9 per cent of school leavers gained three 'A' levels as against 8.2 per cent in 1973 and 4.3 per cent gained two 'A' levels against 4.5 per cent in 1973. It seems probable that comprehensive secondary school reorganisation has brought a decline in academic standards and may even encourage leaving before the sixth form.
Nor is a degree as highly respected as it once was. It no longer has a scarcity value. Certainly the present Labour Government seems positively anti-university and Mr Prentice's joke of universities paying their debts by selling their art treasures and Lord Crowther-Hunt's call for 'relevance' will be long remembered. It is also possible that a university degree in sociology from some or even all of our universities is a non-job ticket for most employers, and who can blame them? Nor was the effect of 1971 graduate unemployment lost on student opinion and there seems an increasing desire by employers. to recruit at sixteen or eighteen. The fact that more employers are setting their own tests for graduates also shows a scepticism of university standards. It is of interest that the fall
off in sixth form numbers and university applicants is from boys, who are always more vocationally conscious than girls. They will have to earn the wages and pay the mortgages.
Finally student living is not as attractive as it was. There is a dire shortage of residential accommodation, the student grant has become more inadequate and students are far from being the most popular members of the community. In the decade to 1970 the purchasing power of student grants fell by 11-16 per cent against the retail price index, and if the calculation is made against what students spend their money on the fall is between 20-25 per cent. Parts of the grant no longer cover the costs originally assigned to them even after this year's increase of 22 per cent. It is ironic that the 91,530 students who were on supplementary benefit in the Easter vacation were then marginally better off than when living on their full grant in term time.
This year, too, the universities have begun to be under the financial pressure of inflation. Library expenditure is being curtailed, some academic posts are not being filled and university staff have been asked by Lord Crowther-Hunt to work harder, to take larger classes and to spend less time on research. It is all rather depressing and the mood has communicated itself from staff to potential students.
What then should be the future of higher education and what advice should one give potential students? This will be the subject of a second article.
Previous page
