A few weeks ago, many readers might have seen articles warning of a 'squeezed middle' of English universities, who would struggle to attract the best performing students. Based on data from the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), these articles painted a seemingly grim picture for universities like mine - the University of Central Lancashire (UCLan). The view presented was one which seemed to imply institutions that were not part of an undefined elite should focus on cut price education if they wished to secure additional numbers and survive.
Indeed the redistribution of 20,000 numbers via the Government's core and margin policy coupled to a further reduction of 5,000 places in January does mean there are significantly fewer university places this year than in 2011. Almost a quarter of English universities are showing reductions of 10% or more in places for September which will mean many hard working and highly able students will once again miss out on a University education. This year for example UCLan's UK/EU applications per places ratio has significantly increased from 5:1 to 7:1 and our admissions criteria are now higher than at any other time in our history.
What has been particularly interesting is that press articles on this topic have tended to portray a stereotypical view of universities like mine, based on seriously out-dated categorisations. In noting the reduction in UCLan's student numbers there was a disproportionate focus on our post-92 status, with the implication being that we were effectively being penalised for being a 'new' university. What would not have been picked up is that some of our numbers would have been converted to the more highly-funded places awarded to UCLan because of our new School of Dentistry.
Similarly, several articles suggested that we would struggle to attract the best-performing AAB equivalent students compared to some of our competitors. In reality, we have been seeing significant increases in AAB equivalent student numbers, partly due to growth in new areas such as our School of Pharmacy but partly also because of internationally acclaimed areas such as Art and Fashion continuing to attract strong BTec applications.
Like every other UK university we have devised and implemented measures to cope with Government grant reductions and, with major assets both in the UK and internationally, we are well placed both academically and financially to meet the challenges we face. In addition to increased UK competition for places our international applications are up by 12% and we are seeing further growth in our postgraduate activity.
But while we have put in place measures to ensure that UCLan can weather these changes, I think it is important that our government reflects on what message we are sending around the world about British higher education? Is the continual focus on competition and low cost provision really the correct approach to funding institutions which not only support the economy, but also the public good - especially when so many other nations are investing significantly in higher education?
It strikes me that the time is right for a comprehensive review of where we need to focus our efforts - perhaps instead of simply redistributing degree numbers to low cost providers, we look more at skills the nation requires for the future? A lot of the rhetoric in last month's Budget was focused on infrastructure - but as a nation, do we really have the skills to take advantage of emerging opportunities in engineering and manufacturing? I suspect not, and would much prefer the government to look at this challenge and the development of an industrial strategy to underpin the UKs current and future skills requirements rather than simply shuffling student numbers around the country.