Freddy Purcell –
We welcomed one of our most prolific speakers, Ed Skidelsky, back for an engaging talk on the modern state of universities. Ed began the talk with a short history of changes to university education, beginning in the Thatcher era when there was a rise in the perception of universities as inefficient, with academics engaged in pointless research that wasted taxpayer money. This prompted the creation of the RAE which would become the REF (Research Excellence Framework) to increase accountability and competitiveness within academia. It does this by requiring academics to submit a selection of their work annually for review according to criteria like output level and impact. The performance of universities within the REF determines funding.
These requirements, Ed argued, force academics to produce high quantities of work which he believes are competent but often unoriginal. This is partly because work with moderate views is more likely to be accepted by academic journals, something that also makes the process of submitting work demotivating. As an example, Ed’s recounted how journals once pushed him to remove the more ambitious content he was excited about, so that an article he had invested a lot of time in would be accepted. Ed therefore argues that the REF is damaging for academic research.
Another feature that has shaped modern universities is the introduction of tuition fees, starting in 1998, rising to a cap of £9,000 in 2012, and reaching their current cap in 2017. Various caps on student numbers were also removed from 2012 onwards, increasing student numbers. Ed argued that this makes education into a free market, impacting the way universities are run, particularly in the emphasis on generating money as opposed to academia and teaching. This means that when new courses are created, the first question is how much money they will generate. In some universities, central management also determines the content of courses, meaning academics also have little control over the content they teach. The only upside to this aspect of commercialisation in universities according to Ed is that it draws in investment into new buildings like sports facilities and well-being services that enhance the student experience.
Increase in student numbers has also had a profound impact on universities. Ed recalled how earlier in his career every essay was double marked, involving a full read through of each piece of work twice. Nowadays, essays are moderated instead, which means that the second person only scans marking for fairness and any discrepancies, before the work is passed to external organisations for a final review. Ed argued that this introduces greater inconsistency in marking and even grade inflation. He believes there is another loss for universities on a personal level is that student-teacher relations have become less intimate, meaning that classes become less interesting. Furthermore, as every student is hyper-aware, the number of graduates entering the working world also depreciates the value of degrees, particularly those that are less deemed less important like humanities degrees. In sum, there are lots of problems for universities, many of which can be attributed to commercialisation.
With this discussion concluding that universities have undoubtedly suffered from commercialisation, Ed moved to a philosophical discussion of why this is the case. Describing arguments in philosophical literature about how some things are inevitably corrupted if they are sold, Ed drew on the example of friendship. He argued that if a relationship exists because one person is rich, then there is an inequality because one person is in it for the money, while the other is in it for the flattery. This transforms the nature of a friendship into something that we would think of as disingenuous. Another example is sexual relations, where paying for sex inevitably transforms the nature of how the participants experience the act. Healthcare is then perhaps a less clear example of this corruption, but a more practical one. If health products are sold, then doctors are incentivised to give patients both what they want, and arguably what product is more expensive. Commercialisation of healthcare systems is then arguably a contributing factor to healthcare scandals like the Sackler opioid scandal. Given that commercialisation can corrupt relationships and institutions like healthcare, Ed argued that it may be that education is also inevitably corrupted by commercialisation.
Leaving us with this point, Ed then facilitated a great discussion on how students feel the current functioning of universities affects their experience. A lot of interesting points were raised, including concerns about how the university makes money off contracts with food chains and catering staff, as well as outsourcing tickets to Fixr, who take a fee. People also asked Ed how he thought the situation could be improved, to which he answered that he would scrap the REF, cap student numbers again, and reduce tuition fees. Although he strongly doubted that any of these changes are currently politically feasible.
If you want to join in this discussion on how you feel your university experience has been affected by current policy, please do comment down below. Otherwise, thanks for reading!