Last week, tuition fees were finally lifted in line with inflation. Only this year of course – there’s still a huge real term cut from when they were set. And it will all be absorbed by national insurance rises.
If this feels like a relief, it is only because of the expectation game the DfE and the Treasury expertly and consistently play (not least because research was not subject to the level of “tucking under” many feared in the budget). It’s rob Peter to pay, well, Peter.
Alongside the non-increase in overall money, Bridget Phillipson was explicit she wants universities to do more. Universities must do and be seen to do more to grow the economy; their contributions to local communities must strengthen; opportunities for disadvantaged students must be increased. Teaching quality must improve, and there must be a renewed drive for efficiency.
In short – Labour wants universities to work harder and on specific priorities.
I agree with all these aims, but it’s a lot. Particularly because I don’t see the fiscal situation improving much for universities. Labour is projecting almost no growth (what happened to growth being the main priority? God I hope that’s coming). Other parts of the system will remain further towards the front of the queue for money. And the political situation for the government is going to be very, very challenging.
In other words, even if universities are going to be a priority for reform, they are not going to be a priority for investment.
Not even top five
Why won’t they be a priority? Three reasons: the public don’t care about them as much as the NHS or schools; the students who use them are unconvinced they need more money (they think £9k+ a year is loads, and so do their parents); and their impact on the wider economy and society feels abstract.
This last really matters and is the only one universities can really control. If you do not come up with concrete ways to make yourselves more interesting and important, no one else will do it for you and you will lose, badly, in the coming years.
Let me give a small, but important, example. Universities rarely explain their impact in a way politicians or people can easily understand. Abstract gross value added (GVA) numbers are just that: abstract. They’re also not, usually, very large: politicians are submerged in reports from big industries and companies with billions thrown about left, right, and centre. They usually can’t remember any of these numbers, but if they do, universities are not going to cut through.
What politicians remember – just like people – are real-world impacts: waiting lists down; vaccines created; careers created; famous companies formed.
Universities must tell that story, and they will have to be alive to the way the government sees the next five years.
The red flag
Here, the Budget and Phillipson’s focus tells us a lot. It was class conscious in a way we haven’t seen for some time – probably even pre-Blair. It is self-consciously on the side of the workers, not the employers, and will only grudgingly accept that taxes on the latter hit the former. It thinks a huge priority for schools, in relatively tough financial circumstances, is those with SEN. It may well want reforms to the NHS and public services, but not enough to demand it as a quid pro quo for funding.
In other words, it is interested in working people; in those who have a tough time in life; in the public sector; and in hearts as much as minds. It reallocates as much as it seeks to grow. In time, it is also going to become very sensitive to small business – as accusations that Labour is not on their side after the budget grow.
It is in that context that universities are going to have to talk. What do you do for your own workers, the wider supply chain, and as opportunities for people across your area? How exactly does being a trainer of nurses, teachers and doctors support public services in your area? Why is your approach leading to more companies and more jobs? Big numbers won’t cut it – but numbers that describe, compellingly, the impact of your decisions will.
This is not just a comms strategy. It should have implications for the actual strategy universities pursue, as well as how they describe its impact. That is extremely hard in a tough financial climate, but I don’t see another way to reverse what now feels like an inexorable decline in support from government here and, indeed, in many other comparator countries. The alternative is to make the same arguments, in the same way, to the same officials. And as we can see, it’s just not working.
