Let’s not confuse institutional prestige with national priority

There is very clearly an important debate to be had about the future funding of higher education.

The Department for Education’s recent analysis of the full economic cost of undergraduate provision is right to highlight the growing gap between the cost of providing a high-quality education and the income available to fund it.

The evidence also makes clear that the cost of educating a student varies significantly according to the subject, mode of study, region and type of provision.

But we should be very careful about the conclusion we draw from that evidence. The argument that some universities should be allowed to charge their students more because they are “elite” risks taking us down the wrong path.

It is right to ask whether the current system properly reflects the cost of higher education. It is also right that there should be a serious discussion about how we fund subjects where the cost of education is high and where the country has pressing skills needs.

But those are questions about national need. They are not, necessarily, questions about institutional status. The distinction matters.

What does elite mean

Before we decide that some universities should be allowed to charge more because they are “elite,” we should ask what the word actually means.

Is an elite university one with the highest research intensity? One whose graduates command the highest salaries? One with the highest entry grades? One that is most sought after by employers? One that delivers outstanding teaching? One that transforms the prospects of students from disadvantaged backgrounds? One that makes the greatest contribution to the economy of its city and region?

All of these are legitimate measures of excellence. None is synonymous with membership of the Russell Group. And none, on its own, tells us what a university contributes to the national interest.

The danger is that we use “elite” as a shorthand for prestige; and then use prestige as a proxy for public value. We should resist that. If research intensity is the justification for additional funding, then fund research intensity. If particular subjects cost more to teach, recognise those costs.

If the country needs more engineers, nurses, teachers, construction professionals or other strategically important graduates, reflect that need in the funding system.

If universities are widening access and delivering social mobility, recognise that contribution. If they are driving productivity and skills in regions outside London and the South East, that should matter too. In other words, we should fund the contribution we need, rather than the reputation we admire.

Universities that Britain needs

This is not an argument against excellence. It is an argument for recognising that there is more than one kind of excellence in higher education.

A research-intensive university can be outstanding at generating new knowledge. A university deeply connected to professional practice can be outstanding at applying knowledge to the challenges facing employers, public services and communities. Those forms of excellence are different. They are not necessarily competing.

Practice-based education is not simply academic education with more workplace experience. It brings disciplinary knowledge together with professional practice, real-world problem solving and the needs of employers and public services. In many fields, the ability to apply knowledge effectively in complex professional settings is itself a form of educational excellence. And that matters to the economy.

Some of the most consequential contributions universities make are not captured by a patent, a research citation or an international league table. They include improving public services, helping businesses adopt new technologies, developing professional skills and ensuring that regions have the workforce they need to grow.

These contributions may be less visible than the traditional markers of institutional prestige. They are not less important. Indeed, for a country facing persistent skills shortages, weak productivity and significant regional economic disparities, they can be fundamental.

The importance of place

If we judge universities primarily through a national hierarchy of institutional prestige, we risk overlooking the role played by universities that are deeply embedded in particular places.

A university can be nationally important because of the role it plays in its city or region.

It can be an anchor institution: educating the professionals who sustain local public services; supplying the skills that businesses need; creating opportunities for people who might otherwise never enter higher education; and retaining graduates who contribute to the economy in which they studied.

At Birmingham City University, we see every day the relationship between higher education, skills and the economic fortunes of a city and its region. Our purpose is closely connected to the professions, industries, public services and communities around us. Forty per cent of our first-degree graduates stay in Birmingham to start their careers. More than 28 per cent of Birmingham’s new primary teachers are BCU graduates, while 43 per cent of all new nurses in the West Midlands trained at BCU.

This illustrates what a technical anchor university can mean to a regional skills ecosystem: educating the professionals who sustain public services, supporting employers and contributing directly to the economic and social life of the place it serves..

Many of our students are the first in their families to enter higher education. Some arrive through routes that do not involve the highest school grades. Their success is measured by the opportunities they gain, the careers they build and the contribution they make.

Funding should follow national need

None of this means that universities should be protected from a proper debate about value for money. Students, graduates and taxpayers are entitled to ask whether the higher education system is delivering value. Universities themselves need to demonstrate the quality and relevance of what they provide. But if we are going to reform university funding, the test should be what we need universities to deliver.

The government already recognises that some subjects require additional support because of their cost or their strategic importance. The question now is whether we can develop that principle more intelligently rather than introducing a new hierarchy based on institutional prestige.