There is now no alternative but for the sector to grasp the scale of the challenge it faces

Last weekend, Jonathan Simons urged the university sector to “wake up” in his analysis of the recent Policy Exchange report from Iain Mansfield and John Blake of the Post-18 Project’s call for a review of higher education. Both John and Iain critique the current state of higher education and put forward proposals to fix it, albeit from different sides of the political spectrum.

Jonathan’s article is wide-ranging, but the key arguments he makes are twofold. First, that it is significant that thinkers on the left and right have converged on the same problem diagnosis of the higher education sector. Second, that, despite this convergence, the sector is focusing on a set of policy issues and debates that are mostly, and in some cases wholly, unconnected to political and policy discourse in Westminster and Whitehall.

If we agree with his analysis – which I, broadly, do – then we need as a sector to work through what this might mean for future debates and policy solutions to the challenges we collectively face. In sum, a change of direction in sector advocacy and lobbying is required. We need to move back to the mission, the outcomes, and then the delivery of higher education. We have wasted too much time pursuing losing battles with administrations of both the left and right. We risk wasting more time.

Institutions must re-focus on their individual mission, or their institutional proposition, as Anthony Finkelstein has put it. That necessarily means a recasting, as is already underway, of both individual institutions and of the sector at large. Regrettably, this is currently being driven by economic necessity rather than a coherent vision of what a tertiary education system is, who it is for, and the wider national and international context in which it operates in.

There is an emerging, and already rich, set of debates around what this means for research, that seeks to answer what a smaller research base looks like in practice and how, as funding models change, we protect high impact research critical to the future of the UK. There is an energy here, particularly with the launch of Science Works by Ben Johnson and Laura Ryan, that is lacking on the education side of the equation.

To be prepared to work through these implications means entertaining some uncomfortable propositions and being prepared to confront their implications. These are: the death of the export-led model of education and university financing; the associated need for strategic focus and for a policy landscape that enables that; and the limits to sector solidarity in light of these transformations.

The world that awaits

The current export-led model of higher education, for many universities, is not sustainable. As Jonathan rightly points out, a combination of worldwide scepticism on migration and the rise of Chinese and Asian universities means international students are not coming back, ever, to their previous volumes. Two instruments introduced by the government, the international student levy and the tightening of the Basic Compliance Assessment, will catalyse this shift.

Given that for most universities the only part of their portfolio of research and education that makes a surplus is international students (because it is essentially the only element that is market priced) the impact of the two measures is clear in the financial modelling of most institutions. The impact will become obvious in 2028 and will lead to a devastating impact on the health of higher education in the UK.

The impact of this transformation will be felt right across the sector. But no one thinks that Imperial, or UCL, or Warwick will be in danger of closing or merging. This transformation means a dramatic impact on smaller, research-intensive institutions, on post-1992 universities, and others that have more recently acquired university status. There is value in these institutions, and too little serious debate about what this transformation means.

Let’s accept, for a moment, that this shift in policy is necessary to mitigate scepticism on migration. There will be implications for the diversity of our campus, for some universities’ financial models, and for the research base. Some will need to adapt their education to match this new economic reality. And there will be places where the claim on behalf of an institution to deliver a “world education” could start to ring hollow.

As a sector, we are being told to focus on our institutional proposition. This is in the context of a system of financial incentives and a regulatory regime that has pushed us towards homogenisation in the last decade. Inertia means that some are still sleepwalking.

In recent years, we have spent too much time and energy trying to shift the narrative about higher education. We know what the public and politicians think. The odd poster at a bus stop isn’t going to cut it and we should now refocus on what is required in the years and decades ahead. We must now set out clearly the policy and regulatory changes that will be required to smooth the significant transformation of the sector that is about to occur.

There is now a shared elite consensus of the problem facing the higher education sector – what Jonathan calls a convergence of views between the left and right. There will be no new money. For the moment, it is up to individual institutions, but conversations between institutions will be critical if we are to manage this change.

An institution reducing dependence on international student income will likely be simultaneously looking to reduce or otherwise wind down research activity and adjusting its education model to match core mission and the new financial envelope.

This isn’t an issue about narrative, it’s a set of policy questions. Where is the debate about the policy and regulatory interventions that might be required to support this transition? How can we get better data about skills needs and demands? How might mayoral combined authorities be empowered to aid this transition? What does this mean for areas not covered by a mayoral combined authority? How can we introduce different incentives into the system with broader definitions of what success looks like? There is no shortage of civil servants and policy makers who wish to engage on these topics.

The limits of solidarity

We need to be clearer among ourselves about the obligations of solidarity rather than treat it as a blind commitment to mutually support individual universities.

In the coming years, the leadership and governing bodies of universities will have to consider and mitigate lots of competing risks. First and foremost, for some, will be the risk of insolvency. That will mean that many universities will fly close to the wind when it comes to any other risk, whether that is reputational or even – in some cases – regulatory risk. It means, inevitably, one story after another that portrays individuals and institutions in a poor light.

Most of these stories will be about hard-pressed individuals doing their best in very difficult circumstances. That does not and will not matter. The result is the same – negative stories which continue to undermine the reputation of the sector and undermine the case for intervention by sapping public and political support for institutions.

Too much of how the sector engages with the public is defensive. A nuanced position on minimum entry requirements can accommodate the Open University. A commitment to social mobility is compatible with robust admissions criteria designed to ensure that students have the best chance of thriving. To pretend otherwise is not just disingenuous – it is an act of disservice to students.

What we need to do now is have a clear-eyed conversation about the sector’s shortcomings, and the behaviours and practices we expect of universities. I understand that it is likely that there will be institutions who feel unable to commit to pledges on quality, on minimum entry standards, or on a responsible approach to franchising. Universities are autonomous, and it is up to universities individually to decide whether they can commit to an agreement that sets out clear obligations and expectations. If it is the case that if they cannot, then we have no obligation to defend them.

Three shifts in the way in which the sector is engaging with policy debates now need to occur.

First, an acceptance that the current export-led model of higher education is coming to an end for most. That requires a serious conversation about the impact this will have on individual disciplines and areas of research. There is an urgency to this.

Second, we need to shift sector lobbying efforts away from a defence of the status quo and towards the policy and regulatory interventions that will enable universities to better serve the needs of the UK economy.

Third, the development of a set of obligations and expectations that universities must adhere to, if they wish to continue to be part of the collective work that the sector undertakes. Jonathan’s prompts are a good place to start.

A report I contributed to, Institution Overboard, made the case for time to discuss reform of the sector. The issues are complex, and the ecosystem is far more fragile than it appears. Two years on, the threat is here – as many of the people reading this will now know firsthand. Yet we are no closer to a solution.

Those with long memories or an appreciation of the sector’s history will know that the sector has in the past failed to grip challenges of the magnitude that we now collectively face. Failure then meant a reduction in the role we played in society, decaying estates with insufficient resource to teach, and emigration for some of our best and brightest. We cannot assume failure will be so attractive this time around.