I read with interest this morning that my alma mater, University College London, is to appeal to raise £300m over 10 years.
[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3718172.stm]University launches £300m appeal The appeal is thought to be the biggest in history by a UK university. UCL provost Professor Malcolm Grant said it was important to compete with the US.
What interests me are the words of Grant: that the university needs to compete with the US.
I think back to all the hysteria that resulted when the British government announced that it was to allow universities to charge up to ~£3000 a year in tuition fees. As it stands, all major universities are state-funded, meaning that the maximum one pays for their tuition is the current level of ~£1000 per year, regardless of where they read. There were comments that 'education will become a market', ignoring that there already is a world market in education: top universities across the world compete for the best students, and the colleges with the biggest budgets and best facilities win out. Thus, these colleges gain the best researchers and, on average, reap more money back from their work. With the likes of UCL, LSE and Imperial College complaining that they are in desperate need of more money (via an open letter in The Times, if my memory is correct), how else could funds be raised, other than charging more for the tuition? Yes, students would graduate with increased debts, but unless the funding level for the universities is raised, the world standing of British education would drop.
That was a disjointed ramble, but I worry that unless universities are given more money—to be able to pay for the best researchers and for better facilities—standards will slip.
 A Lost Iguana · Wed Oct 06, 2004 @ 09:07am · 0 Comments |
