By David Williams
06 August 2009
An MPs’ report has called for widespread cultural change in universities, arguing for a new regulator, a national system of bursaries, and more support for mature and part-time students.
The study, by the innovation, universities, science and skills select committee, said the current system of bursaries, set individually by universities, cannot be justified on grounds of widening participation or making university affordable to poorer students.
The committee recommended that the government draw up an alternative national system, with a minimum bursary that all students could apply for.
The August 2 report condemned the standards watchdog, the Quality Assurance Agency, as ‘out of date, inadequate and in urgent need of replacement’ within two years. The MPs said it should become a new ‘quality and standards agency’ with a duty to maintain consistent standards across the sector and report to Parliament.
The report found part-time and mature students suffered ‘a form of discrimination’. It said all aspects of support should be reviewed to take into account the needs of students who work full-time or have families.
The committee accused university bosses of ‘defensive complacency’ over the rising proportion of students achieving top grades. Pointing out that universities receive £15bn in public funding annually, the committee said it was essential that grades measured academic attainment accurately and consistently.
The MPs added it was ‘absurd and disreputable’ to argue that academic standards were best safeguarded by a market-style system.
But universities were quick to condemn the study. The 1994 Group of research-led institutions defended its members’ record on supporting students from disadvantaged backgrounds.
‘A national bursary scheme would be a big mistake,’ said chair Paul Wellings. ‘It would effectively be a tax… it would seriously compromise the direct relationship between a student’s fees and their education.’
Wendy Piatt, director general of the rival Russell Group, said she was ‘dismayed and surprised by this outburst’, accusing MPs of ‘trying to cram universities into one-size-fits-all solutions’. She said a national bursary scheme already existed in the form of means-tested support for poorer students.
Universities UK, which represents institutions nationally, denied that vice-chancellors were unwilling to investigate issues affecting the sector.
Chief executive Diana Warwick described the QAA proposal as ‘using a sledgehammer to crack a nut’, and criticised the report as a whole for its ‘ill-thought-through’ centralising tone.
But the University and College Union and National Union of Students applauded the bursary plans.
06 August 2009
An MPs’ report has called for widespread cultural change in universities, arguing for a new regulator, a national system of bursaries, and more support for mature and part-time students.
The study, by the innovation, universities, science and skills select committee, said the current system of bursaries, set individually by universities, cannot be justified on grounds of widening participation or making university affordable to poorer students.
The committee recommended that the government draw up an alternative national system, with a minimum bursary that all students could apply for.
The August 2 report condemned the standards watchdog, the Quality Assurance Agency, as ‘out of date, inadequate and in urgent need of replacement’ within two years. The MPs said it should become a new ‘quality and standards agency’ with a duty to maintain consistent standards across the sector and report to Parliament.
The report found part-time and mature students suffered ‘a form of discrimination’. It said all aspects of support should be reviewed to take into account the needs of students who work full-time or have families.
The committee accused university bosses of ‘defensive complacency’ over the rising proportion of students achieving top grades. Pointing out that universities receive £15bn in public funding annually, the committee said it was essential that grades measured academic attainment accurately and consistently.
The MPs added it was ‘absurd and disreputable’ to argue that academic standards were best safeguarded by a market-style system.
But universities were quick to condemn the study. The 1994 Group of research-led institutions defended its members’ record on supporting students from disadvantaged backgrounds.
‘A national bursary scheme would be a big mistake,’ said chair Paul Wellings. ‘It would effectively be a tax… it would seriously compromise the direct relationship between a student’s fees and their education.’
Wendy Piatt, director general of the rival Russell Group, said she was ‘dismayed and surprised by this outburst’, accusing MPs of ‘trying to cram universities into one-size-fits-all solutions’. She said a national bursary scheme already existed in the form of means-tested support for poorer students.
Universities UK, which represents institutions nationally, denied that vice-chancellors were unwilling to investigate issues affecting the sector.
Chief executive Diana Warwick described the QAA proposal as ‘using a sledgehammer to crack a nut’, and criticised the report as a whole for its ‘ill-thought-through’ centralising tone.
But the University and College Union and National Union of Students applauded the bursary plans.
