Avalanches, Blogs & the Future of UK Higher Education

This work by Katarina Gray-Sharp is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

I subscribe to the Guardian Higher Education Network for information about UK college and university politics.  This morning's email included a link to an article by Jessica Shepherd predicting the end of the "middle-ranked" (and the panicked gasps of the elite) university within the next decade.  Being an employee of one of these, I was interested to read the interview with Sir Michael Barber, Pearson's Chief Education Advisor.

The article focuses on recent work by Barber and a team of Pearson staff.  Barber is the lead author of a report published by the Institute for Public Policy Research entitled An avalanche is coming: Higher education and the revolution ahead.  The other two authors, Katelyn Donnelly and Saad Rizvi, are both executive directors at Pearson.

The Report
The primary argument of the report is:

that a new phase of competitive intensity is emerging as the concept of the traditional university itself comes under pressure and the various functions it serves are unbundled and increasingly supplied, perhaps better, by providers that are not universities at all. (p. 1)

Parts of this argument remain undefined in the report.  Massification reconfigured the idea of the university long ago, but the report relates the 'traditional university' only to "Yale or Harvard ... Oxford or Cambridge" (p. 7).  As such a definition limits the extent of change being proposed to four institutions, this may just be a lack of clarity.  If the authors refer to the teaching/research/service model, the 'traditional university' has been 'under pressure' (or 'in crisis' or 'dead') since at least the nineties (if not earlier).  That a 'new phase of competitive intensity is emerging', therefore, becomes available for analysis.

Although most threats are identified in the report, 'a new phase of competitive intensity' might suggest increased bargaining power by suppliers.  Most faculty would argue that this is simply not the case.  Indeed, minimal increases have been reported in the US.  Even getting a job in the Academy can be a battle.

More interesting is the argument that non-university 'providers' might fulfil some 'functions' in a superior way than current 'supplie[rs]'.  The language (including 'competition') constructs education as an economic versus public good.  Given the authors are all employed by a company with significant investment in higher education, this should not be surprising.

However, the argument is illustrated using the largest US university, the University of Phoenix, as an example (p. 18).  Unfortunately, the privately-owned Phoenix is facing a sanction of probation by the regional accreditor for “alleged administrative and governance deficiencies”.  Apollo, the university's holding company, made a statement in their corporate filing:

the review team concluded that the University of Phoenix has insufficient autonomy relative to its parent corporation and sole shareholder, Apollo Group, Inc., to assure that its board of directors can manage the institution, assure the University’s integrity, exercise the board’s fiduciary responsibilities, and make decisions necessary to achieve the institution’s mission and successful operation. (p. 2)

As outlined by Paul Fain, meeting accreditation requirements is essential to qualify for federal funding.  Without government support, 'better' may become 'never'. 

Avalanches
In addition to the general topic of public-private battles over education, the avalanche metaphor drew my interest.  Barber uses the metaphor within the interview:

I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't a few [universities] that could go under, given that this avalanche is coming.

I considered Tweeting the article and the report, then found the YouTube video.  Well-constructed stop motion animation is not cheap.  My interest peaked...

I searched Twitter for Tweets of the video and found one by The Dragon Fairy. "Barber shredded," she states before offering a link to an article by David Kernohan on the wonkhe blog. We're under fifteen feet of pure white snow does indeed 'shred' Barber's report:

The citations are shoddy, the proofreading abysmal – it reads like a bad blog post. Or a good Ted talk. It’s a serving of handsome slices of invective which would leave anyone sick to the stomach. 

Kernohan quotes parts of the avalanche metaphor's source: a Financial Times restaurant review-interview with historian Norman Davies.  He suggests failures by Barber et al. to quote with context, however Kernohan has also been selective.  Neither the report nor the blog quote the whole paragraph from which the metaphor is taken.  Most likely, neither found the whole paragraph useful to their argument.

It is likely that the avalanche of politics has not completed arrived.  Pearson has openly supported the report, front-paging it on the main site.  The blogosphere has only just started to respond (for example, Ferdinand von Prondzynski) and academic journal articles may be months off.  To be continued....