For those who have not been following the unfolding melodrama that is English higher education policy, a number of publicly prominent academics (including Grayling and biologist Professor Richard Dawkins) announced on 5 June that they are founding a new, privately-financed higher education institution (please see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13659394 for the announcement). The proposed institution will
be federated with the University of London. Tentatively named the "New College of the Humanities", the proposed college claims it will keep class sizes very small, focus on an undergraduate liberal arts curriculum, and will foster an intimate scholarly community (see the college's website at http://www.nchum.org/).What is causing all the fuss is that the college proposes to charge students £18,000 per year and claims that it will operate without public financial support. Reports suggest the college is intending on providing some amount of financial relief for 20% of each year's student intake.
Given the reaction of those who released a smoke bomb at a debate over the creation of the new institution, one might assume these protesters see the 'New College of the Humanities' as the end of publicly-assisted universities in England. This position is supported by literary critic Dr. Terry Eagleton in his piece, "AC Grayling's private university is odious" (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/06/ac-graylings-new-private-univerity-is-odious). As attractive as this position may be to those who believe in publicly-supported higher education, it is almost certainly a gross over-estimation of what will take place.
In 2002, the former President of the University of British Columbia, Dr. David Strangeway, successfully led the creation of a new, private university in Canada. The new institution, Quest University, declared it would offer an undergraduate liberal arts curriculum with small classes and high interaction between students and prominent academics (... sound familiar?). Quest also claimed it would not use any public funding. It current has student fees of $27,000 Canadian per year with offers of financial relief for those demonstrating need (for more information on Quest University please see http://www.questu.ca/).
I draw this comparison between the New College of the Humanities and Quest University for two reasons. The first reason is to point out that the entire public-assisted university systems of British Columbia and the other Canadian provinces have not collapsed as a consequence of the existence of a private university. Despite some post-colonial protestations to the contrary, the Canadian university system is not unlike that of the UK. Canada's universities are legally autonomous bodies which receive a considerable percentage of their research and teaching funding from public sources (the exact percentage is different from province to province). Canada also have a long history of fees, which could help guide England through its current student financing policy morass (but that is the topic for another time). If anything, the relative youth of the Canadian university system would have made it more susceptible to attack by private universities absorbing the country's talented students.
In reality, only half of Quest's enrolment comes from Canada. The rest of its students come from the United States or overseas. Canadian students have drawn the conclusion that if one is smart enough to earn admission to the more prestigious, publicly-assisted universities, which are also much cheaper, one goes to UBC, Victoria, Toronto, McGill, Queen's, Memorial, etc. One doesn't pay $28,000 to attend Quest. It is highly probable that the New College of the Humanities will experience the same phenomenon.
The second reason to draw a comparison between the two institutions is with regard to the real problem with universities like Quest and the New College of the Humanities: the claim that they will be entirely private. While the fees for both institutions are relatively high, they are unlikely to generate enough revenue to fund what these institutions claim they can do. In the case of Quest, it didn't. In its early days, Quest explained that it would hire prominent academics who already had posts at existing, publicly-assisted universities. Not having to support full time staff means that an institution can have much lower costs. It also means that the publicly-assisted universities are essentially subsidizing the private institution by inadvertently "farming out" academic staff.
Academic staff working for a private institution in a part time capacity may argue that the time they spend at the private institution is their own - perhaps while on sabbatical, or time that would otherwise be used for independent research. The truth is that sabbatical or research time is NOT private time for the academic - it is still time which the home university can expect some level of productivity. The hiring of academics with 'home positions' at publicly-assisted universities represents public money (and support) bleeding from the public system into the private. While this alone doesn't represent a huge threat to the public university system, it is certainly unfair and wrong for a private university depending on part time staff drawn from public institutions to suggest it is not a drain on the public purse.
At the moment, the New College of the Humanities is claiming it will be truly independent from public sources of funding. It remains to be seen if this is really the case. The academics supporting the new institutions' foundation may be expected to relinquish their positions at existing public institutions if this 'New College' will truly be private. The test will be seeing how many do so.
4,500. The turnout for this vote was one of the highest for a meeting of Congregation in five years.