Assignment Submission Form

Name:

*Intentionally left blank*

Student Number:

13096908

Module Number:

P72006

Module Title:

Learning and Teaching

Module Tutors:

David Aldridge, Georgina Glenny and Graham Butt

Word count:

6420

Assignment title:

A teleology of higher education

Assignment Due Date: 5 June 2015

Is this a re-

No

submission?

CHECKLIST:
Have you:
Included page numbers on all pages? Yes
Remained within the word limit stipulated for the assignment? Yes
Followed the guidelines for referencing? Yes
c
Read and understood the information on plagiarism? Yes
http://www.brookes.ac.uk/library/skill/plagiarism.html

Page 1 of 20

A teleology of higher education

Introduction
In writing this paper my aim is to draw conclusions on the purpose of higher education, what it
could or should be, and what might need to change in order for it to fulfil that purpose. I feel that
it is necessary for university teachers to have a clear sense of their own purpose in order to
maintain their general well-being in the face of imposed agendas and measures. I have also
been struck by how divorced the scholarship of higher education appears to be from
government policy; the cultural gap between the academic intelligentsia and the holders of
political power (Hogan 2010, p163), and feel that as an academic in a publicly-funded
university I have a responsibility to know and learn to speak my mind convincingly on matters
relating to educational policy, and to identify appropriate arenas in which to do so.
I have taken an interdisciplinary approach to exploring and answering the question, drawing on
disciplines such as philosophy, pedagogy and economics, and also my personal experience,
having undertaken my own first degree at a time of significant change in higher education. This
is a deliberate attempt to be true to a humanistic perspective that values holistic, integrative and
interdisciplinary thinking. The inclusion of several popular news and government sources is also
a conscious choice, as a key theme in my analysis is how those with a stake in higher education
perceive it. These media have a powerful influence on the perceptions of applicants, students,
senior managers, politicians and the general public.
As both a teacher in and a student of higher education, in writing this paper I have experienced
very consciously what Tubbs (2004) describes as withdrawal of the answer (p51). Every source
points me towards ten more, and I feel the arguments are not complete. When I try to step
outside these struggles, however, I recognise this withdrawal as both a driving force and a
purpose of higher education; an endless process that has to, therefore, be taken as an end in
itself.
Higher Education as a rite of passage?
Awaiting my own A-Level results in 1997, it was widely acknowledged among my peers that if
you were reasonably bright you went to university. Too young perhaps to perceive this in terms
of social responsibility, and in receipt of full tuition and maintenance grants, we saw
undergraduate study as an unmissable opportunity; a reward, even, for doing well at school. We
knew we were lucky to have been born on the right side of town to parents with high
expectations, and were confident that a good degree would make us wiser and happier, and
release us from the kinds of tedious, poorly-paid work that consumed our weekends and
holidays. We looked forward to the immersive experience that would create friends for life.
This perception of higher education was not dissimilar to that of my parents, who were
forerunners in the new wave of access to higher education promoted by Lionel Robbins report

Page 2 of 20

of the Committee on Higher Education. At a time when only 4-5% of young people attended
university, Robbins found that a much higher proportion, 10-15%, actually had the ability to
succeed in higher education, and therefore that places on courses should be available to all
who are qualified by ability and attainment to pursue them and who wish to do so (Robbins
1963, p8). The report provided the impetus for an initial doubling or tripling of university places,
and the 80s and 90s saw further expansion beyond Robbins expectations, achieved in part by
the conversion of technical colleges to university status. Subjects previously considered nonacademic (e.g. Fine Art) or vocational (e.g. social work) began to be offered as bachelors
degrees alongside traditional university subjects; an uncomfortable process that the creative
arts are still struggling to coming to terms with (Souleles 2013).
By the time I graduated, the exclusive sparkle of a degree had faded. There was an explicit
acknowledgment among my contemporaries that anything less than a 2:1 would mean an
uncertain future, while any class of degree from an elite university was rumoured to be ample
protection against the dreaded graduate poverty (Thompson 2016). Modern folklore, perhaps,
but one that reveals much about graduate expectations and attitudes, and university
hierarchies, at the turn of the century. The proletarianisation of graduate jobs described by
Thompson (2016) was a direct outcome of the steep expansion of higher education that
continued through the 80s and 90s and flooded the job market with overqualified graduates. Not
only is a degree no longer a ticket to a secure career, it now comes with tuition fees and
maintenance costs. Despite all this, demand has not abated, which raises questions about why
students today choose to go to university.
On speaking to young people in school and college about their perspective on what a university
education offers, Lucas (2015) reports their mixed feelings about wider access against cost and
quality, and a strong sense of gain and loss. Large-scale qualitative research on how students
perceive a university education is difficult to find, but is surely needed if we are to draw
meaningful conclusions from the mass of figures and charts collated by HESA (Universities UK
2014) and the Office for National Statistics (2013). Currently, those holding political power are
free to interpret the numbers however they wish; for example, key government figures have
claimed that the rise in applications from low-income students indicates uniform recognition that
a degree from the UK is an excellent investment and that they were right to raise tuition fees
(Department of Business, Innovation & Skills 2015).
Regardless of whether or not students see themselves as investors, there is no doubt that
universities are acting concordantly, with university funds increasingly being diverted towards
marketing and recruitment (Chapleo 2013). The question is; if a great deal of money is being
spent to convince people of the value of something, to what extent is that value real, or
constructed?
Higher Education as a producer of graduates?
What is it that the marketing departments of universities believe they are selling? Many
universities have decided upon a set of Graduate Attributes (GAs); what Barrie (2004) describes

Page 3 of 20

as skills, knowledge and abilities of university graduates, beyond disciplinary content

knowledge, which are applicable to a range of contexts (p262). GAs typically take the form of
an ontological promise from the institution to the prospective student, framing the graduate as
the product rather than the courses of study on offer. Nicol (2010) claims the identification of
graduate attributes is fundamentally about the role and purpose of university education (p1).
A brief desk study of several universities Graduate Attributes (GAs) reveals key similarities
between them. Many take the form of inexplicably complex matrices, as typified by the
University of Glasgow, which attempts to apply the NGO Forum for the Futures specialistpersonal-transferable triad but, like Sterling (2013), struggles to communicate any significant
different between the latter two. Institutional GAs also tend to be focused on the employability of
the individual. For example, the University of Edinburgh categorises the ability to understand
social, cultural, global and environmental responsibilities and issues as a form of Personal
Effectiveness. This framing of the individual graduate in isolation is perhaps not surprising, given
the attributes have been constructed by an employability strategy group.
An independent set of GAs exists in the form of Seven Things Every Graduate Should Know;
penned by the left-wing think tank The New Economics Foundation (NEF) in a report
commissioned (somewhat unexpectedly) by the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA):
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.

In-depth knowledge of a favourite subject

How to apply knowledge
What makes a good life
How others think
How change happens
The dynamics of power and influence
Global interdependence

(Steuer & Marks 2008, p12)

There are immediate, clear differences between these attributes and those commonly promised
by individual universities. First, the inclusion of the word favourite (1) foregrounds passion and
enjoyment. There must surely, somewhere, be a set of institutional Graduate Attributes that
includes this, but I have not found one yet. Second, an understanding of the good life (3) and
the factors influencing human flourishing and happiness, may be in direct opposition to
commonly promoted attributes such as competitiveness, effectiveness and drive (e.g.
University of Glasgow). Finally, the NEFs attributes, particularly (4) to (7), emphasise an
understanding of the wider context in which graduates find themselves, and their capability to
enact positive change in the world for the greater good - rather than for their own personal
prosperity.
While it could be argued that most of the NEFs Seven Things should in fact be introduced
earlier in life, ideally forming a basis for secondary and/or youth education, they are
underpinned by Steuer & Marks (2008) view on the purpose of higher education; to enable

Page 4 of 20

graduates to pioneer innovative and creative responses to achieving wider economic, social
and environmental well-being (p12). There is an imperative of change being communicated
here; it is assumed that graduates will be changing the social world rather than fitting into
existing roles, with the objective of our wider wellbeing. This is a clear distinction from typical
institutional Graduate Attributes which, when viewed against the NEFs, appear narrow,
individualistic and determinate.

Page 5 of 20

Higher Education for an unknown future?

While Barnett (2004) acknowledges that the future has always been unknown, he is not alone in
highlighting that the changes we are seeing are different to those that have gone before; we
have seen profound change in the way we engage with the environment and each other, but we
are now seeing changes in how we understand ourselves; in our sense of identity. Illeris (2013)
explains how the the rate of technological advancement has destabilised our economic and
personal security, the passing on of human knowledge, relations of gender, race and class, and
what is to be valued, citing Bauman's (2000) liquid modernity. Illeris however paints a less
troubling picture than Barnett, suggesting that, rather than being totally destabilised, our
development has simply become a little retarded. Compared to our parents, my generation
stayed at school later, left home later, had children much later (if at all). It is therefore not
surprising that the sense of self that used to be well-formed in ones early twenties is commonly
now still in development a decade later.
Barnett (2004) claims that the questions that are now being asked about the social world not
only yield a range of different answers, but that these answers are incompatible with each other,
yielding a state of supercomplexity. He concedes that universities have been active in creating
this supercomplexity, which is why his focus on how one should learn for it is somewhat
surprising. It communicates a passive mindset; that the future is something we will find
ourselves in, rather than something we play an active part in creating.
If we have to prepare anyone for an uncertain future, we should be preparing everyone for an
uncertain future; not just those who attend university. Indeed, the skills shortages the National
Career Council (2013) are concerned with are not those of graduates; many of whom are
significantly over-qualified for the jobs they do (p11).
More to the point, when we consider how this uncertain future manifests itself in the immediately
observable world, beyond our troubled or retarded identities, we recognise the very tangible
impact of the destabilisation described above; a dearth of permanent contracts, poor access to
decent housing, and increasingly insecure pensions. Is it, therefore, a more worthy objective to
prepare students for an uncertain future, or to enable them to create a more stable one?
While the conclusions of Barnetts (2004) paper constitute a convincing manifesto for studentcentred learning, I am concerned that in framing this as a solution for the problem of our
uncertain future Barnett is playing to the gallery; leaving his ideas open to an interpretation that
supports the calls of those holding political power for a high-value, high-skills economy and an
adaptable and agile workforce that allows us to succeed in an intensely competitive global
marketplace (National Careers Council 2013, p6). Ultimately, Barnetts underlying assumption that a single course of higher education study can or should prepare young people for an
uncertain future - has no rational basis. British people already change careers an average three
times over their working lives; they retrain, they undertake personal and professional

Page 6 of 20

development, they transform themselves. It is the ongoing, lifelong nature of education that will
enable us not only to navigate the future, but to continue to shape it.

Higher Education for life?

The vast majority of undergraduate students are school-leavers, and the proportion of them
applying to study at university remains high. This is to be expected given the postmanufacturing employment market with few opportunities for on-the-job training. What is
interesting is that UCAS applications from mature students are in decline, a trend not observed
in Scotland and Northern Ireland, where domiciled students pay lower or no fees (Independent
Commission on Fees 2014).
These are interesting trends being picked up by organisations such as the ICoF, but in the
absence of large scale qualitative research on how these groups perceive the value of a
university education, we can only speculate as to the mechanisms at play. UCAS chief Mary
Curnock Cook has suggested that the fall in mature student applications perhaps reflects
improved employment prospects in the UK (Press Association 2015), but as a well-known
advocate of delayed university entry (Paton 2014) she is unlikely to cite the incurrence of a
36,000 debt that mature students may perceive differently to their 17-year-old would-be peers.
Tuition fees are only half the story; at university in the late 1990s I received a full maintenance
grant and was effectively living independently, but for the vast majority of todays students
gaining a degree means either continued dependence on parents and guardians, extremely low
living standards, and/or an escalating maintenance loan; unfeasible or untenable options for
many would-be mature students. It may indeed be the case that 17-year-olds from low-income
families are not feeling deterred from applying to university (Department of Business, Innovation
and Skills 2015), but it would be a terrible loss if the over-25s are being excluded, particularly if,
as discussed in the previous section, we are all growing up more slowly.
While Sterling (2013) asserts that the purpose of HE is the preparation of individuals for life,
work and future learning (p21), the 2015 manifesto of the Green Party of England and Wales
goes further, highlighting that 18 is not necessarily the best time for people to embark on higher
education (ED251), and promoting funded education at every stage of life (ED293).
Higher Education for everyone?
Direct engagement with higher education is, of course, still on the rise since the Robbins report
and Tony Blairs New Labour pledge to send 50% of the population to university, a figure that
the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills has claimed we are approaching, although
closer analysis has shown the proportion to be significantly lower; between 27-36% (Ball 2013).
University study is not for everyone. Many may feel it is not even for 50% of us. But even though
Robbins was only initially arguing for university places for the additional 5-10% he judged
capable of and keen for higher level study, he also pointed out that these numbers are a

Page 7 of 20

function not only of heredity but also of a host of other influences varying with standards of
educational provision, family incomes and attitudes and the education received by previous
generations (p54) and would therefore be almost certain to grow. We have become better
educated. However, it is also the case that universities have taken on a lot of what used to be
taught on the job, and the question remains as to whether this is the kind of higher level study
Robbins had in mind.
For a while, higher educations sole purpose seemed to be to grow itself, and its new purpose is
survival; a constant struggle to feed the overgrown monster it has become. This has prompted
the transfer of cost onto the individual student; a move that presumes education only benefits
those who engage directly in it. The example of doctors paying thousands of pounds to train
how to save the lives of others is particularly difficult to comprehend. While the profile of
university subjects studied has changed dramatically since Robbins day, and we might
question why the general public should pay for education and training that directly creates
surplus value for private profit, it is still illogical to demand the individual pays. A fair system of
general taxation - including, crucially, corporation tax - is the logical solution. Clearly there are
other opportunities that could be taken to ensure that the surplus value educated employees
create for private companies is rewarded rather than exploited (see for example Piketty 2014,
Jones 2014 and Hutton 2015), but this is beyond the scope of education policy.
There is more that universities could be doing to ensure that their activities benefit everyone.
The introduction of fees has shifted our focus onto graduates as our primary product, but if our
product is people who think and act differently in and on the world, this should include our
students, staff, and the wider community. Thompson (2016) echoes Hogans (2010) talk of
scholarly aloofness in writing we cannot just retreat into the monasteries, lock the gates behind
us and hope that we will be left alone. The chasm between the opinions of academics, the
public, and policy-makers is particularly deep when it comes to education policy. Think tanks
and policy wonks clearly serve a purpose, but are they speaking for academic institutions, or
filling a vacancy created by their insularity? I will return to this matter in the following sections.
Higher education for a better world?
There is an assumption widely promoted by powerful groups in government and the media that
the interests of the economy are concordant with the interests of individuals and society. This
assumption is neatly illustrated by the National Careers Council (2013), who propose that in the
interests of the individual, our society and our economy, we must ensure we develop talent to
the full and use all that talent to best and most fulfilling effect (p6). In contrast, the 2015 Green
Party manifesto presents a bold challenge to the neoliberal dictum of full employment, arguing
for a shorter working week and a citizens income in the service of zero or negative economic
growth without individual hardship (EC201). This vision sits beyond the Overton window of
perceived political feasibility (Jones 2014), and that is precisely what is interesting about it.

Page 8 of 20

In the following sections I will discuss the role of higher education in creating a better world
according to various interpretations; supporting the economy, saving the environment, creating
world peace and promoting equality.
Higher education for the economy?
Education and training creates surplus value that benefits employers; a benefit that Jones
(2014) describes as a subsidy for private enterprise. It also appears to generate tax revenue; in
2010 those completing tertiary education were calculated to provide a net public benefit of
82,000 on average over the course of their lives, compared to those with lower qualifications
(OECD 2014).
However, what we are doing here is splitting the population and analysing the earnings of the
27-35% that now attend university. If we examined the difference in average earnings of the 5%
who attended university in 1961, we would probably see a much greater sum. At 50%, we would
probably see less. My point here is that the financial benefit of a university education to the
individual, the public purse, or to GDP is highly context-dependent.
While Rickett (2015) asks explicitly why a university education has become purely about getting
a job and earning more money, Iannucci (2015) questions the relationship between business
and public life in general, and the premise that every man is an island that has to be selffinancing. The central argument for the self-financing of higher education is that more people
are now going to university, but it is rarely asked why so many of these students are paying for
an education that used to be at least part-funded directly by employers through apprenticeships,
paid internships or other kinds of in-work training. Such opportunities are not only disappearing;
it seems they are also not being promoted, perhaps because schools and colleges feel
university destinations will boost their reputation. When the Edge Foundation (2012) surveyed
500 A level students, 77% reported being actively discouraged from pursuing vocational options
such as apprenticeships, with many being told that they were aimed at less bright or less
ambitious students.
While many employers have stopped investing in the training of new recruits, they still maintain
a strong interest in what happens at universities, as I found attending a recent Drapers Lecture
by the chair of BAFTA (Morrison 2015). New Statesman deputy editor Helen Lewis complains of
journalism graduates being expected to pay for their own training [currently 27K for a
Journalism BA], then take a crappy job on 15,000 (Jones 2014, p99), but she does not pledge
to reinstate paid internships at her newspaper. A postgraduate degree is now a common
prerequisite for media jobs, and many work as unpaid interns as part of or after their course of
study.
So why has the cost of job-specific training been shifted onto individual learners? The Leveson
enquiry highlighted the extent to which the newspaper industry is struggling financially as print is
being abandoned by consumers in favour of online media (Leveson 2012, p98). Other
industries, which used to make significant investment in the training of employees (e.g.

Page 9 of 20

manufacturing and mining), have a much-diminished presence in the UK since the onset of
globalisation. The profound social changes described in previous sections, particularly the
dissolution of the manufacturing industry, its related communities and jobs for life, mean that
employers are less likely to invest in long-term training, and certain not if someone else is willing
to pay for it. Modern apprenticeships still exist, but primarily in business administration and often
in local government; one of the few public services safe from privatisation or other substantial
reform.
The National Careers Council claims that there is a serious mismatch between our population
and the needs of our economy; that to compete in the global marketplace we need to focus on
matching people to jobs and training them accordingly, with no wasted investment in unused
skills (2013, p6). Despite all this talk of competition, it is not made clear what we are competing
for. If the intention is to beat Germany to fourth place on the GDP rankings, perhaps we should
look to the highly differentiated German higher education offer; particularly the dual education
(apprenticeship/vocational school) system.
Higher education for the environment?
GDP only measures financial wealth; it ignores the social and environmental costs of growth
and does not measure health, poverty, leisure time, or other factors in our experienced quality of
life. The dominant discourse among those who hold political power still echoes the Dearing
(1997) report; an acknowledgement of the role of education in enhancing holistic quality of life
that is subsequently undermined by an exclusive focus on economic success and global
competition.
While the social democracy of the post-war years is still hailed as something of a golden age,
we now appreciate the environmental implications of competition and consumption, and the full
impact of the economic growth of the past is yet to take effect (Lucas 2010). Universities have a
role to play in reducing future impact through research into green technologies and renewable
energy, and in integrating sustainable thinking into their curricula. University students will be the
business and industry leaders of the future, and we have a golden opportunity to influence the
way they think. Even the construction of university curricula around a sustainability framework
such as the NEFs Seven Things (Steuer & Marks 2008, p12) may not be sufficient to initiate
change when external signals (such as tuition fees) indicate that it all comes down to money.
The triumph of the economy over the environment is the triumph of individualism over
collectivism, but it may turn out to be a hollow victory.
Higher education for world peace?
In Conflict of the Faculties, Kant (1979) attempts to explain the role of the philosophy faculty in
the 18th century. Considered the lower faculty and grounded entirely in reason, it effectively
corrected and deepened the insights of the three higher faculties - theology, law and medicine.
Palmquist (2004) explains how in this sense Kant saw the university not only as an example and
model of peaceful conflict, but the origin of future world peace.

Page 10 of 20

Those of us who teach and research in universities would surely benefit from engaging with
Kants ideals. It feels that every year we are asked to do more with less; there seems to be no
time in which to have conversations with those around us; to share what we are doing and
thinking, and invite comment. Many departments and course teams in modern universities are
relatively isolated, having official dealings with central hub services but no pressing reason to
deal with each other.
The silos we have created for ourselves in academia are made more distinct by social media,
whose infrastructure promotes a form of social cleansing; a creeping insularisation of networks
of like-minded people. The physical world is unpredictable and inflexible, and we may feel
increasingly awkward in it, but we need to make the time and effort to relearn the art of
conversation (Zeldin 1998), to build and repair relationships with people who think differently to
ourselves. If war is founded on fear of the other, then familiarity and understanding must be
the basis for peace.
While confidence is commonly mentioned in institutional graduate attributes, humility rarely
makes an appearance. This is another example of how our hopes for and expectations of our
students have changed, as illustrated by this passage in Cardinal Wooleys 1864 opening
address at the University of Sydney:
Our undergraduates will...have formed the habit of thinking at once with modesty and
independence; they will not be in danger of mistaking one branch of science for the
whole circle of knowledge, nor unduly exaggerating the importance of those studies they
select as their own. Above all they will have attained the truest and most useful result of
human knowledge; the consciousness and confession of their comparative ignorance.
(Wooley quoted in Barrie 2004, p262)
It is important that we and our students understand ourselves and our particular area of
specialist knowledge in the context of the world and society as a whole. To develop this
contextualised understanding we need to step outside our departments, our institutions and,
most importantly, outside academia. Hogan (2010) stresses the importance of being willing to
grant that a contrasting standpoint might have something valuable and unexpected to
contribute (p164), suggesting that engaging regularly and publicly with other traditions is
probably the best way of persuading society of the integrity of educational practice.

Higher Education for equality?

Under pressure from constant measurement and demands for increasing efficiency, many
teaching staff - particularly those on part-time and lower-grade contracts - are in constant fear of
their jobs being cut or downgraded; a state of fear that the resourcing model depends upon.
Students are also being oppressed through constant assessment, and through the rhetoric that

Page 11 of 20

there is no alternative to an expensive education; that fulfilment is found through competition

and success.
Some might say we are complicit in this oppression by continuing to work for the system despite
our misgivings. Such collusion is widespread; the primary recommendation of the National
Careers Councils (2013) report on our underperforming workforce is increased investment in
the National Careers Service, which would, at least, secure the jobs of those on the Council. We
are all feeling insecure.
In Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Freire (1970) explains how only the oppressed can liberate
themselves, and in doing so they must also liberate those who are doing the oppressing. If we
are not quite ready for socialist revolution, we can certainly make ourselves, our peers and our
students more aware of the oppressive tendencies of the structures we work within, and to take
steps to collectivise; for example, joining a union and encouraging others to do so. We can also
initiate or support creative protest initiatives, such as Londons School of the Damned, a free
equivalent to a one year Masters in Fine Art established in 2013 with tutors and space paid for
through skills exchange (Miles 2015). This year, the entire class of Southern Californias Roski
School of Art & Design Masters in Fine Art dropped out and set up a similar collective to protest
against the corporatisation of their education (Beaufils et al. 2015).
The CEO of Universities UK has stated that universities should be academic, not therapeutic
communities (Shaw 2015). This is an unrealistic compartmentalisation. Studying at university even working at a university - is an immersive, holistic and transformative experience. It is not
and should not be about cognitive development in isolation. During a recent online consultation
on education initiated by UNESCO and UNICEF, a high school student from India posted the
following that illustrates the holistic, transformative nature of education:
Education is the closest thing to magic in the world. Nothing can transform a persons
life the way education can. It instills confidence and gifts people with a voice. Apart from
the obvious benefits of a better lifestyle and a more meaningful life, education can lead
to a better society at large; a society with people aware of their rights and duties.
(Nivasini, quoted in Sayed 2013, p1)
Higher education potentially has a lot to contribute to the quest for a better world, but the
commodification of university teaching and research is distracting us; tempting us with
apparently more straightforward goals; attracting us with what is most likely to bring the
greatest tangible reward (Hogan 2010, p2). We could surmise that is not in the interests of a
neoliberal government for us to get better at critical thinking in a broad sense; rather, it is in their
interests for us to be engaged in creating surplus value for industry and inventing new ways of
making money.
Higher education for itself?

Page 12 of 20

Humboldt described the university as a location for the disinterested search for truth
(Anderson 2010) in the sense that those doing the searching make no extrinsic gains from it. In
contrast, opportunities for personal gain abound in todays universities; from graduate career
prospects and external appointments to research funding, promotion, social status, peer esteem
and intellectual property. This means that decisions about research directions are often
influenced by financial and status factors rather than personal enjoyment and perceived value to
society. The central tenets of neoliberalism; competitive self-interest and the market (Olssen &
Peters 2005); are influencing research activities on both an individual and institutional level. The
search for truth, while not entirely corrupt, is undeniably interested.
While universities are reliant on external research funding, this interest is unlikely to dissolve.
Financial interests need to be declared to university ethics approval panels, but to what extent
does this declaration affect the research? There is plenty of evidence to suggest that, where
there is money to be made, the truth can become obscured. For example, Goldacre (2012)
describes a study of all 192 published medical trials of statins, where those funded by the
pharmaceutical industry were found to be 20 times more likely to demonstrate the drugs
effectiveness at reducing cholesterol. The primary focus of research ethics is generally seen as
the avoidance of harm to immediate participants, rather than ensuring disinterest and
embodying a broader conception of ethical values (Standish 2001, p498) that protects society at
large from harm.
Education is neither a tangible nor a liquid asset in economic terms. In writing about value in the
arts and humanities, Thompson (2016) implores us to revel in our own excrescence, reminding
us of the emergent and contingent nature of human existence, and that we have no purpose,
therefore education cannot be be subordinate to it. Hogans (2010) case for education as a
practice in its own right, with intrinsic value, is thorough and deeply convincing.
A practical example of how university teachers might, in practice, privilege the intrinsic value of
education comes from a University of Sheffield project that won the HEA Student and Staff
Partnership Award in 2013. This brought a range of students and scholars together to consider
value in the arts and humanities, a process culminating in the production of a collective
manifesto against value (see Fig. 1). These ideas inspired the development of a new module
which is now available to all students in the faculty (Holman & Mackay 2013).

Page 13 of 20

Fig 1. Two manifestos, produced by mixed groups of participants from the Faculty of Arts & Humanities (academics,
students, and professional service staff), at the University of Sheffield.

Conclusion
In an era of managerialism and constant measurement it is difficult to think beyond meeting
targets such as NSS scores, student satisfaction indices and graduate destinations. In order to
preserve our professional integrity and general well-being, those of us who teach in universities
will benefit from reconsidering our purpose, and that of the university itself in society. This is
ultimately something that should be agreed by society as a whole, but we are surely well-placed
to contribute something useful to the debate; or at least to ensure that there is a debate, and we
do not sleepwalk into a situation where our work no longer benefits humanity.
Education and scholarship should where possible be independent and disinterested, and valued
for its own sake. The current tuition fee system undermines the principle of education as an
essential public good and reframes it as a commodity that solely benefits the individual, despite
evidence to the contrary (e.g. OECD 2014). Shifting the entire cost of higher-level study onto the
individual learner is not only unjust, but likely to have a profound impact on how learners view
their studies in the context of their lives, and therefore on how and what they learn. All levels of
education should be funded at least in part by the state through general taxation.

Page 14 of 20

Aside from survival, there is no single purpose behind higher education as it exists today, and
that is one of the problems with it. Academic and vocational - and indeed different varieties
and formats of these educational categories - need to be reclaimed as signifiers of purpose, and
due consideration given as to why they should or should not be delivered by the same
institutions. A wide range of non-academic options should be available for school-leavers, from
vocational education that is college-based and more generalised, to specific vocational training
partly situated in and funded by industry.
In considering Graduate Attributes, universities should take care to think more broadly about
what higher education could contribute in the quest for a better world, and also about what this
means for how students are taught. A radical overhaul of the design of the university experience
has the potential to promote a true democracy with an electorate appreciative of the context in
which we live, and aware of our rights and duties as human beings. It could even make the
future less uncertain. On a course level, Sterling (2013, p24) suggests finding allies who share
a desire to incorporate sustainability into their curricula and exchanging peer reviews of
teaching using the range of resources available in the Future Fit Framework.
There are several trends being reported in our changing university populations; the decline in
mature students undertaking first degrees; a 70-80% increase in the numbers of international
students on first degree and taught postgraduate (e.g. MA) courses; the decline in numbers on
foundation degree and explicitly vocational undergraduate courses. In contrast the numbers and
profile of students undertaking research degrees remains relatively static. Large-scale
qualitative research exploring the factors contributing towards these trends will enable us to
achieve a richer understanding of the mechanisms at play. This is unlikely to be funded by the
government, for whom the HESA data is sufficient to prove that fees have worked (in
showing that students from low-income backgrounds are still applying to university in increasing
numbers).
While Barnett (2004) suggests that a consumption-production perspective is simply
incompatible with a view of universities as sites of open and transformatory engagement, there
is evidence to suggest that academic staff resist their positioning as fiscal resource generators
and competitors (Gonzales 2015) and find ways of reconciling institutional priorities with their
own values and commitments, often taking action that preserves their ideals in favour of
advancing their careers; for example, choosing to engage in local community projects rather
than presenting at international conferences. In doing this they demonstrate their agency and
subvert the dominant forms of measurement. This does not have to be an invisible protest; if we
are to resist competition at an individual level, we can do this explicitly; explaining our actions
and inviting debate.
We should call for a reconsideration of Dearings (1997) recommendation that institutions be
allowed to opt out of the RAE and apply for a lower level of non-competitive research funding.
Competitive measurement unavoidably privileges certain types of research over others. Placing
to one side the actual feasibility or validity of measuring social, cultural, economic and
environmental impact, the system rates research with short-term impact more highly than that

Page 15 of 20

which may have more significant impact over time (Manville 2014), and has been reported to
undervalue interdisciplinary research (Shaw 2013).
Finally, it is not just the research and recruitment arenas that are competitive. Universities have
now begun to speak in competitive terms about teaching itself. My own institutions mediumterm strategy for learning and teaching presents aspirations of a world-leading environment for
creative education. Logically, to aim for ones own students to have the best education is to
hope that others will have a worse education. Surely we want everyone to have the best
possible education?
There are some, I am sure, who would dismiss the above point as pedantic, but I feel it is a
crucially important one; the rhetoric of the competitive market has become commonplace and is
rarely challenged. The language is subtle, but that is exactly why it is pervasive and dangerous.
Academics therefore need to have a strong sense of their own purpose, and to take their place
in public debate about the purpose of higher education.

References
Anderson, R. 2010. The Idea of A University Today. History & Policy. [Online]. 1 March.
[Accessed 4 June 2015]. Available from: http://www.historyandpolicy.org/policypapers/papers/the-idea-of-a-university-today
Ball, C (2013) Most people in the UK do not go to university and maybe never will. The
Guardian. [Online]. 4 June. [Accessed 4 June 2015]. Available from:
http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2013/jun/04/higher-educationparticipation-data-analysis
Barnett, R. 2004. Learning for an Unknown Future. Higher Education Research & Development.
23 (3), pp.247-260
Barrie, S. C. 2004. A research-based approach to generic graduate attributes policy. Higher
Education Research and Development. 23 (3), pp.262-275
Beaufils et al. 2015. Entire USC First-Year MFA Class is Dropping Out. Art & Education.
[Online]. [Accessed 4 June 2015]. Available from:
http://www.artandeducation.net/school_watch/entire-usc-mfa-1st-year-class-is-dropping-out/
Bauman, Z. 2000. Liquid Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Chapleo, C. 2013. The effect of increased tuition fees on Higher Education marketing in the UK.
[Online]. Bournemouth: Communications Management. [Accessed 4 June 2015]. Available from:
http://www.communicationsmanagement.co.uk/site/assets/files/1365/the_effect_of_increased_tu
ition_fees_on_he_marketing.pdf

Page 16 of 20

Dearing, R. 1997. Higher Education in the learning society. [Online]. London: Her Majestys
Stationery Office. [Accessed 4 June 2015]. Available from:
http://www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/dearing1997/dearing1997.html
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. 2015. Business Secretary celebrates record
applications for UK higher education [Press release]. [Online]. [Accessed 4 June 2015].
Available from:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/business-secretary-celebrates-record-applications-for-ukhigher-education
Edge Foundation. 2012. Vocational Stigma Starts in School [Press release]. [Online]. [Accessed
4 June 2015]. Available from: http://www.vqday.org.uk/press-releases/2012/vocational-stigmastarts-in-school
Freire, P. 1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. London: Continuum.
Goldacre, B. 2012. Bad Pharma: How Drug Companies Mislead Doctors and Harm Patients.
London: Fourth Estate.
Gonzales, L, D. 2015. Faculty agency in striving university contexts: mundane yet powerful acts
of agency. British Educational Research Journal. 41 (2), pp303-323.
Hogan, P. 2010. The New Significance of Learning: Imaginations heartwork. London:
Routledge.
Holman, M. & Mackay, R. 2013. Risk, Imagination, Responsibility and Support: Collaborative
module design in practice. [Online]. York: Higher Education Academy. [Accessed 4 June 2015].
Available from:
https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/downloads/Winner_2013_University_of_Sheffiel
d.pdf
Hutton, W. 2015. How good we can be: Ending the mercenary society and building a great
country. London: Little, Brown.
Iannucci, A. 2015. Politics was once about beliefs and society. Now its a worship of money. The
Guardian. [Online]. [Accessed 4 June 2015]. Available from:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/08/armando-iannucci-money-at-heart-ofpolitics-general-election-2015
Illeris, K. 2013. Transformative Learning & Identity. London: Routledge.
Independent Commission on Fees. 2014. Analysis of trends in higher

Page 17 of 20

education applications, admissions, and enrolments. [Online]. [Accessed 4 June 2015].

Available from:
http://www.independentcommissionfees.org.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/ICoFReport-Aug-2014.pdf
Jones, O. 2014. The Establishment and how they get away with it. London: Penguin Random
House.
Kant, I. (1979) The Conflict of the Faculties. [Online]. New York: Abaris. [Accessed 4 June
2015]. Available from: http://m.friendfeedmedia.com/91c8689f09ed3844c1dc69109084f41edf83c836
Leveson, B. 2012. An inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the press. 1. [Online].
London: The Stationery Office. [Accessed 4 June 2015]. Available from:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/270939/0780_i.pd
f
Lucas, C. 2015. Honourable Friends? Parliament and the Fight for Change. London: Portobello.
Manville, C. 2014. Measuring impact: how Australia and the UK are tackling research
assessment. The Guardian. [Online]. 7 December. [Accessed 4 June 2015]. Available from:
http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2014/dec/07/research-excellenceframework-2014-measuring-impact-australia-uk-universities-assessment
Miles, R. 2015. The Damned; United. In: Group for Learning in Art and Design in HE, 27
February, University of Sheffield. [Online]. [Accessed 4 June 2015]. Available from:
http://www.gladhe.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/The-Damned_-United.pdf
Morrison, A. 2015. What are we educating our students for? An employers perspective. 21
January, Queen Mary University of London. Available from: http://capd.qmul.ac.uk/what-weoffer/educational-development/teaching-and-learning-events/teaching-and-learning-conferenceand-drapers-lecture/videos/
National Careers Council. 2013. An Aspirational Nation: Creating a culture change in careers
provision. [Online]. [Accessed 4 June 2015]. Available from:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/354644/bis-13919-national-careers-council-report-an-aspirational-nation-creating-a-culture-change-in-careersprovison.pdf
Nicol, D. 2010. The Foundation for Graduate Attributes: Developing self-regulation through peer
and self-assessment. [Online]. Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. [Accessed 4
June 2015]. Available from: http://www.enhancementthemes.ac.uk/docs/publications/thefoundation-for-graduate-attributes-developing-self-regulation-through-self-and-peerassessment.pdf

Page 18 of 20

Olssen, M. and Peters, M. A. 2005. Neoliberalism, higher education and the knowledge
economy: from the free market to knowledge capitalism. Journal of Education Policy. 20 (3).
pp.313-345
OECD. 2014. Education at a Glance. Tables A7.4a and A7.4b. [Online]. [Accessed 4 June
2015]. Available from: http://dx/doi.org/10.1787/888933116414 and
http://dx/doi.org/10.1787/888933116433
Office for National Statistics. 2013. Graduates in the Labour Market. [Online]. [Accessed 4 June
2015]. Available from: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lmac/graduates-in-the-labourmarket/2013/index.html
Palmquist, S. 2004. Kants Ideal of the University as a Model for World Peace. In: International
Conference on Two Hundred Years after Kant. 20-22 November, Tehran, Iran: Allame Tabatabai
University. [Online]. [Accessed 4 June 2015]. Available from:
http://staffweb.hkbu.edu.hk/ppp/srp/arts/KIUMWP.htm
Paton, G. 2014. University often 'wasted on teenagers', says UCAS chief. The Telegraph.
[Online]. 13 May. [Accessed 4 June 2015]. Available from:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10825590/University-often-wasted-onteenagers-says-UCAS-chief.html
Piketty, T. 2014. Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.
Press Association. 2015. Low-income students more likely than ever to apply to university,
UCAS says. The Guardian. [Online]. 30 January. [Accessed 4 June 2015]. Available from:
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/jan/30/low-income-students-likely-apply-universityucas
Rickett, O. 2015. What the Hell Are Britains Universities For? Vice News. [Online]. [Accessed 4
June 2015]. Available from: http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/universities-pissed-off-academiabusiness-corporate-oscar-rickett-438
Robbins. L. 1963. Higher Education: Report of the Committee appointed by the Prime Minister
under the Chairmanship of Lord Robbins 1961-63. [Online]. London: Her Majestys Stationery
Office. [Accessed 4 June 2015]. Available from:
http://www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/robbins/robbins1963.html#02
Sayed, Y. 2013. Making Education a Priority in the Post-2015 Development Agenda: Report of
the Global Thematic Consultation on Education in the Post-2015 Development Agenda.
[Online]. Paris: UNESCO. [Accessed 4 June 2015]. Available from:
http://en.unesco.org/post2015/sites/post2015/files/Making_Education_a_Priority_in_the_Post2015_Development_Agenda.pdf

Page 19 of 20

Shaw, C. 2013. Research that doesn't belong to single subject area is deemed 'too risky'. The
Guardian. [Online]. 21 November. [Accessed 4 June 2015]. Available from:
http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2013/nov/21/interdisciplinaryresearch-ref-submission-university
Shaw, C. 2015. University staff scared to disclose mental health problems. The Guardian.
[Online]. 13 February. [Accessed 4 June 2015]. Available from:
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/feb/13/university-staff-scared-to-disclose-mentalhealth-problems
Souleles, N. 2013. The Evolution of Art and Design Pedagogies in England: Influences of the
Past, Challenges for the Future. International Journal of Art and Design Education. 32 (2),
pp.243-255
Standish, P. 2001. Data Return: The Sense of the Given in Educational Research. Journal of
Philosophy of Education. 35 (3), pp.497-518.
Sterling, S. 2013. The Future Fit Framework: An introductory guide to teaching and learning for
sustainability in HE. Higher Education Academy Publication: York.
Steuer, N. and Marks, N. 2008. University challenge: Towards a well-being approach to quality
in higher education. London: New Economics Foundation.
The Green Party of England and Wales, 2015. For the Common Good: General Election
Manifesto. [Online]. London: Green Party. [Accessed 4 June 2015]. Available from:
https://www.greenparty.org.uk/assets/files/manifesto/Green_Party_2015_General_Election_Man
ifesto_Searchable.pdf
Thompson, P. 2016. [Pre-print]. The Teleology of Education and the Metaphysics of
Contingency. [Online]. In: Ladkin, S., Mackay, R., and Bojesen, E. eds. Against Value in the Arts
& Education. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. [Accessed 4 June 2015]. Available from:
https://ernstbloch.wordpress.com/2012/04/23/the-teleology-of-education/
Tubbs, N. (2004) Philosophys Higher Education. The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Universities UK (2014) Patterns and Trends in Higher Education: Annual Report 2013-14.
[Online]. [Accessed 4 June 2015]. Available from:
http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/highereducation/Documents/2014/PatternsAndTrendsInUKHighe
rEducation2014.pdf
Zeldin, T. 1998. Conversation: How talk can change our lives. London: Harvilll.

Page 20 of 20