Government Calls Halt to "Pointless" Uni Studies
Focus to shift to University Courses with Real Economic Benefits
Sep 23, 2009
After more than decade of derision from critics, the UK government is looking to cut the amount of money given to university courses that do not apply useful knowledge in favour of studies with more "demonstrative economic benefit". It is thought that by encouraging more school leavers to study more practical subjects will enable the country to recover from the biggest recession in 60 years.
For years, seemingly pointless university courses which have made their way into the mainstream education system mainly under the Labour party have been criticised heavily by opposing politicians and the UK press. Undergraduate studies in subjects as offbeat as Golf Management and Parapsychology (the study of ghosts and the paranormal) might have some basis in a useful education system – a wide knowledge of subjects can be attractive to a prospective employer – but in an immediate sense, these studies come across as all but useless.
Changes in Funding
The way money is distributed and spent within the higher education system will be changed during the overhaul, which will see £1.76bn of government funds being directed to university research projects every year. These projects will be deemed worthy by the Research Excellence Framework set up by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE).
By re-evaluating the way universities are funded, the HEFCE hope to put an end to the current tactics in place at institutions today, where results are artificially boosted at the end of the academic year by hiring star academics.
Any changes to the current system will not be taking place until 2012, but they have been receiving a backlash from lecturers and the university and college union who say that restricting money for research in favour of more marketable subjects is "wrong" and would limit "speculative blue-sky research".
What the Changes Could Mean
Council Director of Research David Sweeney says of the plans; "The Ref will recognise and reward excellent research and sharing new knowledge to the benefit of the economy and society, and will ensure effective allocation of public funds. It will encourage the productive interchange of research staff and ideas between academia and business, government and other sectors."
The current system for rating research has been in place for centuries, whereby a panel of professors evaluate the standards of research in order to decide the amount of funding, if any, it should receive. The new government plans seek to change this and apply a more measured approach to the reviewing committee. Specific percentile grades will be given for "impact" and "depth of research" as well as looking at the researches' "usefulness" in the real world.
The HEFCE are insistent that relevant funding will still be given to arts and humanities as well as scientific and technological studies, but critics of the changes say that creating a panel with more boxes to tick will stifle the amount of vital research being carried out by universities, and will essentially turn prospective students away from studying "softer" subjects in favour of more "applicable" ones simply because of better funding. University professionals agree that this would be simply unacceptable. If any changes are made, they need to be made after reassured evidence that change is needed, and they should be sensitive to each course's specific needs.
Sally Hunt, the general secretary of the University and College Union says of the plans in the 23 September 2009 Guardian article "'Pointless' University Studies to be 'weeded out' by new Government Panel", "Academic research should never be at the behest of market forces. History has taught us that some of the biggest breakthroughs have come from speculative research and it is wrong to try and measure projects purely on their economic potential."
Sources
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/sep/23/panel-funding-university-research
 |
 |
