The Browne Review - just how much research was done?

Hello,

Times Higher Education* carried this article about two months ago, which completely went under my radar. They logged an FOI request (presumably with Vince Cable's lot) to ask how much money the Browne Commission had for research, and how much of that they spent.

The results are quite interesting to say the least. According to THE, Browne et al had a research budget of £120,000. Not that much, one might think, considering what was at stake in the research. They spent £68,375 - which if my shaky maths is right works out at around 57% - mostly on a single opinion survey. 

Which if a report in today's THE is true, they then mostly ignored. This was a survey in which the majority of respondents reportedly believed that £6,000 was the maximum that should be charged - and where respondents from lower income groups were the most debt averse.

The amount of research that seems to have been done is astonishingly light considering the monumental changes to the Higher Education sector that have resulted from this review.

I leave you with a few thoughts. Firstly, one critical of a university. The Financial Times's education correspondent has reportedly seen an 'internal document [from Cambridge University] preparing for their 2012 submission on fees'. It recommends that the University adjust its current target range for state school entrants from 58% to somewhere between 61-63%. A rise, in other words, of 5% (in their target range, remember) in response to a tripling of fees.

The next two more critical of the Government. Secondly, as I said yesterday, we need to bear in mind the level to which universities are now on their own. David Allen, Exeter's registrar, is quoted here in The Guardian saying that Exeter believes that it will need £7,000 'just to stand still' after the Government withdraws its university funding. The BBC quotes the National Audit Office in saying that the new university funding system leaves increasingly more institutions open to the risk of bankruptcy.

Thirdly that the Government is still unclear over what cap it is going to put on international students' entry into our HE system. Remember that internationals pay a considerably higher fee for their tuition than British students. I don't have the figures to hand, but I believe it's no exaggeration to say that they have helped keep the HE sector going.

Pity the poor student, eh? This is beginning to look like a bit of a mess.

David


* They dropped the Supplement from the title a while ago, but I still tend to think of it as the Times Higher Education Supplement. Hence the references to THES in past blog entries.