Is the Sutton Trust a force for good?

On Friday, the Sutton Trust announced a new, 'independent' commission to review the effect of tuition fee rises in England. I have very mixed feelings about the Sutton Trust. On the one hand I admire the success they have had in shaping the access agenda in HE, on the other I tend to think that the shaping they have done has been pernicious in pretty much every way possible. One of the disciplines I try to set myself on this blog is not to burden it with my political opinions. HE planning, regulation and funding are hardly fascinating subjects in themselves, but at least they have direct impact on students, jobs and other things that do matter. My personal politics don't. I think this post makes substantive points about HE admissions, social mobility and the like but consider this health warning before you read on: it may be a rant.

Yet more UCAS data

UCAS have published their data on applications as at the 15 January deadline. This is not the final deadline for all applications: applications continue until June and if institutions are desperate enough they will accept applications even after term has started in September, but it provides a good milestone for us to assess progress.

A couple of highlights from yesterday's Times Higher

The Times Higher is always a source of amusement. Particular gems this week are Alan Ryan's reporting from a parallel universe where university fees don't seem to exist and discriminating against poor people is laudable ethical practice:

As Stefan Collini of the University of Cambridge once observed, a university place is one of the few things in modern Britain that isn't for sale. Things that weight the odds in an applicant's favour include better schooling, a richer cultural environment, and a home where a child can study in peace. But at the point where an applicant is face to face with an admissions tutor, academic merit is all that counts. I'm not sure such fastidiousness will survive.

Then there is Steve Edwards reporting from a (presumably different) parallel universe in which the problem with UCAS is that it is too responsive to the needs of universities. I think it's fair to say that here on Earth Prime this is not how most of us universities feel about UCAS.

Finally I enjoyed David Shaw's attempt to argue that the fact he can't enter all his articles in the REF is an ethical weakness in the REF process. I think he is arguing that HEFCE is morally obliged to have a policy which favours his interests over those of less productive researchers: it would be really great to see that case made out at greater length.

The HEFCE Grant Letter

BIS have published their annual grant letter to HEFCE. This letter sets out not just the sums of money to be distributed by the Council, but also gives (increasingly precise) policy guidance about how those funds should be spent.

Dropping the HE Bill?

Via Mark Leach I discover that the Telegraph is reporting that the HE Bill is to be dropped. These kinds of rumours always circulate, but if Willetts is quoted as saying “There’s going to be a further discussion in Cabinet in the next couple of weeks. There’s no final decision either way yet.” then clearly there is something to this one.

Currently we are still being regulated by HEFCE under existing powers. This works for two reasons (1) because the non-public actors (whom HEFCE can't currently regulate) are such a minor part of the picture and (2) because we all still have very substantial HEFCE grant. HEFCE's only power is the power to set conditions on grants. As the grants diminish, so does the power. Currently, new entrants are not really clamouring to get in to the English sector so a delay in legislation will not be fatal, but the day is not far off (in fact it is a couple of years away) when a significant group of universities are not in receipt of enough HEFCE grant to make it worth their while to obey Student Number Control limits.When that happens, BIS will lose control of the HE budget.

So whatever discussions may happen in Cabinet, the Bill is coming and will have to come before too long. They can run, but they can't hide.

Update Guardian also now covering this story. If the Guardian and the Telegraph agree it must have legs...

Udacity

Via Felix Salmon I discover the launch of a new online learning provider, Udacity. This is a project of Sebastian Thrun and others, based on Thrun's Artificial Intelligence experience at Stanford.

I can't see much information about the Udacity course on building a search engine, which is the only one they seem to have released so far. I doubt I have the pre-requisites for that (although the site isn't even clear on that to be frank - fair to say that the website is at an early stage of development). The AI programme used a mix of video content with online quizzes and exams. Students could discuss issues with each other via a bulletin board. What seems innovative about this model is primarily how much that might seem basic to the whole university experience has been edited out, as you can see from this FAQ:

Can online students interact with the professors?

Yes, but not directly. Students can submit questions to discussion page, which will be ranked and the top questions will be addressed by Professor Thrun and Professor Norvig weekly.

Will students receive a Stanford certificate or grade for completing the course?

Only students enrolled at Stanford and admitted to the course can receive Stanford credit. Online students will receive a statement of accomplishment signed by the instructors with their name and rank within the online class. See the course information for more details.

 If you take out the teaching and the certification, there isn't all that much of the traditional university offer left, but equally the marginal cost of delivery approaches zero. It isn't clear to me what the Udacity business model is. Somehow or another the staff are going to have to get paid. Perhaps a philanthropic funding source is out there for a relatively small-scale project, but since Udacity is offering stock options as part of the benefits package, that probably isn't the route they have in mind...

So two models leap to mind. One is the University of London International Programme where, as with Udacity, actual teaching is not part of the offer - you get a syllabus and examinations and you can pay others to help you learn if you want to. However accreditation is a key part of the offer here, which doesn't seem to be the case with Udacity, and fees amount to several hundred pounds a year.

My other mental model for this - one Udacity seems closer to - is the private training market, offering short, essentially unaccredited learning opportunities in specific skills areas. If that is the case, Udacity isn't really anywhere close to the existing HE market, but in carefully selected areas it could significantly undercut the current hotel-trainer-and-flipchart model that is still in pretty widespread use. What is less clear, though, is how this model really differs from a teach-yourself book.

So I conclude this development has little relevance to the future of Higher Education. Perhaps if I could see the business plan my lack of imagination would be cruelly exposed, but I suspect commercial confidentiality will spare my blushes for a little longer.

Core/Margin again: here is the core

Caroline Charlton at HEFCE emailed my Vice Chancellor this afternoon with a spreadsheet and covering letter setting out the core element of our core/margin Student Number Control. Anything we have won from the margin will be announced separately in a few days' time. Caroline is a former colleague of mine and a truly charming individual whom I wouldn't wish to offend, but I can't see any embargo or other restriction she has placed on her letter so I shall give you the highlights.

• HEFCE has not yet had its letter of grant/guidance from BIS but felt constrained to issue SNC numbers now because of the stage the UCAS cycle has reached, so the numbers are provisional;
• We expected a 20,000-place cut to create the margin, but HEFCE have imposed an additional 5,000 place cut (25,000 in all). The extra 5,000 places are simply to reduce the risk to Treasury if all institutions exactly hit their SNC limits;
• Further reductions beyond this 5,000 may be required by Government when the HEFCE grant letter is published;
• Institutions who have exceeded their SNC in 2011/12 (I have no idea who these might be) will have to reduce their recruitment of non-AABs in 2012/13 to avoid further grant adjustments/fines for over-recruitment, so if there are any institutions who have over-recruited this year and have significant AAB populations they will face a very challenging position come confirmation and clearing this August. In an extreme case, an institution which has greatly over-recruited and has many AABs could be required to reduce its non-AAB intake by more than its SNC which would only be possible by recruiting negative numbers of students.... HEFCE's reason for this is that if institution A reduces its AAB population then institution B can just recruit those AABs, so there is no saving to the public purse.

Looking at my own institution's data, it seems that HEFCE have been reasonably lenient in the view they formed of the proportion of students with unknown or incomplete entry qualifications who may be AAB+. That is a great relief and means that (after our expected margin allocation has been made) we can hope for a tiny element of growth in our Home FTUG intake. The extra 5,000 places cut are a shame, but overall not a bad result.