My tale of me - Chris Jenkinson

Before 1997 universities were funded through government taxation, largely because the universities claimed (rightly or wrongly) that they provided a useful public benefit and were spending taxpayers’ money wisely. Successive governments trusted them, and let them get on with the business of providing higher education. The general consensus has been that universities were underfunded, particularly under Conservative governments, still did a decent job, but could always use more money to better educate students and conduct more research.

However, things have massively changed since then. With the introduction of tuition fees and increased focus on comparative league tables, students and public fund scrutiny groups have looked more closely at the “value for money” aspect of higher education - i.e. whether universities are actually delivering what they promise, and whether they are doing so without pouring money down the drain.

One of the consequences of paying for something is that it is viewed more of as a product. Students have started comparing the quality of their education with others, and the results have been surprising to many higher up the university academic ladder, including vice-chancellors. That has prompted reviews of the way teaching has been delivered, including the radical teaching and learning undergraduate review currently being prepared for implementation at the University of Manchester, which has received national press coverage. This is clearly a good thing, and openness about successes and failures should always be encouraged.

However, a less beneficial consequence of tuition fees, and one I will graciously assume was unintended, is that it gives a government less supportive of the public sector the political advantage that it can point to poor quality teaching and argue that public money is wasted on such institutions. When over half the population do not attend university - even with the current government’s drive to increase student numbers - cuts in higher education funding to appease a populace which increasingly perceives itself as overtaxed seem inevitable, especially if the Tories form the next government as is looking likely.

This analysis, if valid, is worrying indeed. Even if tuition fees are abolished and higher education becomes taxpayer funded, the pressure upon universities to ensure their teaching is of good quality is not going to decrease - it is too late to shut the stable door. Ensuring universities are educating students well would seem to be a good thing if it were not the case that the way quality assurance is done for such large numbers of individuals using it is through bureaucratic tick-box exercises, where minimum standards eventually become the actual standard.

It is clear that ensuring the continuation of well-funded higher education instutitions is going to be a difficult battle, especially among the hearts and minds of those who did not and do not attend university. We need strong arguments in favour, particularly that everyone benefits from a more educated populace, not just those who have been educated more. I’m sure I will return to this over the coming academic year.

Another review of the Liberal Democrats’ policy on higher education funding has come up and it’s vital that we maintain our commitment to higher education being accessible to all regardless of background. With an increasingly debt-averse society, it’s clear that the only way to do that is with access to education funded through general taxation.

There’s a group on Facebook created to show the support amongst grassroots Lib Dems for this policy. Please join it and add your comments.

I’ve written a guest article for the University of Manchester Politics Society titled “Winning a free education” - here’s a snippet:

We need a policy which enables campaigners and activists to reach out to less politicised students and allows them to take ownership of the campaign, engaging them and ensuring that even small actions taken are steps towards victory.

Apparently, to quote Dave Sewell on his blog Complex System of Pipes:

I think the message to take home is this: in Manchester, Birmingham and Sheffield, where we could effectively canvass and reach out to people, Left List did very well. In London, no-one had heard of the new name, and still looked for Respect; where they saw the Respect name, that candidate did very well.

Interesting analysis. I couldn’t even find any candidates standing under the name “Left List” in Birmingham, let alone any candidates doing well. In Sheffield, the Left List stood one candidate (elections in 28 wards), who came second with 25% of the vote (the Liberal Democrats didn’t stand in the ward because of Labour dirty tricks, and probably would have taken many of the votes going towards the Left List and other parties).

In Manchester, the Left List stood two candidates, in Rusholme and Gorton South (elections in 32 wards). In Rusholme, they finished a poor third with 13% of the vote, just 30 votes ahead of the Tories. In Gorton South they also came a distant third, with 10% of the vote. If “very well” is a decrease of 5% that might explain Student Respect’s hilarious analysis of their routing in the students’ union elections.

The Left List are going nowhere in Manchester. Defeated in elections in both Man Met and Man Uni students’ unions, defeated in their attempt to ban military groups from campus, defeated in the local elections, and fortunately defeated in their attempt to force a restrictive free education policy which would only lead to defeat for all of us when the government’s review comes around. It’s hard to see how it could get any worse for the Left List.