Higher Education in Britain

Abstract

In Britain today, higher education is a controversial subject. Perhaps the main reason for this is that the postwar babies who created problems for secondary education in the fifties have grown into young men and women far more of whom than ever before are qualified to enter the universities. There are not enough places for these young persons in institutions of their choice. The heated debates are between the expansionists and those who say that to admit many more students than enter at present would lead to a fall in standards and the destruction of many cherished traditions. Official recognition of some of the problems besetting higher education resulted in the appointment of an investigating committee under the chairmanship of Lord Robbins. It published its report Higher Education, with a mass of statistical data, in October, I963. It will be the focus of debate for some time to come. To many foreigners this may seem rather surprising, because in some ways its recommendations were conservative. A modest expansion to keep pace with the bulge was proposed. Colleges of advanced technology were to be transformed into degree-granting institutions. Teacher-training was to be brought into closer relation with the universities through schools of education. Two ministries, one for higher education and the second for other forms of education, were recommended, although a minority report maintained that there should be only one, and this view has prevailed. In addition, the report suggested tentatively that London University should consider reforming itself, and that at some time in the future it might be necessary to look into the running of Oxford and Cambridge. The monograph under review was evidently prepared before its contributors had had the benefit of the final Robbins report, although undoubtedly there is overlap. The crux of the debate is, of course, control and finance. Sir Eric Ashby's introduction brilliantly presents this theme by considering the processes of decisionmaking in the university world. His strictures on them are indeed severe. Academics themselves are responsible for most of the decisions, and make most of them on the basis, not of evidence and tested research, but of dubious assumptions, scrappy data, and mere hunch. And the blame lies not only with the formal administrative agencies but with the whole society of academics, who have declined to pursue knowledge about themselves. In fact, in spite of lay governing bodies, the committee of appointed principal officers of the universities, the University Grants Committee, the Association of University Teachers, the faculty boards, and so on, effective power is in the