The Future of Higher Education

Abstract

The purpose of this essay is the asking of questions and the exploration of possibilities. Its emphasis is on the uncertainty which lies ahead of us in higher education which makes forecasting and rational action immensely difficult. Such uncertainty may lead to a conservative policy stance causing us to concentrate on what we know with confidence, and avoiding the new and different. This response is understandable, and may even be optimal. When, however, we realise that what we know or may predict fairly confidently are a set of developments which are extremely unattractive, the rational response may be quite radical. It may then be optimal to widen the range of policies to be considered seriously, and even go on to the dangerous ground of objectives and all that. What is quite certain is the persistence of uncertainty; the ease with which the economy and society go along paths that were not predicted and may be unpredictable. This does not mean that they are not rationalisable ex post facto. Social scientists can always tell a good story after the event, but policy requires more than that. One immediate policy conclusion I come to, therefore, is the need for flexibility. It may well be that the argument about how many new doors should be opened cannot be settled at all easily, but it hardly makes any sense to close any existing ones. Any policy measures adopted in the near future must be susceptible of rapid reversal. Beyond that, the best overall strategy in conditions of extreme uncertainty is likely to be a mixture of policies rather than a concentration on a single one. We may use the analogy of a strategy as a portfolio of actions, and just as the optimum financial portfolio is a mixed one so is the optimum educational one. If we knew the future for certain, a single line of development could be worked out as best, but we do not know the future for certain. This leads to the question of centralisation and decentralisation. Despite my own inclination to the former structure, I am bound to say that its merit, that it can get policy very right, is also its main trouble, that it can get policy very wrong. In present conditions something in between is more desirable. Uttering such a platitude, however, does not tell us what compromise is actually required. The compromise of the existing structure may be summarised as follows: