Skip to main content

Bailout for research universities: Student support on hold

An announcement to bail out research-intensive universities by the government today is welcome news. Particularly for those researchers on fixed-term contracts who will see lost time made up through extensions. The package acknowledges openly that fees for international students have cross-subsidised research and this gap will be plugged through loans. Missing is a plan for teaching-intensive universities and addressing their shortfall in international students. The idea of further support for students is left in the ‘to do’ tray for now. It shows that elite universities are the priority and that others and the many struggling students are of lesser importance. The idea that universities might move the academic year start to January also emerged in the Guardian. Not because of COVID-19, but to accommodate a move to university entry after the exam results are out in the summer. This would help less advantaged students make better choices based upon actual and not predicted results. However, there may be other objectives in play. It is time that students were put first. 

The priority the government has placed on protecting research-intensive universities emerged in a comprehensive bailout package announced by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) today, ‘Support for university research and innovation during coronavirus (COVID-19)’. The decision to reveal this on a Saturday is puzzling – but I guess for all of us the days are merging into one amorphous time-blob. 

There are two ‘support packages’ presented in a little more detail in ‘University research support package: explanatory notes’. Both are designed to cushion the decline in fee-paying international students and to compensate for a loss of research time. They acknowledge the reality that income from international students has been cross-subsidising research for some time. Also, that early-stage researchers on fixed-term research contracts are vulnerable and urgently need their contracts to be extended to make up for the precious lost time. The package of £280 million is to “fund extensions to grants, allowing them to continue developing ambitious and innovative research projects, funded through UK Research & Innovation (UKRI) and the National Academies, including supporting researchers’ salaries and other research costs like laboratory equipment and fieldwork.” This will be hugely welcomed by many researchers. However, there are still questions remaining for research funded through other means. The hope is that all universities involved will recognise the need to treat all its researchers equally in granting extensions to contracts. 

Most international students paying fees have tended to be attracted to the more elite research-intensive institutions. This means that they, in turn, became more vulnerable in the COVID-19 crisis (see TEFS 22nd May 2020 ‘How precarious are universities in the UK?). To offset the losses, the government is offering “grants and long-term, low interest loans covering up to 80% of their income losses caused by an expected decline in international students, ensuring that their crucial research can continue”. This overtly acknowledges that there is a cross-subsidy of research. However, the new support appears to be only available to those “research-active universities” with international students. 

Questions remain. 

Despite a list of obvious questions, it seems some are not fully addressed. There are restrictions with “Support is also capped at the level of an institution’s non-publicly funded research to ensure that funds are being directed towards universities conducting research”. This leaves many universities out in the cold despite them having lost a considerable amount of income from international students. 

There are no details on the terms of the loans – except to say that they may be around ten years at low interest. Bear in mind that institutions with few reserves and little net liquidity may find they are unable to take on such debt at this time. 

A dim light in the distance for students. 

Despite the main priority of research, the question of how to support “teaching intensive institutions and the impact on regional economies” is fortunately addressed, but only in vague terms. This is written as: 

“The Department for Education (DfE) Restructuring Regime will look to support teaching intensive institutions where there is a case to do so and where intervention is possible and appropriate. The Government recognises the important role that higher education providers make to regional and local economies through the provision of high-quality courses aligned with local, regional and national economic and societal requirements. This will be within scope of the decision making process for intervention. Further detail on the ‘Restructuring Regime’ will be announced in due course”. 

So far the only ‘Restructuring Regime’ that has been announced to date was made back on the 4th May with ‘Government support package for universities and students’. This does not address direct support for students and focuses on fees being released to universities in advance. A bit like a payday loan.

It must be expected that more support for students will emerge in time. However, time is running out. There should be more emphasis on supporting students in order to get funding into universities. The fact that many students have accepted offers to go to university (see TEFS 26th June 2020 ‘Students accept offers they cannot refuse’) is tending to foster a false sense of security. When they turn up in the Autumn, even more will be suffering a financial shortfall. There is an urgent need to get a task force on student support off the ground to address the inevitable. 

Alarming news about restructuring the sector. 

A Guardian ‘exclusive’ yesterday ‘Ministers may move university applications to after A-level results’ revealed the news about a research bailout. This was embedded in a story that there were other plans afoot in the for the higher education sector. It is revealed that “a strategy paper is being drawn up to include the push towards post-qualification admissions and other proposals aimed at improving the prospects of disadvantaged applicants”. Post qualification admissions would remove the bias in predicting grades of disadvantaged students who then go onto getting higher grades. It would improve the chances of many of these less advantaged students. However, a move to a January start may be here sooner with the second wave of COVID-19. This would cause universities and make a late start inevitable. The government must plan for this prospect in any case. The result would be all university courses put back by at least one term, and not just first-year entry. This means a realignment of the academic year would have to fall into place from then on. The move might help less advantaged students, but this is possibly not the main reason. Universities would find themselves looking at a third semester over the summer and two-year degrees. It might suit the DfE to consider this as a major gain. 

Whatever the motives and moves made, it surely must be accepted that students are the main priority at all times.

Mike Larkin, retired from Queen's University Belfast after 37 years teaching Microbiology, Biochemistry and Genetics. He has served on the Senate and Finance and planning committee of a Russell Group University


Popular posts from this blog

Ofqual holding back information

Ofqual has responded to an FOI request from TEFS this week. They held a staggering twenty-nine board meetings since March. Despite promising the Parliamentary Education Committee over a month ago they would publish the minutes “shortly” after their meeting on 16th September, they are still not able to do so. They cite “exemption for information that is intended to be published in the future” for minutes that are in the “process of being approved for publication” . More concerning is they are also citing exemption under the “Public Interest Test”. This means they might not be published, and Ofqual will open themselves up to legal challenges. If both the Department for Education and Ofqual are prevented from being more open, then public interest will lie shattered on the floor and lessons will not be learned.  Ofqual finally responded to the TEFS Freedom of Information (FOI) request to publish the minutes of its board meetings on Tuesday. It should have been replied to by 17th Septembe

COVID-19, SAGE and the universities ‘document dump’

The recent release of several documents by SAGE all at once was described by one observer as a “dump of docs”. They relate to returning to education this autumn and are somewhat confusing as they illustrate the complexities of the challenges still to be tackled. But there is much not fully addressed. Outbreaks of COVID-19 at universities spilling into local communities might also trigger city-wide lock-downs and a bad reaction from the locals. The mass migration of students to their hometowns will spread the chaos wider afield as there seems to be little evidence of planning for this inevitability. Less advantaged students in poor accommodation or crowded homes will be at greater risk along with their vulnerable peers coping with health conditions. While students may be asked to ‘segment’ or form ‘bubbles’ staff might not have the same protection. Asking vulnerable lecturers and other staff with ongoing health conditions to move from classroom to classroom, contacting differen

Funding lifeline for disadvantaged students in schools under the spotlight

The image depicts the cover of a recent report by the Northern Ireland Audit Office that looks critically at the impact of ongoing additional school funding for disadvantaged students. Its hard-hitting conclusions must not be ignored. They show 15 years of failure and little impact despite nearly a billion spent across schools from 2005 to 2020. Similar schemes operate across the rest of the UK and the report raises serious questions about where the money is going. There is no doubt that disadvantages at home impact upon how students get on at school. But the danger is that some opponents will seize upon the findings to argue that the money should be withdrawn since it appears to do no good. Wiser heads will ask about where the money is going before reaching such a perverse conclusion. This is a time of considerable danger for those with few advantages. A wider social intervention will be needed to address the problems, and it is unreasonable to expect schools to impact things beyond