Some Thoughts in Favour of Private
Universities
Professor John Kersey
Educational Notes, No. 35
ISSN
0953-7775
ISBN: 1 85637 704 0
An occasional publication of the Libertarian Alliance,
Suite 35, 2 Lansdowne Row, Mayfair, London W1J 6HL.
© 2004: Libertarian Alliance; Professor John Kersey.
John Kersey was educated at the Royal College of Music and
subsequently earned his doctorate at Knightsbridge University,
Denmark, where he is now Dean and Visiting Professor of Music. He is
also Professor of Music at Adam Smith University, USA. He is an
international award-winning concert pianist and music critic, and
also works as a legal and academic consultant for universities in the
areas of non-traditional and progressive education and distance
learning.
The views expressed in this publication are those of its author,
and
not necessarily those of the Libertarian Alliance, its Committee,
Advisory Council or subscribers.
FOR LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY
Introduction
For many, higher education by definition conjures up images of
substantial state-run institutions. The great universities dominate
the educational landscape, their traditions and reputations defining
not only educational standards but also the place of education within
wider society. Where higher education takes place through residential
study, it achieves the status of a rite of passage for the young,
signifying not merely the opportunity to apply oneself to academic
study under the tutelage of those who are experts in their fields,
but the chance for personal growth amid like-minded peers. None of
this is undesirable per se; quite the contrary. However, there is
more to higher education than the present university establishment,
and indeed some highly progressive work in education can in fact take
place outside it.
The University and the Establishment
The expression “non-traditional” when applied to
education suggests by its nature an anti-establishment outlook, and
thus it has often proved in practice. What then, one might ask, is
wrong with the university establishment, and what aspects might
alternatives to it focus on? In the first place, by using the
definition of an establishment, one moves to the heart of the matter;
the universities are undeniably and explicitly
politically-influenced, and bear the imprint of governmental
education policies and strategies. Indeed, the state has arguably
always seen education as its preserve to control and direct. One has
merely to look superficially at the oldest and most influential of
institutions to see that the universities both actively court
political influence and that they seek to influence public debate in
an explicitly political context. Conversely, where socialist or
neo-socialist governments seek to bring objectives of social
engineering into the operation of universities (as has frequently
been debated concerning the issue of admissions to Oxbridge from the
maintained sector) we see the clash of old and new elites and
competing ideologies, and the question of potentially threatened
academic standards is once more brought into play.
However, recent debate in the UK has suggested that there is
certainly a case for the privatisation of higher education, at least
in part, and that this concept even has the personal support of Tony
Blair. In an article in the Daily Telegraph,1 Terence Kealey,
vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham, argues that,
“The best universities in the world are the independent Ivy
League institutions in America (Harvard, Stanford etc), and the most
innovative are the independents in the Far East (there are now more
than 1,000). Independence provides better management, higher
investment and, contrary to myth, greater access for the poor.”
The E. G. West Centre at the University of Newcastle2 was set up in
2002 in order to explore the area of educational privatisation and
has produced extensive resources on all aspects of the issue.
Academic Arguments for Privatisation
Since 1992, the overall value of university graduates in the UK
employment market has declined sharply with the democratisation of
university entrance. The former polytechnics have taken on a
conspicuous and valuable role in the university landscape, but for a
large number of students, the dawning realisation that their degree
qualifications are simply not valued in the workplace has come as a
rude awakening in the light of the initial post-1992 euphoria. The
growing trend towards US-style diplomaism in the UK, where degrees
and similar qualifications are demanded even where they are not
genuinely necessary, is a prevalent and worrying issue, reflecting
the glut of over-qualified individuals in the employment market.
Furthermore, students today are encouraged to see three or four years
in residence at a university—any university—as their
automatic right, even when their decision is more motivated by social
than academic concerns, and as the only real option for them at age
eighteen given the dearth of attractive job opportunities for school
leavers.
Reactions against these trends in academia, which are not new by any
means, take several forms. The most common of these seeks to find
ways to free education from political influence so as to be able to
promote a more selective admissions policy or a more adventurous
curriculum. State control sets up active impediments towards
experimentation in education when it allows its political and
academic elites to promote an agenda of conservatism and general
stasis. Furthermore, many of these elites are by their nature
self-perpetuating and therefore resistant to radicalism. Usually, a
certain degree of challenge to the norm is encouraged providing this
challenge is limited in its scope and does not threaten the
establishment itself. The suggestion that a thriving private sector
in education might come into being outside state control, however, is
guaranteed to strike fear into the hearts of many who are aware that
such a sector is likely to be more easily adaptable to market demand
and thus a very considerable competitor for the mainstream.
How Independent Can Privatised Universities Be?
Most European countries have a tradition of private universities, but
the extent of their control by the state varies considerably. In some
Scandinavian countries and Belgium, for example, private universities
are free to operate without constraint. In France, private
universities can operate, but the curriculum for all degree awards is
set out by law with penalties for deviation. In the UK, domestic
private universities were abolished (ironically at the height of a
Conservative government) in the 1988 Education Reform Act, with the
exception of the University of Buckingham, which had been granted a
Royal Charter in 1983 and was allowed to operate post-1988 under what
amounts to exceptional measures. It remains possible for institutions
with degree-granting authority from overseas to operate legally and
offer their awards in the UK.
It is sometimes asked why private universities feel the need to grant
degrees at all. The best answer to this is that to do so is seen as a
fundamental hallmark of academic independence and of faith in its own
standards and practices by the institution concerned. The post-1992
universities could easily have continued to confer the degrees of the
Council for National Academic Awards as they had previously done as
polytechnics; however, none did so and all opted to introduce their
own awards instead.
Progressive Strategies Within a Privatised Sector
Both within and beyond Europe, the limited financial resources of
small private institutions mean that many have historically chosen to
operate via correspondence rather than face-to-face or residential
tuition, and now the advent of the internet means that a small school
can operate as effectively as a much bigger rival. The offering of
programmes via correspondence or the internet does not mean that
those programmes are necessarily lacking in rigour by comparison with
residential degree courses; the widespread acceptance of distance
education has been long-established within the UK market by the Open
University, for example, and many major UK universities are now
following the OU’s lead. Indeed, non-residential study is often
a much more appropriate fit for most mid-career adults than more
traditional alternatives. The ability to fit learning around the
other demands of a busy life is a basic necessity for many, but there
is still a good deal of unnecessary lack of flexibility within state
universities as far as physical attendance at seminars, examinations
and the like is concerned. In addition, the acceptance of the concept
of accreditation of prior experiential learning, despite its
enshrining by the QAA at all levels, is still insufficient in state
postgraduate programmes, where arbitrary limits are placed on credit
that can be counted and doctoral programmes by published work remain
a closed shop for alumni and staff of the university only. Where
these strictures are felt to be academically unreasonable, it is
inevitable that some will seek alternatives that meet their
needs.
The Effect of the 1988 Education Reform Act
Looking at the British private sector at the time of the ERA, we are
confronted with a multiplicity of institutions which are distinct in
nature and should not be lumped together. On the one hand there were
some obviously fraudulent bodies that existed merely to sell
meaningless pieces of paper. On the other, there were some
institutions which were serious in intent but which were too small or
too unusual to fit any model of UK governmental approval, including
the Geneva Theological College (founded 1958), the Central School of
Religion (1896) and the Anglo-American Institute of Drugless Therapy
(1911), all schools with an American orientation offering
correspondence instruction to a predominantly adult constituency. As
chance would have it, the former two of these were able to continue
operations as a result of overseas degree-granting authority. In
retrospect the ERA can be seen both as a move against the legitimate
private schools, who had “usurped” the privileges now
reasserted by the state, and as a consumer protection measure. I am
sure that I am not the only one, however, to consider that the latter
is insufficient justification for the suppression of the entire
sector. The Act, indeed, is a deeply anti-libertarian measure
emanating from a regime that suffered from the dichotomy of being
libertarian and progressive in its fiscal policy whilst remaining
deeply elitist and ideologically entrenched when dealing with matters
concerning the British establishment.
The question of why what is now the University of Buckingham should
have been exempted from the general crackdown of the ERA is
interesting indeed. It is clear that the personal influence of
then-Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was key to its being singled
out—Lady Thatcher has served as Buckingham’s Chancellor
(now Chancellor Emeritus) and along with other members of the
political establishment such as Lords Hailsham, Harris and Beloff was
instrumental in its foundation.3
The Natural Place of Education Outside State Control
Why, then, should the legitimate among these institutions have
existed in the erstwhile British private sector in the first place?
Invariably the answer lies not merely in circumstance alone, but at
the very heart of education itself. The nature of the educational
experience is that it is individualised and personal, not
institutionalised and faceless. The oldest detailed model of
education we have—that of classical antiquity—presents
education as a one-on-one mentoring process reinforced by work in
small groups. We should realise, consequently, and not hesitate to
strongly emphasise the point, that to treat education as something
that is naturally carried out in large state-run institutions is not
merely inimical to its very essence but also deeply unnatural.
Education cannot truly be subjected to blanket rules and regulations
or to the greater good, however construed; it is as particular, as
quixotic and not infrequently as strange as humanity itself. What
could be more inevitable, then, but that those who have likewise come
to this conclusion should seek to follow the model of the Greeks and
establish their own small institutions where their own ideals could
be realised?
What is perhaps striking is that the rebel spirit against state
education finds a happy position in British education up to the age
of 18. Perhaps because of the reliance of the British establishment
upon the great public schools, independent school education thrives
in the UK in all shapes and sizes, with no legislative demand that
education even take place in what would be regarded by most as a
school. It is rare for independent schools to set their own
alternatives to public examinations, but not unknown—Winchester
College being a prominent example. Those sitting the bespoke
Winchester leaving examination have no difficulty in finding
acceptance at the best universities, because of the reputation of the
awarding body in question. The more esoteric independent schools,
such as Summerhill, the best-known example of the free or democratic
school movement in the UK, offer government awards at 16 and 18 but
make candidature on the student’s part optional.
To Regulate… Or Not?
To extend such measures to the university sector causes some
interesting questions to come into play. Firstly, can this putative
sector be relied upon to self-regulate, or does it need some kind of
legislative framework to prevent the worst excesses of poor quality
provision? As a libertarian, my answer is that without question
self-regulation will provide most of the necessary checks and
balances, and indeed that self-regulation is necessary in order to
protect the academic freedoms that will be outlined below. In
practice the private sector in education falls into two categories.
One category consists of legitimate organisations whose
reputation—often in the process of being established, where
they are new and relatively unknown—depends entirely on their
ability to create trust and confidence in the public in the probity
of their practices and their high standards. For this category,
decline in standards or reputation means commercial death, and they
are without the safety net that poor-quality state universities have
in the form of government to prop them up. The other category
consists of schools that sell academic qualifications or documents
purporting to be such with no academic process involved. This
category is a menace to all involved in legitimate education and a
justifiable concern to consumers and others. However, controlling it
can be aided by “bottom-line” legislation that outlaws
the selling of academic qualifications outright. Another sensible
measure is to encourage regulation by the relevant professional
licensing bodies in appropriate areas, for example whereby medical
degrees must receive approval from the GMC in order to allow their
holders to proceed to licensure as physicians.
The issue of what actually happens in small private sector
universities is an interesting one indeed. Historically, universities
have determined their curriculums and standards for themselves. If
experimentation and freedom of curriculum is to be encouraged, its
interpretation must rest with the academic authorities of the
institution in question, not with political masters. This opens the
door to the teaching of much that is unorthodox and contrary to
academic received wisdom, and in some cases to the weird and
peculiar. However, what it also does is to empower individuals so
that they, rather than the state, can determine their own educational
needs and the most appropriate solutions to them. In short, it
promotes free choice and properly subjects universities to the forces
of the free market, where successful institutions will thrive and
weaker institutions will decline or seek to serve niche markets.
Credibility in Unregulated Institutions
Where is credibility to be sought in the output of private
universities? Ultimately, in the same place as any other
university—in the work done for the awards and the people who
stand behind them. If a private university is able to attract faculty
and examiners of high calibre, and if its alumni take their place in
leading roles within society as a result of their new qualifications,
it will attract the respect that is its due and take its proper place
in the educational landscape. It is possible to do this both where
the envisioned mission is to be a campus-based university and where
the aim is to function as an internet or correspondence-based
university. The American writer on distance education John Bear has
written, “I have been suggesting for years that in a rational
world, any degree would be evaluated based only on the work done to
earn it, and the credentials of the person or people who approve and
stand behind it.”4
Towards a Model of Education Driven by the Market Rather than the
State
Professor Robert Stevens, former Master of Pembroke College, Oxford,
has argued (with his views quoted extensively in a Telegraph
article5) for the creation of private universities,
“Universities would be truly independent, living off the
charges they receive. This approach would allow universities to
choose their own future. If they wished to educate and pass on
cultural values—the original goal of universities, which is an
anathema to today’s political parties—they would be free
to do that. If people did not want that kind of education, they would
not borrow the money to fund their education. Similarly, if, as the
Government suggests, employers are demanding specific skills, then
those universities which teach specific skills would do exactly that
and people would flock to them, perhaps partly funded by potential
employers. People would be free to choose. The market would
decide.” It can already be seen that those private institutions
outside the UK that employ a specifically workplace-driven
curriculum, granting full APEL credit where appropriate for workplace
learning achievement, are among the most popular of institutions both
with the student public and with employers.
Freedom to accept or reject academic dogma is the most fundamental of
educational rights, and yet the phenomenon of state-controlled higher
education makes this choice a major undertaking. It must be
understood that academic freedom and the concept of an academic
establishment, more yet a politically-linked academic establishment,
are not happy bedfellows. There must be not merely the freedom to
join the club, but the freedom to create an opposition or an
alternative to that club. That freedom does not truly exist whilst
higher education remains within the shackles of state control.
Notes
(1) Terence Kealey, ‘How we could have our own Ivy
League’, The Telegraph, 13th October 2004, URL (consulted 29th
November 2004):
http://crossword.telegraph.co.uk/education/main.jhtml?xml=/education/2004/10/14/tefivy13.xml&sSheet=/education/2004/10/14/ixtetop.%20Html.
(2) E. G. West Centre website, http://www.ncl.ac.uk/egwest.
(3) ‘History of the University’, University of Buckingham
website, http://www.buckingham.ac.uk/facts/history.
(4) In a post at the www.degreeinfo.com forum. A cached,
longer version of this quote can also be found via Google at
http://www.google.com/advanced_search.
(5) Julie Henry, ‘Universities should be independent and set
fees according to market, says top Oxford don’, The Telegraph,
28th March 2004, URL (consulted 29th November 2004):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/03/28/nuni28.xml.