The Russell Group is a ¡°dangerous¡± threat to the sector¡¯s unity and does not represent the best universities, according to a leading academic expert on higher education.

Sir David Watson, professor of higher education at the University of Oxford, identified two key threats to the sector¡¯s ¡°controlled reputational range¡± in the coming wave of student expansion.

These were the government¡¯s concern to ease the path for alternative providers and the ¡°divisive behaviour of the sector itself, especially through the mission groups¡±, he told a seminar hosted by the ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø Policy Institute in London on 26 March.

Sir David, who is also principal of Green Templeton College, Oxford, argued that in previous waves of expansion ¨C such as that following the Robbins report and the transformation of polytechnics into universities in 1992 ¨C the sector had safeguarded quality through its own shared commitment to academic standards.

ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø

He noted that the UK¡¯s external examiner system, where academics are involved in marking and assessment at institutions other than their own, was ¡°envied by other systems¡±.

On private providers, Sir David said the government¡¯s approach was symptomatic of its wider view beyond higher education: a ¡°fear that if the private sector is regulated to public sector standards it will simply not play¡±.

ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø

And in the context of the need to protect a ¡°controlled reputational range¡± in the sector, he continued: ¡°Particularly dangerous, I think, is the bottom half of the Russell Group¡­The problem with the Russell Group is that it represents neither the sector as a whole [nor], in many cases, the best of the sector.¡±

But the Russell Group had ¡°convinced the politicians that it does play these roles¡±, Sir David added.

The Russell Group says it represents 24 ¡°leading universities¡±. However, Sir David said that the claim was ¡°a real stretch¡±, and cited high-performing research institutions, such as Soas, University of London, that are not members. He said that on a score of research intensity, there were dozens of other UK universities ¡°above the bottom Russellers¡±.

Offering a vision of what unifies the sector in a talk he titled ¡°Only Connect¡±, Sir David ¨C who repeated his calls for student mobility between institutions via a credit transfer framework ¨C said that academics teaching in UK higher education are ¡°working to a core curriculum at a high level of generality¡±.

ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø

Across courses, this involved teaching students ¡°a habit of thinking deeply and the capacity to empathise, to connect with other people¡±, he argued.

Meanwhile, government policy prioritises differentiation across the sector and its goal ¡°seems to be to break it down¡± and ¡°let the market decide¡±, Sir David added.

But he said people within the sector ¡°refuse to behave¡± in this way. Academics ¡°choose similar measures of esteem whatever institution they are working in¡±, ¡°students refuse to be narrowly typecast as simply vocational or academic¡± and managers ¡°keep most of their strategic options open¡±.

Sir David argued that people in the sector looking for unity ¡°must look for it in the right places ¨C it won¡¯t simply be legislated into being¡±.

ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø

john.morgan@tsleducation.com