Comments on: Reconfiguring the Irish system of higher education

By: paddy healy

paddy healy — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 10:09:18 +0000

The process of compulsory rationalisation and mergers in the HEA/Government plan for higher education contains serious dangers for the future of higher education including access to higher education. The central problem is that the measures are driven mainly by the perceived need for short term (and long term) cost reductions. Such savings can be counter-productive not only for the well-being of the citizens but even for the good of the economy as a whole. For example, the cost problems currently experienced by students from locations outside the big centres could be extended to students in the larger centres, as pointed out by Mike Jennings. The following points by Ferdinand Von Prodzynski are also well made: “It is easy to see how such a nationally directed system could look neat in a bureaucratic sense, but the HEA paper makes little attempt to explain in what way the system will deliver something better once reconfigured, and how those using it (students, industry, communities) will benefit. It acknowledges that the world’s best universities are highly autonomous, and it accepts that the plan will affect autonomy; but it does not say in any specific way what compensating benefits will emerge. It does not address at all the impact of these changes on basic principles such as academic freedom.”
I would also be concerned that the proposed changes would fail to take into account the differing levels of attainment reached by students entering third level. In my view, a significant proportion of students entering third level cannot be developed by a system in which a lecturer addresses hundreds of students at lecture and tutorials are delivered by postgraduate students with no pedagogic training. There is also the danger that the strengths of the Institute of Technology system would be diluted by incentivising development towards the role of a traditional university on the one hand and the growth of centralised direction on the other. These fears are evident in the statement of Brendan Murphy.
The reality is that the process of change and the implementation of change will be in the hands of present and future governments which espouse a neo-liberal ideology including the imposition of business models on academic institutions. Will the concept of learning and scolarship for its own sake have any place in the proposed system? Would the modern equivalent of those who have made giant leaps in all fields of human understanding and aesthetic endeavour be supported in the new system? Will disciplines which have no immediate or direct economic use be further “down-sized”? Will the invaluable work being carried out in craft-based areas (eg electrician, fitter, plasterer, carpenter etc) be “deprioritised” in a rush for university status?
The changes now being proposed could have huge immediate and lasting effects.
There is an urgent need for a thorough and informed discussion.
Paddy Healy

By: cormac

cormac — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:21:40 +0000

Well said Ferdinand, I couldn’t agree more. From an IoT perspective, I can’t for the life of me see any advantage in amalgamating institutes that are in the same sector.
I can, however, see a major disadvantage. Like most academics, I take pride in my institution, and enjoy doing my bit for the profile of the college. But academic research is a self-tasked activity. I suspect amalgamating colleges into some larger entity will result in a loss of identity and a loss of drive for many of us

By: PB

PB — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:35:53 +0000

Thank you FVP for your informed comments on this. I have engaged conscientiously with a number of institutions to discuss partnership over the past 2 years. There are real issues with the idea that institutions can form some sort of fixed strategic alliance. These sorts of alliance require additional time commitment to work. In many cases there is a resource commitment as new courses are set up. If the idea is that you take one module at University A and then another at University B, there are issues with University brand that are of significance to students and issues of timetabling. If I co-supervise a PhD at another institution and this co-supervision is substantial, how does this work if the fees are retained by the other institution? Does forming an alliance trump the better educational outcome? Unintended outcomes are very likely and we should not be surprised to see institutions investing energy in ‘gaming’ the system. High minded talk about strategic alliances will be difficult to act on if institutions lose significant revenue as a consequence. Almost every aspect of the HEA approach has the feel of grandiose plans by people who have no idea how the practicalities might work.

By: Brian Mulligan

Brian Mulligan — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 09:49:55 +0000

I think I’m with you on that Vincent. I often think that if we were a private institution selling courses to the government, we would be far more efficient and effective. But what are the chances of that. Perhaps it’s natural for people (including myself) to think that our own views are right and do what we can to try to get them implemented (including removing autonomy from others). Centralised planning (“directed diversity” – HEA) has the potential to be a complete disaster.

By: Vincent

Vincent — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 09:10:48 +0000

Forgive me for what I’m about to write.

Who, in 100 words, could not put down the essence of this document. It’s the Scorpion and the Frog.

Now more than ever I think it’s time all the universities remove themselves from funding control of the State. Otherwise, what we’ll end up with will make the HSE debacle look like a sound forward-looking tactics.
It’s time to accept the charge of the Establishing Warrants and be independent. Then bill the State as they would any other contracting party for services.