Mass higher ed has arrived in the UK--funding comensurate with same has not, reports the Economist; see link: http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1443986 --Orson
MORANS no funds for educaton ?? No wonder Only 80 out of 1200 elite scientists live in UK now !!!!!!!
Interesting article. Here's some ideas I had while reading it. The first bar chart is striking. It's entitled "Spending on tertiary education as % of GDP". It shows the US at 2.3, and the UK at 1.1. But the body of the text refers to spending on "higher education". In the United States, community colleges are part of the higher education system. In the UK, as I understand it, higher education is distinguished from something called further education. So, do the British figures include funding for the many FE colleges? If not, the chart may be comparing apples and oranges. Another thing that struck me about the chart was the breakdown in public/private spending. Public spending in the US is about 1.1% of GDP, while in the UK it's about 0.7% of GDP. A significant gap, but less than the gap in total spending. That's explained by the fact that private HE spending in the US is about 1.2% of GDP (as much as all UK spending), while in the UK private spending is about 0.4%. So you can recut the tax-payer pie all you want, but you will continue to have problems if the private sector continues to spend only 1/3 as much, as a percentage of GDP. Another issue: The United States only has about 250 schools classified as research/doctoral universities. Of these only 150-200 really rate the title, with the rest only offering a few doctorates, usually in applied subjects like law, education or psychology. There are also a significant number of stand-alone research operations in particular subjects, from the Mayo Clinic and other med schools to the Scripps and Rand Graduate Institutes. But the US has a total of some 2500 (or more) regionally accredited colleges and universsities. We have more than a thousand community colleges, many hundreds of small liberal arts colleges specializing in high quality undergraduate education and a host of big urban masters level schools like San Jose State that offer programs stressing educational opportunity, continuing education and the like. We don't try to make every college and university in the country into Stanford or Berkeley. Only 5-10% of our higher education institutions offer significant numbers of doctoral programs. They suck up the bulk of the research funding, and build the kind of "big science" facilities that attract Nobels and spawn Silicon Valleys. So perhaps the UK should stop trying to make every British university into a leading research center, and let Southbank do San Jose State's job. The UK should also make it easier for private-sector Britons to start their own degree-granting colleges and graduate institutes. I think that Britain needs more institutional diversity, better targeted funding that doesn't spread limited resources too thin, and (especially) more private participation. But they also need to get total public HE and FE spending up above 1% of GDP, if it isn't already.
As per BillDayson's point's, the article complains that England did itse;f a disservice in turning polytechniques into Universities. But nowhere did anyone suggest they go the "research" versus teaching division that has oft been suggested for the US. However, I think the Comm. College versus UK University degree distinction is overplayed. You are still talking 17-18 year-olds versus 19-20 year olds. What matters isn't the standardization of education in each country, but what opportunities exist to excell there. And the conclusion of The Economist piece?" The US is more demand responsive. What I found curious is that Canada spends about what the US does. That's a surprise. --Orson
