HE Summit questions the future of Higher Education

Staff and students came together to host Warwick’s Higher Education Summit on Saturday 28 January. From September 2012 higher education will undergo radical financial changes, and a host of high-profile speakers discussed the future of the university system. Following four main debates, panellists engaged with the audience in discussions.

During the discussion ‘Are the Arts and Humanities relevant to society?’ Dr Paul Thompson, Director of the Royal College of Art, argued that the Arts and Humanities are not just intrinsic to our society but also to our nature. Suggesting that it was wrong to see Arts and Science subjects as binary oppositions, he cited Lewis Carroll, both an author and a maths tutor.

Thomas Docherty, Professor in English at Warwick, argued that: “Arts, Sciences etc. are all part of society. We need to compartmentalise university and think about what we can do for society.”

American Studies second-year Warwick student Jack Minty told the _Boar_: “the fatal flaw with £9,000 tuition fees means that, even though Humanities degrees don’t cost that much, they’re allowed to charge such a high price because of the competition for university places”.

Faiza Shaheen, a researcher in economic inequality, highlighted university students’ involvement in volunteering, as well as universities’ involvement in social mobility. She noted that over 40 per cent of students at Manchester Metropolitan University come from low incomes, and many from the local area.

Docherty argued that whilst it is scandalous that so few students on free school meals gain entrance to the top universities, “this is not as scandalous as the fact that there are 80,000 children in this country on free school meals because of the social conditions.”

Anthony McClaran, Chief Executive of the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) opened the discussion ‘What role do students have in the university? Are they consumers?’ arguing that student choice is influential: “student choice is critical.”

NUS President Liam Burns argued that David Willets’ claim that students will be a lot more powerful under the system is untrue: “This doesn’t create a market: we can’t get a refund, I can’t take my money elsewhere. The system is not demand-led.”

Political commentator for ‘Spiked’ magazine Patrick Hayes caused controversy with his comments that education is no longer universities’ or their students’ central value, “these papers, these degrees, become receipts, and I think this is increasingly becoming a problem.”

His comments were met with a rebuttal from Reni Eddo-Lodge, the University of Central Lancashire’s Students’ Union President, who told the Boar: “I think in an ideal, equal society we would be able to revere knowledge for knowledge’s sake, but actually what we have is a two-tier system and what Patrick Hayes is advocating.

“I represent about 35,000 students for whom knowledge with no direct use is a luxury and we shouldn’t demonise them, especially when we have around two million youths unemployed.”

Returning to the topic of the debate, Burns argued: “we have to get past this consumer or non-consumer debate. What would have been a more exciting debate is fees or no fees”.

Anjelica Finnegan, studying for a PhD in Social Sciences at the University of Southampton told the Boar: “I think it’s a bit misguided to talk about students as consumers, and one of the problems with this debate is to talk in financial terms – that’s simplifying the issue”.

Nirupa Rao, a member of Warwick’s Student Interactive Broadcast Entranet, said: “I think it was a well-organised event, the layout of the discussion and the time allotment gave both speakers and the audience a chance to voice their opinions.”