ResearchPlus at odds with Russell Group on minimum entry standards

The director of the new mission group for “research-led” UK universities outside the Russell Group has said its members will not support any proposals for minimum entry standards to access student loans.

This autumn, the Department for Education (DfE) is set to launch a consultation to “look at options for a minimum English requirement for prospective [undergraduates] to access student finance”, with ministers reportedly considering whether applicants should have a GCSE in English to be eligible.

That idea has been enthusiastically backed by the Russell Group, which represents 24 research-intensive universities, 20 of which are in England. The group’s chief executive, Libby Hackett, said in June that “minimum entry standard…cannot happen soon enough”. One of the group’s vice-chancellors, Adam Tickell of the University of Birmingham, has frequently criticised the number of students entering higher education with no A levels or equivalent qualifications, telling The Times last month that without such an academic grounding, “I don’t see how you can get into university and thrive.”

However, Johnny Rich, who recently became director of ResearchPlus, said the group would not endorse the Russell Group’s stance despite “almost all” of its members imposing minimum entry requirements above any likely minimum threshold. Those 10 members are medium-sized research-focused universities, including Essex, Hull, Keele and Sussex.

“We don’t get on board with [minimum entry requirements] because we go back to first principles, which is creating opportunity for those with potential,” said Rich, adding that the proposal raised an “important question around the autonomy of institutions to make decisions about whether an individual student has the potential to succeed”.

Neither did ResearchPlus back Hackett’s call in The Times last week for tuition fees to be allowed to rise above current thresholds for some universities and courses as part of a wholesale review of higher education funding.

While Hackett argued specifically for higher tuition fees to reflect the additional costs incurred by research-intensive universities, noting that Russell Group members are “subsidising between £2,500 and £3,500 per student”, Rich said it was important to recognise that all types of universities were underfunded under the current arrangements, in which tuition fees are capped at £9,790. He cited a recent DfE-commissioned assessment that found the average annual cost of providing an undergraduate degree is just over £12,500.

“Institutions of many kinds – whether they’re trying to do research, follow a teaching-led model or doing the heavy lifting on access – will have higher costs, as do ResearchPlus universities,” he said. Those universities also include City St George’s, SOAS, Brunel and Royal Holloway, all University of London, as well as Ulster University and the Open University.

“Libby is correct is that the cost model doesn’t work [for research-intensives], but I would argue that it doesn’t work for anyone,” Rich said. The idea of raising fees for research-intensives “would be very attractive to ResearchPlus universities, but we don’t think it’s in the best interests of society more widely. So we’d want a more nuanced approach to reviewing the way funding works.”

Any review should result in funding aligning with agreed priorities for the sector, said Rich.

“We need funding that incentivises the outcomes that the government and society want – that might be a good labour market, innovation, growth in every postcode, social justice,” he said. “But let’s fund the outcomes rather than funding institutions based on fairly controversial issues like reputation.”

That said, it was important to speak up for the “research-led” model of ResearchPlus members, said Rich. “These universities are absolutely critical when it comes to the industrial strategy, to regional growth and growth in every postcode,” he argued.

“If we want to achieve that local growth, we need to find ways to turn public and private investment into growth, and the way to do that is to invest in research that has meaningful impact that can turn into innovation. [And] it needs to be linked to teaching because that’s what provides the skills base and opportunity, alongside innovation,” he said.

Having worked previously with the 1994 Group, a coalition of smaller research-intensive universities that disbanded in 2013 after a steady departure of members to the Russell Group, Rich felt it was crucial that the voice of these key anchor institutions is heard once again.

“There is an unheard majority of universities that engage in research and in teaching but [haven’t historically been] part of a mission group. Their perspective can be hard to get through to government, but it’s just as valid as anyone else’s since they make up quite a large proportion of the sector,” he said.

“Obviously, they’re not all members of ResearchPlus, but there is a core of research-led universities that believe in the public value of higher education that have a common purpose that have come together.”

Beyond lobbying, policy work and the external engagement done by mission groups, ResearchPlus members will also be collaborating on initiatives related to teaching, research and knowledge transfer – a key ask from universities in last autumn’s post-16 skills White Paper, said Rich.

Asked if he would like to see some more former 1994 Group members join the new grouping, Rich insisted that ResearchPlus was “in no hurry to grow”. “We’ve got 10 universities, which is a good number, and we’re building up collaborations already. And that is easier when you’ve got fewer,” he said.

“At the same time, there are a lot of universities that certainly share our common purpose and might want to join that collaboration. We’d be happy to consider them at some point.”

On how the group will operate day to day, Rich said ResearchPlus will be selective in its work, with policy papers and events already in the works. “We want to be interesting. We’re not going to make public statements for the sake of it. Where we have something interesting to say – where we can contribute something thought-provoking and insightful – then we will.”

jack.grove@timeshighereducation.com