Russell Group warned over ‘divisive’ support for entry thresholds

The Russell Group’s “unexpectedly strong” support for introducing minimum entry standards for UK universities suggests some vice-chancellors have given up standing together against politicised attacks, according to critics.

Research-intensive universities have come out in support of a key policy recommendation included in a controversial report produced by thinktank Policy Exchange, which was also backed by Reform UK’s education spokeswoman Suella Braverman and several leading Conservative critics of higher education.

“Tarnished Towers” made the case for a 30 per cent cut in student numbers, institutional caps on international student numbers and a national entry test for students who fail to achieve at least three Cs at A level or who hold non-traditional or vocational qualifications.

While not signing up to this plan explicitly, the Russell Group’s new chief executive Libby Hackett released a statement that called for a “minimum entry standard to study at university”, something she said the Department for Education was already considering and “cannot happen soon enough”.

Several vice-chancellors have privately told Times Higher Education that they were dismayed by the Russell Group’s response to the report.

“It’s a sad reflection on the sector as a whole when the Russell Group is unwilling to present a robust defence of UK higher education in response to a shoddy political hatchet job,” said Andrew McRae, a former dean of postgraduate research at the University of Exeter.

“Russell Group universities are obviously not the report’s main target, but to respond by boasting of the strengths of these universities feels dismally tunnel-visioned,” he continued, stating the “unexpectedly ‘strong’ support for minimum entry standards is also divisive, since it will almost exclusively hurt universities outside the Russell Group”.

“It seems that we’re really not all in this together,” said McRae.

Asked about the criticism, Hackett told Times Higher Education that “with so much scrutiny on our sector, we must be ready to have challenging conversations”.

“That is the only way we will adapt, improve and establish a more secure future for UK universities that maximises our contributions to the public good.”

The group’s support for a minimum entry threshold comes after the University of Birmingham vice-chancellor, Adam Tickell, criticised the number of students entering higher education with no A levels – a move that made headlines earlier this year.

Tickell, an influential figure in the Russell Group who is close to Labour ministers, told THE that his concerns centred mostly on the “significant numbers of students doing degrees, funded by the Student Loans Company, overwhelmingly with franchised providers who are private providers taking a profit”.

“For these students to thrive at university you need to put a lot of support around them – it costs a huge amount of money. But when the franchising university takes about £2,000 in fees and the provider also takes a profit, you’re only putting in about a quarter of resource needed for these students to thrive,” he said.

The overwhelming majority of universities behave responsibly, Tickell said, but a small number are “putting their short-term finances above the interests of students and the country”.

Other leaders have attempted to smooth over the cracks appearing in the sector. Appearing at the Higher Education Policy Institute conference on 11 June, Vivienne Stern, chief executive of Universities UK, stressed the importance of a united stance.

She said it “would be unwise to turn in on ourselves and start firing cannon at each other. We’ve seen that movie before and it’s really daft.”

“This is a sector that actually has distributed strengths and it’s important that we reinforce those distributed strengths,” said Stern, who added that the Open University’s ability to offer places to those with no formal qualifications was a good example of why it is “really important that universities should be able to determine their own approach to admissions”.

While the Russell Group did not endorse any other proposals in the Policy Exchange report, several of the thinktank’s suggestions would also benefit the grouping over other universities.

It said only “20 to 30 Global Universities” with a track record of research excellence should be allowed to charge £12,000 a year in tuition fees and receive funding from the Research Excellence Framework.

Tickell said he did not agree with all of the report but it raised “genuinely legitimate questions” about the shape of UK higher education. “If we hide away from these debates – which are happening – we cede the ground [to our opponents],” he said.

“Universities have shifted from being core to national interest to be seen as a ‘problem’ in some areas and that narrative has grown because we have hidden from the debate. We have to accept there are legitimate criticisms of the sector and respond – that is a more sensible way to address criticism than hoping these problems will disappear,” said Tickell.

Describing the Russell Group’s “strong support” for national minimum entry standards as “hugely welcome”, the report’s lead author Iain Mansfield, director of research and head of education at Policy Exchange, told THE that university leaders were right to reject a one-size-fits-all approach to sector funding.

“With one in 10 new students starting without qualifications, rampant grade inflation and the graduate premium in sharp decline, mass expansion and marketisation has reached the end of the road,” said Mansfield, a former special adviser to three Conservative education secretaries.

“University leaders who want a well-resourced, world-class sector, with fairer funding for students, must recognise that we cannot continue to hand out loan cheques to unqualified young people on courses that should never have been offered,” he added.

The government’s recent plans to cut a further £100 million from the teaching grant, reported exclusively by THE, underlined why Universities UK should “question whether its forlorn defence of the status quo is working – or whether it is simply a recipe for managed decline”, he added.

jack.grove@timeshighereducation.com