For months, British universities have warned in apocalyptic terms about the devastating cuts they face as part of the government’s grand plan to reduce public-sector costs. With the government poised this week to announce its spending plans, their worst fears seem about to come true.
Steve Smith, president of Universities UK, which represents Britain’s higher-learning institutions, said the government was likely to cut about 80 percent of the current US$6.2 billion it pays annually for university teaching, and about US$1.6 billion from the US$6.4 billion it provides for research.
To make up for the shortfall, universities would have to raise tuition to an average of more than US$11,000, Smith said, and doing so would require parliament to lift the cap on such fees, now set at US$5,260.
“It’s a savage cut, and it’s unprecedented, and it’s the government moving out of the funding of higher education,” Smith, vice chancellor of the University of Exeter, said in an interview. “We’ve had a big comfort blanket called state funding, and now we’re being thrown out of the nest.”
Education is just one area where the state plans a major retrenchment. With the government aiming to find US$130 billion in savings over the next five years, every department has been asked to plan for cuts as high as 40 percent; the government will present the results in its final spending review tomorrow.
Meanwhile, interest groups representing virtually ever sector — the arts, the military, transportation and the like — have been pleading that they cannot absorb such drastic shocks to their systems.
The pleading, however, has had little effect.
Britain’s universities, heavily subsidized by the state, already feel pared to the bone after a series of cuts in the past year or so. In anticipation of further cuts, many are beginning to lay off instructors, reduce the number of classes and shut down departments. Some instructors and researchers, dismayed by how little money they are being offered and worried about future financing, have abandoned Britain for more lucrative offers at universities abroad.
Adrian Owen, a renowned neuroscientist at the University of Cambridge and an expert on brain injury, announced recently that he and his team of five researchers were moving to the University of Western Ontario in Canada.
“UK science is going through a period of uncertainty, and many of my more senior colleagues said this might not be a bad time to be leaving,” the Guardian quoted Owen as saying. “There’s nobody in the UK putting down US$20 milliion saying: ‘We think what you’re doing is really cool; come and do it here.”’
Middlesex University said last spring that it intended to close its philosophy department. Cardiff University in Wales announced proposals to reduce the teaching staff in its modern languages department to 10 people, from 22. King’s College London said it would abolish its chair in paleography, the study of ancient handwriting — the only such post in Britain. After an international outcry, it proposed creating a new position in “paleography and manuscript studies” that would be “fully funded from philanthropic monies.”
Saying it would scale back departments not underpinned by “world class” research, the University of Southampton closed its department of sports science and stopped offering undergraduate classes in social work last year.
British universities currently get about US$22.4 billion a year from the government. Until about 10 years ago, they did not charge tuition. Since then, tuition has been capped by law at US$5,260 for students from the EU. Students from outside Europe pay a much higher fee that more accurately reflects the actual cost of their schooling.
A report on higher education financing issued this week by John Browne, the former chairman of British Petroleum, proposed lifting the cap and giving universities the right to set their own tuition.
However, any institution charging more than US$9,500 would have to pay the state a levy on the higher rate.
The proposals in Browne’s report face a rocky time in parliament, where many members of the Liberal Democrat Party, part of the coalition government, are implacably opposed to higher tuition.
Smith warned, however, that the increase was the only way universities could fill the gap left by the impending budget cuts.
“If we don’t have them, we’re in a mess,” he said. “There’s no alternative source of funding.”
Browne’s report also proposes withdrawing government support completely from subjects in the arts and humanities and concentrating it in areas he believes contribute more to the economy, like science and engineering.
“As far as I’m concerned, this is philistinism on a large scale,” said Paul Cottrell, the head of policy at the University and College Union, which represents teachers in higher education.
Some universities may have to abolish subjects in the humanities, Cottrell said.
“The alternative is to cut costs, but as soon as you do that you get a reputation for poor quality, and you lose your overseas students pretty quickly,” he said.
While institutions like Oxford or Cambridge can easily find students willing to pay, higher tuition would probably create problems for smaller, less respected or less research-intensive universities, or for those with poorer students, Cottrell said.
“The question is whether all institutions would be able to attract students at that level of tuition,” he said. “We think a lot of students will be put off, so demand will fall. And it’s possible that some of our institutions will fail, if their only source of income is teaching funding and they get very little research funding.”
Smith said such drastic cuts in government spending were not necessary.
Speaking of British Prime Minister David Cameron’s notion of “the big society,” he said: “When they say the big society, they mean the small state.”
“I think they’re cutting the university sector because they can, and I think that’s terribly damaging for the future of the country,” he said.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past