David, meet Michael

October 22, 2009 by
Filed under: Politics, Public policy 

I spent some time yesterday evening with David Willetts, Shadow Secretary of State for Universities and Skills. I am a fan of David’s, finding him thoughtful, open minded and progressive. Indeed he was the respondent I chose for my second annual lecture. But having heard David speak about his views of higher education I wonder whether I should introduce him to another impressive Tory politician, Michael Gove. It is far from clear to me that they share the same world view.

Last night, at the dinner we were both attending, several people criticised the Government’s target of 50% of your people going into higher education. But David was eloquent in his support for the expansion of HE, even while recognising that levels of participation had gone up faster than levels of attainment. As well as saying that university has many advantages for young people in addition to gaining qualifications, he pointed out that the expansion had largely been in vocational areas and that about two out of three people at university are studying for a degree necessary for them to enter their career of choice. He also explicitly rejected the notion that the new degrees being taught in new universities were in ‘Mickey Mouse’ subjects.

This was music to my ears. At almost exactly the same time David was making his point at the dinner, I was using a very similar argument on this week’s Radio 4 Moral Maze.

But how are we to square David’s view with the thrust of Michael Gove’s lecture here last June. In referring to universities in his speech, the Conservative education spokesman spoke exclusively about the view of the elite Russell Group. He argued strongly against what he clearly saw as Mickey Mouse subjects and qualifications (although to be fair he didn’t use this phrase). Moreover, I interpreted the thrust of Gove’s speech that he was determined to raise the bar of academic attainment, something which would surely lead in the short term to lower levels of participation in higher education.

So, while David Willetts espouses a laissez faire, expansionary view of post compulsory education, his shadow cabinet colleague urges a return to a more rigidly defined set of subjects and content with progression capped by rising attainment requirements.

Perhaps there is a way of explaining this apparent tension but I’m afraid I’m not clever enough to understand it. I blame my school, or should it be my university?

Share

No related posts.

Tags: , , , ,

Comments

10 Comments on David, meet Michael

  1. tim on Thu, 22nd Oct 2009 3:37 pm

    2. i remember him saying the same thing a year ago, so it seems little difference

    http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23533053-more-pupils-going-to-university-is-a-good-thing-says-senior-tory.do

  2. C on Thu, 22nd Oct 2009 9:03 pm

    3. My main concerns with higher education in the way its expansion has been prosecuted are that, firstly, too many young people are starting out in their adult lives saddled with enormous debt and, secondly, that the take up of courses is not aligned with the needs of the job market. Vocational courses per se are not the problem but their relationship to the demand for skills in the economy might be.

    I would like to see tax breaks being given to companies to “sponsor” a student through university by giving employment during vacations and a placement at the end of their course. That would help fill the engineering and other unsubscribed courses, lessen debt and ensure that the jobs market and economy drives the provision of education. At the moment the relationship seems imperfect.

  3. Saboohi Famili on Thu, 22nd Oct 2009 9:20 pm

    4. As the executive leader of one of the largest government funded initiatives (FutureSkills at Thames Valley University), it is great to hear the support for the efforts that modern universities are putting in place to address the wrok-force development issues and addressing the skills gap.
    A research carried out in September 2008, demonstrated that most employers are after skills rather than qualifications. It is therefore paramount for universities to be more inclined to train the workforce of the future and focus on skills set. This does not necessarily mean a decline in the academia. It shows the changing times and those who are responsive and alert to this change will benefit in the long run.

  4. Joe Nutt on Fri, 23rd Oct 2009 10:10 am

    5. So what I’m thinking is…why did I find myself last week sitting in a meeting with some of the UK’s leading university teachers who were unanimous in their condemnation of a system that is creating students: too afraid to ask questions because they are too afraid to fail, utterly incapable of learning for themselves and needing remedial attention the moment they enter university?

    Education is only ever about utilitarian goals in repressive societies. One of most pernicious lies utilitarians peddle to children, is the lie that they have their future interests at heart. “You’re 14 already…hey, wanna be a hairdresser?” Exactly the kind of crass kind of pigeon-holing that the comprehensive school zealots attacked the secondary modern for…remember “Kes?”

    If you don’t believe education is about the pursuit of excellence, you condemn those you educate to mediocrity.

  5. phil h on Fri, 23rd Oct 2009 7:31 pm

    6. I think that Saboohi has posited a false dichotomy between skills and qualifications.

    A qualification in History could, for example, equip the student with many skills that are transferable in the workplace.

    However far too many graduates do not have some of the basic skills, for example literacy skills. Many recent post graduate students, in my experience as an employer, do not know how to use an apostrophe correctly.

    Like Joe I am a big believer in liberal arts education – education for no other reason than to gain an understanding and insight into a subject. In undertaking such an education many useful skills are acquired that can be deployed in a workplace – research, analysis, problem solving etc.

    The best lawyer in the land, Jonathan Sumption QC, is also known as an eminent historian, having graduated in that subject.

  6. ad on Fri, 23rd Oct 2009 7:38 pm

    7. David Willetts espouses a laissez faire, expansionary view of post compulsory education

    Is he planning to end government subsidies for it, or has the phrase ” laissez faire” been redefined?

  7. matthewtaylor on Tue, 27th Oct 2009 10:21 am

    8. Fair point. I guess I meant laissez faire in the sense that if Universities want to teach it and students want to study it what’s the problem. But you are right about the public subsidy aspect.

  8. matthewtaylor on Tue, 27th Oct 2009 10:23 am

    9. Thanks Phil, Joe and Saboohi. This is one of those debates that really gets people going. My own soggy liberal position is that HE expansion has been a largely successful social experiment. But that there is much to learn from what has worked well and what has not.

  9. Free call India >> Making free call from US to ... on Fri, 27th Nov 2009 1:00 pm

    10. ..]another must read source of information on this subjectis ,www.matthewtaylorsblog.com,..]

  10. My response to Michael Gove’s response to my response to his speech | Matthew Taylor's blog on Wed, 20th Jan 2010 7:49 pm

    11. [...] into university. I interpret Michael’s answer as a ‘yes’. Which, again, is fine, although, as I have suggested before, it doesn’t seem to be quite the position being espoused by Conservative HE spokesman David [...]

Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!