Hopes of the man in the middle

Sir Alan Langlands will need all his authority to keep universities on track as the money dries up

By John O'Leary

He is the man in the middle, caught between cost-cutting ministers and angry vice-chancellors. As the chief executive of the Higher Education Funding Council for England and former principal of the University of Dundee, Sir Alan Langlands could have been seen as a poacher turned gamekeeper if he had not run the National Health Service before that.

Instead, the combination of Whitehall and academic experience conferred an immediate aura of authority, helped by the fact that he was not identified with any of the pressure groups within the university world. An affable but not extrovert figure, he has won friends with some straight talking in the few months since his move from Scotland.

Invariably when times get tough, chief executives of Hefce are accused of being too close to Government. But Sir Alan has made a surprisingly bullish start, contrasting the prospect of cuts in England with the inclusion of universities in other countries’ fiscal stimulus packages, and urging universities to fight their corner to resist cuts. He raised eyebrows when he told a CBI conference there was a danger that a competitive advantage built up over 15 years would be lost.

His tone had moderated a little in an interview for Policy Review, but the suggestion was that only the public face had changed. “I am unashamedly an advocate for higher education and research and will ‘speak truth to power’ when necessary,” he says. “The nature of the job means that I do this privately.”

After last month’s grant letter from Lord Mandelson demanding cuts of £135 million to add to the £263 million already announced, that may be needed more than ever. Many vice-chancellors believe that the eventual cuts will be counted in billions.

Sir Alan acknowledges that his job will be to make the best of whatever resources he is given. But he adds: “While recognising the financial pressures, it is essential that we as a Funding Council and universities and colleges continue to make the strongest possible case for maintaining public investment in higher education.”

Having led the NHS under John Major and Tony Blair, he is a Whitehall insider of vast experience. But he claims not to worry that his new post carries rather less clout with Government or the institutions it funds. “In my view Hefce’s policy, funding and regulatory responsibilities are leverage enough,” he says, adding that he has no desire to stifle or second-guess the work of universities or colleges.

“Throughout the 60 year history of the NHS the pendulum has swung backwards and forwards between centralised and devolved approaches to management,” Sir Alan says. “The NHS has always been at its best when decisions are taken at local or institutional level.”

He found his freedom of action at Dundee “tremendously liberating” after 26 years of NHS management and seems less likely than some of his predecessors to want to plan the higher education system. He does not subscribe, for example, to the fashionable view that university mergers are either inevitable or necessarily desirable, despite being involved in the amalgamation of London medical schools and their integration into multi-faculty universities over a 20-year period.

“In the private sector many mergers fail to fully achieve their cost reduction objectives and actually lead to a dilution of shareholder value rather than the expected increase,” he says. “They require expert management and commitment as two or more organisations with different systems and cultures are combined.”

Sir Alan accepts that some mergers will go ahead, where universities can both identify and deliver advantages. But he thinks most will be too attached to their identity and mission. “There is no top-down master-plan,” he insists.

Indeed, he hopes eventually to loosen one of the key centralist policies of the time: the prioritisation of STEM subjects (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) over all others. It was necessary to favour those subjects, he argues, because of the decline in their student numbers and research volume over the first half of the decade. “We hope that the recent increases in applications to STEM courses in higher education will enable these to be fixed-term measures, but that will require universities and colleges to respond positively to the upturn in demand.”

When that moment will come is uncertain, with Lord Mandelson, the First Secretary, still stressing the primacy of STEM subjects in Parliamentary answers last week. But Sir Alan says: “The division between STEM as utilitarian on one side, and the arts and social sciences on the other, is too simplistic. Highly practical work, developing new products and training graduates for specific jobs, can be found across all of these subject areas.

“In the arts and social sciences, disciplines like law, social policy, architecture, and art and design bring theory and practice together for clear instrumental goals. Equally, a great deal of teaching and research across the STEM subjects is highly fundamental, and has no goal beyond the pursuit of knowledge.” 

Other aspects of Lord Mandelson’s grant letter may be equally difficult to deliver. Universities are split over the prospect of greater concentration of research funding so soon after the last Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) did the opposite; the absence of extra places for new entrants in another year of increased demand is certain to be unpopular with the public, while recent trends would have to be reversed for the growth in part-time numbers desired by ministers to be achieved.

Sir Alan thinks that the distinction between full and part-time study is already being blurred and that recent developments such as the withdrawal of funding for Equivalent and Lower Qualifications (ELQs) will add to already considerable untapped demand for part-time first degrees. And he says that any concentration of research will be informed by the quality profiles from the 2008 RAE.

In the longer term, Sir Alan expects there to be more research collaboration between institutions. Possible models include the pooling arrangements operating in Scotland and various smaller scale initiatives in England, such as a physics network among universities in the south-east and the multidisciplinary Great Western research collaboration, which involves 14 universities and colleges in the south-west.

Like Mr Lammy, he foresees a lengthy period of financial stringency. “There is likely to be at least a medium term if not a permanent change in the public funding position for higher education institutions and therefore the response of the sector has to look to the longer term,” he says. “As the sector enters a more constrained public finance position, institutions will need to look carefully at diversifying their income streams and/or managing their costs efficiently.”

This will require efficiencies, but also strategic decisions, with some universities reducing the range of subjects and activities. “No institution can do everything so choices have to be made,” he says. “An institution’s future depends on its reputation which in turn depends upon the quality of its teaching and research. If it spreads itself too thinly that quality is undermined and that will threaten the university’s future.”

Sir Alan adds: “Even with the economic downturn, there are still opportunities for growth. The most obvious example is overseas students. With a devalued pound the UK can combine a reputation for quality with lower prices. But these students will only continue to choose English HE if the reputation for quality is maintained and the prices remain competitive.”

“Universities have some major challenges to face but they start from a strong position, Sir Alan says. “It is clear through our engagement with institutions that they are taking the current situation seriously and looking at ways in which to sustain their future. This will inevitably mean some changes to the way in which some institutions operate but the core functions of teaching and research will remain at the heart of their strategies.”

Even Sir Alan’s optimistic vision of the future will bring tough times for Hefce, however. Asked whether it will act as the traditional ‘buffer’ between universities and Government that the funding council’s predecessors saw as their role, he draws on his scientific background to find a description he likes better. “I prefer the notion of ‘brokering’ solutions between higher education and Government rather than being a ‘buffer’, which presumably aims to reduce shock due to contact or (in chemistry) resists changes in acidity or alkalinity. Higher education is diverse and dynamic – Hefce’s role is to stimulate progress rather than to embed the status quo.”

To find out more about this article, visit: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/news/hefce/2009/grant1011/

24 January 2010

John O'Leary. Editor, Policy Review Magazine