Ever wealthier vice chancellors are leaving education behind
3 views
Skip to first unread message
Hetty ter Haar
Jan 18, 2012, 2:35:09 AM1/18/12
to Academic Judgement
Ever wealthier vice chancellors are leaving education behind
Expanding pay packages are the latest evidence of the cosy position of
university chiefs ? as staff and students suffer
Michael Chessum
Tuesday January 17 2012
guardian.co.uk
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/17/wealthier-vice-chancellors-education
Pay packages for university vice chancellors [http://
www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/jan/16/vice-chancellors-9700-pay-rise"
title="Guardian: University vice-chancellors take average 9,700 pay
rise] are rising by an average of ?9,700 per year ? the equivalent of
one year's undergraduate fees under the new funding system. Although
not unprecedented, in a new era of campus politicisation and financial
hardship, this news will cause uproar on many campuses. To properly
address the root of the problem, however, students and university
staff must challenge the deeper ideological and managerial consensus
that has allowed such inequality and waste to persist.
With job security, pay and pensions under attack everywhere, it is no
wonder that the University and College Union is up in arms at high
managerial pay. This week London Metropolitan University announced
[http://markcampbell4gs.wordpress.com/2012/01/16/friday-13th-job-
massacre-at-london-met/" title="Mark Campbell for UCU: Friday 13th
Job Massacre at London Met] the redundancy of 229 staff, 201 of which
are academic grade, across seven faculties ? adding to last year's 70%
cut to undergraduate courses.
Across the country, the increasingly comfortable position of many vice
chancellors contrasts heavily with the daily realities of life for
university employees in the chaos being wrought by the present
government.
Students are also facing an attack on their conditions. With millions
of people now in higher education, student poverty can no longer be
portrayed as a melodramatic middle-class concern ? and it is set to
get worse. With bursaries being raided by many university managements
to fund fee waivers, living costs are rising and accommodation prices
are sky-rocketing. A catered place in a University of London hall,
with shared bathroom and toilet, will cost you upwards of ?170 per
week in 2012-13, the first year of ?9,000 fees.
The high pay of university heads, although a good headline and a
reasonable criticism, is not the end of the story for high managerial
pay at universities. In March 2010, University College London had 311
staff paid more than ?100,000 [http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/
2010/mar/12/universities-high-pay-top-data" title="Guardian: The top-
paying universities]. When approached by the Evening Standard about
the fact that his cleaners were living in poverty, the UCL provost
Malcolm Grant, himself on ?404,000 at the time, described the London
living wage as a "luxury" that he could not afford [http://
www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23881460-ucl-chief-paying-a-living-wage-would-cost-pound-1m-a-year-and-8201-and-8201and-i-dont-have-it.do"
title="Evening Standard: UCL chief: Paying living wage would cost 1m a
year ... and I dont have it">a "luxury]. Although Grant later
committed to paying the living wage, this has still not been
implemented, and many auxiliary staff have now been outsourced,
stripping away their pension rights and sick pay.
The concentration of wealth at the top of universities is merely one
manifestation of an increasingly managerial approach in higher
education. Most vice chancellors have no mandate for their actions
other than the (often pretty much automatic) consent of their
governing bodies, which are more and more populated by unelected
business people and managers rather than academics.
This approach has been backed up by a much broader ideological
consensus about higher education, which has gone almost unchallenged
for more than a decade. David Eastwood, the vice chancellor of
Birmingham University, was singled out by the report as the second-
highest-paid vice chancellor in the country. He was also a member of
the Browne review panel [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browne_Review"
title="Wikipedia: Browne Review], and in December reviewed the higher
education debate [http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/dec/19/
higher-education-policy-debate" title="Guardian: Higher education
policy: what should we expect in 2012?] that exploded over the past
year. Tellingly, he described the events of the past year as if he had
no role in them. This is a common rhetorical technique for vice
chancellors, who often balance a cosy relationship with government
with an increasingly restless atmosphere on campus.
In reality, vice chancellors, particularly in the Russell Group
[http://www.russellgroup.ac.uk/" title="The Russell Group], have spent
serious energy lobbying for a higher education system increasingly
funded by fees, increasingly motivated by individual rather than
societal benefit, and increasingly run like a business ? with soaring
executive pay.
Their lobbying efforts have chimed with a succession of governments,
who have given them precisely that, forming a growing consensus under
both major parties about the future shape of universities. When the
Browne review was released, Eastwood described its recommendations,
including unlimited tuition fees, as "a very good deal for students
and a fair and progressive way forward that will enable universities
to provide a high quality education on an affordable and sustainable
basis [http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/research/impact/perspective/debate/
he-funding-eastwood.aspx" title="]".
Parallels can be drawn with Grant's record as provost of UCL. He has
also very publicly backed higher fees [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/
education/7947605.stm" title="BBC: Universities back fee increase],
and has been at the forefront of arguing for research funding
concentrations [http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/jul/13/cut-
student-places-university-funding" title="Guardian: Cut student places
not funding, says university chief], which would have left poorer
universities facing closure. Grant's closeness to consecutive
governments is reflected in his role as trade envoy for the prime
minister, and his latest appointment as the chair of the NHS
commissioning board ? a controversial body invented by Andrew
Lansley's reforms [http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/aug/29/nhs-
bill-lansley-wash-hands" title="Guardian: NHS bill 'will let Andrew
Lansley wash his hands of health service'].
Under the prevailing policy consensus in higher education, vice
chancellors and government ministers have learned to speak the same
language. Rightwing political agendas and questionable ethical
practices have become hidden behind a wall of innocuous newspeak.
"Excellence" ? often a byword for regressive funding concentrations or
for national pride ? and "sustainability" ? a euphemism for taking
public money out of universities ? are the order of the day, precisely
because they mean nothing and can be filled with consensus dogma.
The closeness of university managements to the government has been a
disaster for everyone in education. This year, the government will try
to push through its higher education white paper. On top of the EMA
cuts [http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/nov/08/education-
maintenance-allowance-cuts" title="Guardian: Students slam cuts to
education maintenance allowance], fee rises [http://www.guardian.co.uk/
education/2011/nov/01/teenagers-court-challenge-tuition-fee-rise"
title="Guardian: Teenagers begin high court challenge against tuition
fee rise] and almost total teaching grant cuts [http://
www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/oct/20/spending-review-university-teaching-cuts"
title="Guardian: Universities alarmed by 40% cut to teaching budgets]
of last year, the white paper has been roundly denounced [http://
uclu.org/student-union/2011/09/2011-higher-education-white-paper-
consultation-submission-university-college.pdf" title="UCLU:
Students at the heart of the system (pdf)] as an attack on the very
idea of education as a public service [http://www.guardian.co.uk/
education/interactive/2011/sep/27/higher-education-alternative-white-
paper" title="Guardian: Alternative white paper: In defence of public
higher education]. It represents the radical outcome of decades of
policy consensus in higher education under Labour and coalition
governments, none of which has had an electoral mandate.
Picking up the pieces from the fee rises and the higher education
white paper, students and university staff will rightly ask who gave
successive governments the permission to launch this attack. Set
against a prevailing consensus of unaccountable and overpaid
politicians and vice chancellors, the democratisation of universities
and colleges may yet prove to be a key point of reference for those
who want to keep fighting for an education system run as a social
good, accessible to all.
guardian.co.uk Copyright (c) Guardian News and Media Limited. 2012
Expanding pay packages are the latest evidence of the cosy position of
university chiefs ? as staff and students suffer
Michael Chessum
Tuesday January 17 2012
guardian.co.uk
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/17/wealthier-vice-chancellors-education
Pay packages for university vice chancellors [http://
www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/jan/16/vice-chancellors-9700-pay-rise"
title="Guardian: University vice-chancellors take average 9,700 pay
rise] are rising by an average of ?9,700 per year ? the equivalent of
one year's undergraduate fees under the new funding system. Although
not unprecedented, in a new era of campus politicisation and financial
hardship, this news will cause uproar on many campuses. To properly
address the root of the problem, however, students and university
staff must challenge the deeper ideological and managerial consensus
that has allowed such inequality and waste to persist.
With job security, pay and pensions under attack everywhere, it is no
wonder that the University and College Union is up in arms at high
managerial pay. This week London Metropolitan University announced
[http://markcampbell4gs.wordpress.com/2012/01/16/friday-13th-job-
massacre-at-london-met/" title="Mark Campbell for UCU: Friday 13th
Job Massacre at London Met] the redundancy of 229 staff, 201 of which
are academic grade, across seven faculties ? adding to last year's 70%
cut to undergraduate courses.
Across the country, the increasingly comfortable position of many vice
chancellors contrasts heavily with the daily realities of life for
university employees in the chaos being wrought by the present
government.
Students are also facing an attack on their conditions. With millions
of people now in higher education, student poverty can no longer be
portrayed as a melodramatic middle-class concern ? and it is set to
get worse. With bursaries being raided by many university managements
to fund fee waivers, living costs are rising and accommodation prices
are sky-rocketing. A catered place in a University of London hall,
with shared bathroom and toilet, will cost you upwards of ?170 per
week in 2012-13, the first year of ?9,000 fees.
The high pay of university heads, although a good headline and a
reasonable criticism, is not the end of the story for high managerial
pay at universities. In March 2010, University College London had 311
staff paid more than ?100,000 [http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/
2010/mar/12/universities-high-pay-top-data" title="Guardian: The top-
paying universities]. When approached by the Evening Standard about
the fact that his cleaners were living in poverty, the UCL provost
Malcolm Grant, himself on ?404,000 at the time, described the London
living wage as a "luxury" that he could not afford [http://
www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23881460-ucl-chief-paying-a-living-wage-would-cost-pound-1m-a-year-and-8201-and-8201and-i-dont-have-it.do"
title="Evening Standard: UCL chief: Paying living wage would cost 1m a
year ... and I dont have it">a "luxury]. Although Grant later
committed to paying the living wage, this has still not been
implemented, and many auxiliary staff have now been outsourced,
stripping away their pension rights and sick pay.
The concentration of wealth at the top of universities is merely one
manifestation of an increasingly managerial approach in higher
education. Most vice chancellors have no mandate for their actions
other than the (often pretty much automatic) consent of their
governing bodies, which are more and more populated by unelected
business people and managers rather than academics.
This approach has been backed up by a much broader ideological
consensus about higher education, which has gone almost unchallenged
for more than a decade. David Eastwood, the vice chancellor of
Birmingham University, was singled out by the report as the second-
highest-paid vice chancellor in the country. He was also a member of
the Browne review panel [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browne_Review"
title="Wikipedia: Browne Review], and in December reviewed the higher
education debate [http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/dec/19/
higher-education-policy-debate" title="Guardian: Higher education
policy: what should we expect in 2012?] that exploded over the past
year. Tellingly, he described the events of the past year as if he had
no role in them. This is a common rhetorical technique for vice
chancellors, who often balance a cosy relationship with government
with an increasingly restless atmosphere on campus.
In reality, vice chancellors, particularly in the Russell Group
[http://www.russellgroup.ac.uk/" title="The Russell Group], have spent
serious energy lobbying for a higher education system increasingly
funded by fees, increasingly motivated by individual rather than
societal benefit, and increasingly run like a business ? with soaring
executive pay.
Their lobbying efforts have chimed with a succession of governments,
who have given them precisely that, forming a growing consensus under
both major parties about the future shape of universities. When the
Browne review was released, Eastwood described its recommendations,
including unlimited tuition fees, as "a very good deal for students
and a fair and progressive way forward that will enable universities
to provide a high quality education on an affordable and sustainable
basis [http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/research/impact/perspective/debate/
he-funding-eastwood.aspx" title="]".
Parallels can be drawn with Grant's record as provost of UCL. He has
also very publicly backed higher fees [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/
education/7947605.stm" title="BBC: Universities back fee increase],
and has been at the forefront of arguing for research funding
concentrations [http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/jul/13/cut-
student-places-university-funding" title="Guardian: Cut student places
not funding, says university chief], which would have left poorer
universities facing closure. Grant's closeness to consecutive
governments is reflected in his role as trade envoy for the prime
minister, and his latest appointment as the chair of the NHS
commissioning board ? a controversial body invented by Andrew
Lansley's reforms [http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/aug/29/nhs-
bill-lansley-wash-hands" title="Guardian: NHS bill 'will let Andrew
Lansley wash his hands of health service'].
Under the prevailing policy consensus in higher education, vice
chancellors and government ministers have learned to speak the same
language. Rightwing political agendas and questionable ethical
practices have become hidden behind a wall of innocuous newspeak.
"Excellence" ? often a byword for regressive funding concentrations or
for national pride ? and "sustainability" ? a euphemism for taking
public money out of universities ? are the order of the day, precisely
because they mean nothing and can be filled with consensus dogma.
The closeness of university managements to the government has been a
disaster for everyone in education. This year, the government will try
to push through its higher education white paper. On top of the EMA
cuts [http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/nov/08/education-
maintenance-allowance-cuts" title="Guardian: Students slam cuts to
education maintenance allowance], fee rises [http://www.guardian.co.uk/
education/2011/nov/01/teenagers-court-challenge-tuition-fee-rise"
title="Guardian: Teenagers begin high court challenge against tuition
fee rise] and almost total teaching grant cuts [http://
www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/oct/20/spending-review-university-teaching-cuts"
title="Guardian: Universities alarmed by 40% cut to teaching budgets]
of last year, the white paper has been roundly denounced [http://
uclu.org/student-union/2011/09/2011-higher-education-white-paper-
consultation-submission-university-college.pdf" title="UCLU:
Students at the heart of the system (pdf)] as an attack on the very
idea of education as a public service [http://www.guardian.co.uk/
education/interactive/2011/sep/27/higher-education-alternative-white-
paper" title="Guardian: Alternative white paper: In defence of public
higher education]. It represents the radical outcome of decades of
policy consensus in higher education under Labour and coalition
governments, none of which has had an electoral mandate.
Picking up the pieces from the fee rises and the higher education
white paper, students and university staff will rightly ask who gave
successive governments the permission to launch this attack. Set
against a prevailing consensus of unaccountable and overpaid
politicians and vice chancellors, the democratisation of universities
and colleges may yet prove to be a key point of reference for those
who want to keep fighting for an education system run as a social
good, accessible to all.
guardian.co.uk Copyright (c) Guardian News and Media Limited. 2012
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages