Transcript P Sykes Presentation Uni Libraries after Browne

Phil Sykes
University of Liverpool
 Browne
 The
results of the 2010 CSR
 Research Excellence
Framework



Recommended no cap on fees
Recommended moving away from central
determination of student numbers and
allowing national aggregate student numbers
to rise by 10%
Recommended equalisation of position for PT
and FT students


Fees lifted to between £6k and £9k, but only
to go above £6k in “exceptional
circumstances”.
Massive reduction in teaching and student
support budget (£2.9bn, 40%)




Consultation on the student numbers issue,
but looks like open competition for a fixed
aggregate number of students will be allowed
Flat cash for research = 9-10% real term cut
44% reduction in capital by 2014-15
Other cuts – e.g. in NHS spending – are
bound to impact upon H.E.
Importance of citations – bibliometric
impact
 Importance of impact on economy and
society
 REF II will require deposit of all
submitted works in the institutional
repository


Reduction of grant for teaching and student
support of 40%
◦ = 70-80% cut in teaching grant
◦ Effectively no government funding for non-STEM
subjects
◦ (But clearly mitigated by increase allowed in fees)




Flat research funding and possibility of
greater concentration (“flat” = 9-10% cut in
real terms)
Valley of death/Valley of dearth
Threat from private providers
Ending central planning of student numbers
means threats for those who are likely to be
net losers in a struggle for a fixed pool of
students with numbers capped at the national
level




Higher fees = more
demanding/discriminating students
More demanding students = more
dissatisfied students?
Reduction in capital
Knock-on effects of reduced expenditure in
NHS, other government departments and
local authorities


How good or bad it will be partly depends
partly upon the market position of your
university
But may be more chance of changing the
market position of your university if there is
less government control




Universities might now concentrate on what
they’re best at
Fair deal for part-time students would be
good for universities with high proportion of
PTers
“Necessity is the mother of invention”
Forces you to tackle issues you should have
tackled anyway – “Let’s not waste a good
crisis” – including.........
Journal
Prices!
Forces us to be more brutal about
what improves learning, delights
students and has real impact on them
and what doesn’t
 Opportunities – fund raising
 Opportunities – demanding students

◦ What will they demand?
◦ We know the answer from surveys!



The market will force universities to pay more
attention to the student experience. So if we
can demonstrate that something we do will
give our university a market advantage they
will invest in us
So we have to get better at demonstrating
value and impact
Opportunity – the need to widen participation
•
Opportunities from REF:
▫ Greater, more consistent level of
deposit in the institutional repository
▫ Growing evidence of how OA leads to
higher level of citation
▫ IR as a means of increasing (and
demonstrating) social and economic
impact
▫ IR as a means of stimulating industrial
sponsorship