It is, incidentally, one of the several dispiriting features of this report that even when it shows an inconsistent twitch of non-market reflexes and recognises that there may be a public interest in making sure that certain subjects are offered and studied, it in effect confines these subjects to science and technology (with a token nod to the possible economic usefulness of some foreign languages). The only social value the report seems able to think of is economic: these subjects contribute directly to the economy, it is alleged, and so we must have them. The Comprehensive Spending Review has reinforced this emphasis on science and technology by maintaining the science budget (which supports research, not teaching) at its present level. Browne implies that other subjects, especially the arts and humanities, are just optional extras. If students are willing to cash in their voucher to study them perhaps because, for some unexamined reason, they are thought to lead to higher-paid jobs so be it; but if theyre not, then theres no public interest in having them. Despite the occasional (very occasional) mention of, say, culture, the logic of the reports proposals gives such values no independent standing. Overwhelmingly, the general statements announce, with startling confidence, the real point of higher education: Higher education matters because it drives innovation and economic transformation. Higher education helps to produce economic growth, which in turn contributes to national prosperity. And just when you might think there was going to be a glimpse of something broader, your knuckles are smartly rapped: Higher education matters because it transforms the lives of individuals. On graduating, graduates are more likely to be employed, more likely to enjoy higher wages and better job satisfaction, and more likely to find it easier to move from one job to the next. This report displays no real interest in universities as places of education; they are conceived of simply as engines of economic prosperity and as agencies for equipping future employees to earn higher salaries.
But although this is what higher education is said to be for, Browne complains that it does not at present fulfil its function very well; it does not meet business needs. For example: The CBI found that 48 per cent of employers were dissatisfied with the business awareness of the graduates they hired. Oh dear! Can it be that some universities may not have a compulsory business awareness day each week? Dont worry, Browne will fix that. Only courses that lead to high-paid jobs will survive, so universities will make sure they provide the graduates that high-paying employers want. And anyway, many students will have developed more business awareness through the experience of seeing how failing businesses are driven to respond to falling market share.
Its sad!