For those who advocate education as a vehicle for social mobility, access to higher education has long been a cause celebre. Although widening participation and increasing participation are not strictly the same concept, they are rarely treated as separate causes. Parliamentary debates on the issue are peppered with emotive rhetoric; high on accusatory finger-pointing and impassioned defences of political records. So it was slightly surprising that yesterday’s Opposition Day debate on access to higher education provided little political ruckus since the argument focused on the huge increase in university applications this year and the expected shortfall of university places to meet this growth in demand.
Many argue that the burden of responsibility for increasing and widening participation in higher education cannot solely fall on universities. This is an issue that came to a head in 2008 when Lord Patten, chancellor of Oxford and Newcastle, accused the Government of treating universities like "social security offices" in its efforts to widen participation to higher education. In recent months, newer universities have seized on the opportunity to differentiate themselves by calling for more university places for poorer students ; a tacit criticism of ‘elite’ universities like Oxford. Battle lines have been drawn.
In communications terms, the difference in approach between the old school and the newcomers is stark. Newer universities have effectively used the widening access platform to carve out an image of progressiveness and inclusiveness. But many red-brick universities have been left behind, made to look stuffy and out of touch. In reality, many of these ‘elite’ institutions have effective programmes in place and are making great strides in reaching out to poorer students. Clearly the greatest problem they face is to communicate these programmes effectively. For Russell Group institutions and the like, demonstrating a willingness to reach to out to a wider audience is about more than positive PR. Effective access programmes can draw in talented students from poorer backgrounds. They become self-perpetuating; other once wary students are encouraged to apply. A good social conscience and a progressive access policy is not enough. Universities must market their efforts more effectively if they want to remain relevant.
Many argue that the burden of responsibility for increasing and widening participation in higher education cannot solely fall on universities. This is an issue that came to a head in 2008 when Lord Patten, chancellor of Oxford and Newcastle, accused the Government of treating universities like "social security offices" in its efforts to widen participation to higher education. In recent months, newer universities have seized on the opportunity to differentiate themselves by calling for more university places for poorer students ; a tacit criticism of ‘elite’ universities like Oxford. Battle lines have been drawn.
In communications terms, the difference in approach between the old school and the newcomers is stark. Newer universities have effectively used the widening access platform to carve out an image of progressiveness and inclusiveness. But many red-brick universities have been left behind, made to look stuffy and out of touch. In reality, many of these ‘elite’ institutions have effective programmes in place and are making great strides in reaching out to poorer students. Clearly the greatest problem they face is to communicate these programmes effectively. For Russell Group institutions and the like, demonstrating a willingness to reach to out to a wider audience is about more than positive PR. Effective access programmes can draw in talented students from poorer backgrounds. They become self-perpetuating; other once wary students are encouraged to apply. A good social conscience and a progressive access policy is not enough. Universities must market their efforts more effectively if they want to remain relevant.
John Hood - Consultant
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment