American and British Higher Education: Common Problems, Common Responses

The governments of the USA and the UK have identified similar challenges facing their higher education sectors. Both governments believe in the centrality of market forces in meeting higher education demand, with government and academia playing subordinate roles. The public purposes of higher education must be restated if the potentially negative consequences of this scenario are to be avoided. In 2005, two distinguished practitioners in and commentators on higher education in the United Kingdom turned their attention to developments in the United States (Alderman and Brown 2005). They described current changes to institutional quality assurance (accreditation in America, audit in Britain) and considered how far these processes might be vulnerable to the ever-increasing competitive pressures in both systems. In this article, these themes are readdressed in the context of a wider discussion about what appears to be a growing convergence of policies around the responsiveness and effectiveness of higher education institutions in both countries. Some three years ago the British government published a white paper (a major statement of intended government policy), which began with a serious critique of British universities (Department for Education and Skills 2003, p.4): * higher education must expand to meet rising skill needs; * the social class gap among those entering university remains too wide; * many other economic competitors invest more in higher education; * universities are struggling to employ the best academics; * funding per student fell 36 percent between 1989 and 19975 * the investment backlog in teaching and research facilities is estimated at approximately $15 billion (£8 billion); * universities need stronger links with business and the economy. The government's primary response was to introduce legislation to enable institutions to charge increased tuition of up to $5,600 (£3,000) a year (variable fees). Students could either pay immediately or in effect borrow from the government and repay the money through the tax system after they had graduated. The existing subsidies on maintenance loans were unaffected. The necessary legislation was enacted, amid considerable controversy, in 2004. It went into effect in October 2006. The United States of course already has variable tuition in the context of a much larger, more participative, and better-funded system. How this system works has been a major focus of the Bush administration's Commission on the Future of Higher Education. The criticisms that the Commission on the Future of Higher Education (2006) has made about higher education in the United States are strikingly similar to those made by the British government about British institutions: In today's knowledge-driven society, higher education has never been more important (p. 6). Too few Americans prepare for, participate in, and complete higher education - especially those underserved and non-traditional groups who make up an ever-greater proportion of the population (p-j). Our higher education financing system is increasingly dysfunctional. State subsidies are declining; tuition is rising; and cost per student is increasing faster than inflation or family income. Affordability is directly affected by a financing system that provides limited incentives for colleges and universities to take aggressive steps to improve institutional efficiency and productivity (p. 9). The entire financial aid system is confusing, complex, inefficient, duplicative and frequently does not direct aid to students who truly need it (p.n). At a time when we need to be increasing the quality of learning outcomes and the economic value of a college education, there are disturbing signs that suggest that we are moving in the opposite direction (p. 12). There is inadequate transparency and accountability for measuring institutional performance, which is more and more necessary to maintaining public trust in higher education (p. …