Ways of making higher education cheaper to run, but better too

In the next ten years it is likely that in many advanced economies in Europe macro-economic factors will dominate budget planning of governments. These include:

• an aging population with greater healthcare needs
• population shrinkage in some countries
• continued difficulties in achieving anything like US levels of economic growth
• the rapid drive to Net Zero, much faster than in other continents
• costs of an ongoing war
• higher prevalence of mental health issues leading to fewer in the workforce
  

This will mean that government budgets for education will not rise much in real terms. Additionally the success in recent years of widening participation in higher education across the EU and near to it means that the higher education budget is now much less easy to increase than the schools budget. This is not helped by the inability of universities to make a compelling economic case for their further growth – and by a reluctance of some governments to listen to such cases.

In fact there are already topical examples in several European countries (UK, Netherlands, Denmark) of university budgets actually being cut in real terms.

While AI is being touted as a cure to this issue, both generally and in universities in particular, recent analyses have shown that the effect on productivity may be disappointingly low even if billions of euros (in dollars mostly) are earned by a few IT companies, that further fundamental breakthroughs are likely to be required for General AI, and that building the new AI-infused workflows to be really helpful in education remains challenging. It probably does not help that millions of euros are already being wasted by the education sector trying out many half-ready solutions, leading to a waste of scarce teacher resources and general disillusionment.

It does not help that every new technology, not only AI but also Virtual/Augmented Reality and robotics is looked at by universities in terms of how it can “improve quality” with little concern for costs.

Governments often react “unintelligently” to economic pressures by top-level cuts to budgets. Classic examples are to cut out types of courses they do not like in institutions they disapprove of, with a few trying to close institutions or merge them into others to “solve” the problem.

Universities often react by staff cuts, delaying building projects and trying to make the remaining staff “work harder”. There is a rhetoric of “work smarter not harder” but not taken seriously. The issues of cost-effectiveness and the potential gains from digital technology are little looked at, even by experts or the national agencies that are supposed to advise universities on such matters.

How do we step off the ever-upwards-moving cost escalator?

A key insight in our view is to consider not only what things can be done to improve productivity, but also what things should not be done, either by their own university or in some cases by all universities.

In some cases the things to be done will seem far from obvious, or even unhelpful. For others there will have to be a different attitude from government.

The lists below are not supposed to be exhaustive, but a starter set of ideas. It is more than likely that those with substantial digital experience  within the higher education sector will come up with additional and revised suggestions.

Changes within governments

A. Governments should from now on ensure that they solve in schools the issues created in schools that universities are increasingly expected to “solve”, accepting that this will be a transitional process over some years. It cannot be right that the schools sector can “kick the problems upstairs” thus avoiding the costs of solving them within the schools system. Several in-institution points depend on that.

B. If pupils are coming out of school with the ability to study in higher education but without relevant qualifications (for the course they wish to study), then routes should be found to offer them the qualifications, but outside (and before they start at) universities. In general, second-chance schools (adult K-12) are cheaper to set up and run than second-chance universities. For example in England it is  much cheaper to teach A levels (e.g. at online providers) than degree courses.

C. Governments should think more out of the box and at a whole-system level. (In particular the whole 4-year versus 3-year degree issue needs analysis against comparable countries and unpacking. (This is specially so when it occurs within one country – like Scotland with 4 years and the rest of the UK with 3.)

D. Governments should consider raising the level of student maintenance grants (or loans) but to balance that out with a shorter period that the maintenance covers. This would go well with moves to reduce the length of a degree programme from 4 years to 3 in many countries – or 3 to 2 (or 2.5) in England and Wales. The level of student maintenance grant/loan might depend on the mode of study – lower where students were permitted to work such as modes where all required contact was in the mornings, or in the evenings, allowing students to work as well as study. In some models students would not be permitted to work and pressures of work would not be taken as valid reasons not to complete study and assessment.

E. Governments should extend the student premium for students who have a registered disability from schools to universities, so that part of this goes to the university not all to the student. This incentivises and subsidies the university to make necessary arrangements for groups of students, e.g. all blind students.

F. A challenging idea which needs more detailed analysis might be for governments to levy VAT at a low rate on university fees so as to incentivise replacement of labour by capital equipment and services yet not substantially raise the cost to students. A higher rate of VAT could be charged on fees for international students (who do not have votes). In some countries such a change is within national competence; but in EU Member States this may require legislative changes to EU-wide regulations.

Changes within institutions

Since governments tend to move slowly, there is an onus on institutions

Now follow 11 examples of cost issues to stimulate debate. They are meant to be provocative! And this is not a complete list – creative staff in universities will be able to think of others.

1. In some countries, universities may admit adult students above a certain age (often 21) without the usual entry qualifications or any direct equivalent. This usually means that the students end up studying more (while usually having to work in a job as well, so they get stressed) and needing much more support from teachers. This costs them time and the university money. Should universities admit such students? Why do we not redirect them to providers of school-leaving qualifications and then they can apply later to university? Alternatively why not redirect them to specialist providers for such students (e.g. Open University in UK) who have the scale and systems to deal with such non-traditional students. (It would be for government to ensure that there are sufficient specialist providers and adult K-12 providers.)

2. It is also the case that students wanting to learn a language less common in their country or not much taught at school level, expect to be admitted to a university which will teach them the language from scratch as well as the culture. (A good example is wanting to study Italian at a UK university.) This again is not an appropriate use of university-level staff at university-level salaries. A specialist language school is a better choice, then the students can come on to a university-level course with a reasonable knowledge of the language, thus allowing them to focus on the country’s history, culture and literature.

3. In terms of ancient languages, why do universities admit students to Classics courses without expecting them to have school-leaving qualifications in Latin and Ancient Greek? At present these universities have to spend time teaching them the basics of one or both of these languages. This does not need university-level staff at university-level salaries. And does it not mean that some other aspects of Classics are neglected? Again, why not send them “back to school” – but a school for adults – to learn the languages?

4. If students are keen to graduate, leave the parental home and start earning (some big assumptions here) why can they not study a 4-year degree in 3 years? Or in England and Wales, a 3-year degree in 2 years or a UK Masters in 3?

In the UK it has not been feasible or popular to set up many 2-year degree programmes. This needs attention from a small number of universities (across the various parts of the sector) prepared to take it seriously. Issues needing attention are the appropriate fee to charge the student and specific funding support from government. In other countries, the issue of shorter degree programmes seems to receive very little attention.

5. In some subjects like Mathematics, universities insist on re-teaching subjects when many parts are covered at school. If school-level Mathematics is “defective” in some way as judged by universities, universities as a whole need to work with the schools sector and school-level exam boards to articulate school Mathematics seamlessly to university Mathematics. This issue is likely to apply to other subjects, especially STEM subjects, Computer Science in particular, in several countries.

6. More generally, is it not time to find a better balance between the subjects one can expect to study from scratch and those where a school-leaving qualification is required. It seems efficient to reduce the number of “study from scratch” subjects. Infill would again come from school-level providers.

7. Why are universities expected to have to teach study skills, communication skills and employability skills to new students? Surely this should have been done in the students’ school education? If there (as is likely) is a need for transitional arrangements, centralised provision could be made for these, e.g. via a specialist online college.

Major interventions

8. Is it not time that universities did what the OER community has long recommended and introduce standard syllabi and content for the majority of university subjects, as is occurring at school, not just for the regulated professions such as medicine? What subjects in our university could this be extended to and how can we, with government, bring this about? (The role of professional societies is also key.) What lessons can we learn from the US states and Canadian provinces that have worked on this issue? What lessons can we learn from K-12 OER repositories in Europe? (There is an overlap between final year of school and first year of university, in many subjects.)

As an example the Oak National Academy for schools in England has shown that standard content and lesson plans (not just syllabi) for the majority of primary school subjects can be justified, confirming what OER enthusiasts and many reports have been saying for years; in Scotland the whole of the upper secondary school curriculum is now online.

9. Is it not time for universities to find out what kind of reduction in teacher hours per student can be achieved by using comprehensive online content (see #8) and AI for tutoring at the current state of technology? In our university with out teaching and campus environment, if the reduction is small or cannot even be quantified, should we be brave enough to reduce investment in AI experimentation until the technology can deliver large provable savings? Pilots in this area at university level (and school level) need careful management if lessons are to be learning without wasting resources.

10. Why does nearly every university in a country try to teach nearly every subject? What can we in our university do about that for subjects which currently have few students in our university? Should our university collaborate with other universities to set up specialist online universities for students not close to a university with a viable face-to-face student cohort? The evidence is clear that such online universities do not need their faculty to be in one location.

In some countries (such as the United States) it is not just courses that are closing, significant numbers of higher education institutions are now closing. In others, such as the United Kingdom especially, many institutions are running at a loss. To stem such losses it is likely that many small departments or low-population courses will close. This may be hard to achieve in a systematic way in countries where there is currently a hands-off approach to regulation of universities. (For example, it would have been easier to achieve in England in the past when HEFCE was the funder.)

11. Partly as a result of a more consumer-focused approach, made worse in recent years by the number of students who have to work to fund their studies and lifestyle and the mental health after-effects of the pandemic, universities have become more flexible. Has our university become too flexible? In our university do we really have to have live lectures that are recorded and viewable online as well? Do we have to mix distance learning and on-campus students in the same online class, despite their very different pattern of online use? Is our system of allowing easy deferral of assignments due to a wide range of “extenuating circumstances” (wider each year) actually helping students?

More widely, what is the pedagogic and business case for students being on campus in our university? At what times do we expect them to be there and why? Can we not envisage a lean university which has a more prescriptive style of provision, in a sector which offers different styles of provision at different institutions?

Why do we permit the false dichotomy of campus versus distance to continue? There are many in-between modes (see Table). What is the business case for a campus and what level of attendance (in hours or weeks) is required to make the business case viable? Is there a socio-economic case for student residences on a campus – or are they deleterious to social-cohesion as they facilitate assortative mating between graduates, thus perpetuating an elite?

The workshop

These are some of the topics that we hope delegates to our workshop at OEB – Ways of making higher education cheaper to run – at Online Educa Berlin on Friday 29 November 2024 at 2.30–3.30 pm. We look forward to seeing you there.

Making such changes will be challenging and have to fit within the ethos of each institution and the national context, but innovation is essential as the digital revolution extends from leisure and work to higher education.

Written for OEB Global 2024 by Paul Bacsich.