IN COLLABORATION with Universities Scotland, the government has set up a task force to take a long-term view of the role universities play in delivering a sustainable and well-found future for Scotland.
A key issue which should be high on its ag
enda is the continuing bias against the post-1992 universities inherent in the funding formulae used by the Scottish Funding Council.
Post-1992 universities are primarily concerned with the creation, transfer and translation of "new knowledge", focused on applicable research and on graduate and postgraduate skills, all close to market, and all of the kind on which the sustainability and prosperity of Scotland depends.
But their ability to deliver this work as fully as they should is severely inhibited by the funding methodology.
Since the new universities were legislated into existence in 1992, this has not changed materially. It neglects their distinctive foci and the need to build their capacity to contribute fully and distinctively to research and knowledge transfer.
As a result, the gap between old and new universities has not narrowed; indeed, following the latest round of allocations last week it is wider than ever.
The eight older universities were given average funding increases of 3.87 per cent, while the six post-1992 universities received an average increase of 2 per cent. The disparity derives from the research assessment exercise – in which the new universities are unable to participate on an equal basis – and on the curious unwillingness of the Funding Council to rectify manifest anachronisms and anomalies.
My own university is funded for eight taught postgraduate places, fixed as long ago as 1992. In 2005-6, we taught 360 such students, effectively unfunded. Having once established its positions, the Funding Council seems mystifyingly disinclined to change them.
Over many years, both Queen Margaret University and the Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama have produced clear evidence that, alone among the UK's funding jurisdictions, Scotland does not fund conservatoire drama education, with the consequence that both institutions are struggling to produce the next generation of Scotland's creative theatre artists.
The government has acknowledged the crucial economic importance to Scotland of the creative and cultural industries.
Yet beyond a marginal increase in postgraduate funding for the four art schools, this has not been reflected in any changed funding allocations.
Abertay University excels in computer games technology and digital arts, yet the funding formulae fail to recognise such work, threatening the viability and growth prospects of a major new Scottish industry.
The formulae fail to enable the post-1992 universities to contribute as fully as they could.
With a diminishing workforce and an ageing population, Scotland needs to obtain maximum value from its universities. But the perpetuation of a funding methodology long since unfit for purpose means that this value continues to be unrealised.
The full article contains 486 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
