Committee only half right, says Engineering Council UK

Although the Engineering Council UK (ECUK) welcomes some of the recommendations made by the Select Committee for Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills in its Report on Students and Universities, it has criticised the report's main thrust as unhelpful.

ECUK believes that the committee's statement that "the system in England for safeguarding consistent national standards in higher education institutions is out-of-date, inadequate and in urgent need of replacement" risks undermining the international reputation of UK Higher education, and regrets that the committee did not recognise the fact that that UK Higher Education in general meets the requirements of employers and graduates.

Engineering and technology degrees in particular are accredited by a rigorous system, which moreover is referenced against international as well as national standards. This, together with the work of the QAA, ensures that threshold standards are met.  To do more than assure threshold standards is doomed to failure in an open and developing higher education system.  Simplistic calls for national standards carry with them the risk of nationally determined syllabuses, denying the value of experimentation and innovation in course design.  Implementation of the Higher Education Achievement Record, alongside the current degree classification system, is likely to provide more useful information and greater flexibility, than any attempt to establish national standards.

The proposal to strengthen the role of QAA is welcomed by ECUK.  To some extent this is already happening, as the Committee notes.  QAA has faced a difficult balancing act in navigating between Government demands to get more degrees per taxpayer pound, and universities' wishes to keep what they see as nosey and bureaucratic inspectors at bay.

ECUK also welcomes the Committee's commitment to strategic funding of higher education, and in particular the pleasing emphasis on science technology engineering and mathematics (STEM).  It shares the Committee's criticism of the Government's declared intention to encourage universities to create more places in these subjects without additional funding for tuition costs.

In addition, ECUK welcomes the Committee's plea for improvement in the treatment of part-time and mature students.  Engineering has traditionally benefited from significant numbers of such students, who have often brought experience and insight unavailable to students straight from school.  It agrees that the failure of the current system to treat them on the same basis as full-time students aged between 18 and 21 is wrong and that the forthcoming review of fees needs to examine all aspects of support for part-time and mature students.

Finally, ECUK notes the committee's reference to the role of the Higher Education Academy in raising and maintaining standards, and would wish to emphasise the important role carried out by the Academy's network of Subject Centres, and its belief that these should continue to be properly resourced to carry out their valuable work.

The full report can be found on:  http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmdius/170/170i.pdf