Category: Value for Money

  • Different kinds of value, different kinds of higher education

    Different kinds of value, different kinds of higher education

    If Lionel Robbins – author of the first major review of higher education in 1964 – could have glimpsed the future, he would no doubt have been pleased with much of what he saw.

    Back then, only about five per cent of young people attended university. His ambition was to extend opportunities to all who could benefit from a degree – and much of what he envisioned has come to pass.

    Yet after years of expansion, universities are in a funding crisis, students are struggling with costs, many question the benefit of a degree, and both international and domestic student demand is under threat.

    This is why I now find myself frequently debating how best to measure the value of higher education – for fear we may lose what we have failed to adequately value.

    In research

    The value of university research is perhaps the least disputed aspect. The UK, home to just one per cent of the world’s population, produces six per cent of global research output and over 13 per cent of the most highly cited articles, according to Universities UK. Over 60 per cent of this research involves international collaboration, and a third of academics come from abroad.

    Whether measured by citations, publications, Nobel Prizes, or the ability to attract international talent, UK research performs strongly and is undeniably valuable. At the Leverhulme Trust, we certainly appreciate this. We receive far more outstanding ideas than we can support, and the research produced is extraordinary.

    However, university research is not a standalone activity. In many, though not all, institutions, research and teaching are intertwined – and not only in a financial sense. Research informs teaching, and teaching shapes research.

    Connectedness

    Without a strong flow of talented students, the future of UK research looks bleak. This is why, with our mission to support research, we invest a lot in doctoral students. Calculations of value (and indeed policy) need to take this connectedness into account – tricky with different government departments responsible for research and teaching, and a one-size-fits-all funding model with cross-subsidy of research built in.

    The sector’s status as a major export industry is also undeniable, contributing around £27 billion to national exports. But HE’s contribution to the national accounts does not capture its broader social impact, and I suspect Robbins might have been most heartened by the strides made to widen access.

    Putting a value on this is tricky, but opportunities for individuals from working-class backgrounds to attend university have improved dramatically. Despite setbacks in recent years, it is noteworthy that nearly 30 per cent of students eligible for free school meals now progress to higher education. Remarkably, around half do in London. More than 60 per cent of Black students go on to university. The fact that the system is far more open to all students is of great value and worthy of celebrating.

    Perceptions

    But what about the value for students in this expanded sector? Various metrics have been employed to assess the worth of a degree: student satisfaction surveys, employment rates, job quality and wages. Each of these measures is limited in different ways. However, with taxpayers’ money funding a significant portion of costs, even such imperfect measures of value are necessary and informative.

    On average, graduates earn more than their non-graduate peers, but averages are not helpful in understanding the scepticism among some students about the value of their degree. In regions lacking investment, transport and thriving industries, there is insufficient demand for graduate skills. Therefore, many graduates who are unable to relocate do poorly in the labour market.

    Earnings and employability, particularly measured early in a graduate’s career, do not, of course, capture the full value of a degree. This is perhaps most obvious for those in jobs with high social value, such as nurses, or those in low-paid but creative jobs.

    Demands

    Nonetheless, in repeated surveys, students and graduates report concern about their job prospects. Many are struggling to find graduate jobs.

    At the same time, there continue to be skill shortages in some fields. Skills England has the difficult task of addressing national skills needs, including any mismatch between supply and demand, and this must include consideration of graduate skills. Helping students make informed choices and ensuring that all degrees, irrespective of discipline, equip them with a broad, adaptable skill set is crucial. But we need to acknowledge that even in tough labour markets, this will still not ensure great jobs for all.

    It is in those left behind areas with weak labour markets that assessing the value of universities for their local communities and economies is more difficult but vital. Universities can catalyse local growth – the evidence on agglomeration effects is substantial. Some institutions contribute nationally; others drive local innovation and regeneration.

    In deprived areas, universities serve as social anchors and must help retrain adults for emerging jobs. Some universities in struggling regions have played critical roles not only in equipping students with skills for the modern economy but also in providing a sense of community and purpose during periods of industrial decline and economic hardship.

    Risks

    In the short term, as the UK grapples with its economic challenges and the sector with the funding crisis, we need to be alert to the risks of a shrinking HE system. Loss of teaching capacity will lead to loss of research capacity, and vice versa. If we are to preserve the sector’s strength, we need to recognise the varied roles that institutions play across teaching, research, local development and social mobility.

    Looking forward, universities will continue to make a crucial contribution to economic growth by developing the skills of the workforce, but only if accompanied by other types of investment.

    Above all, with such a diverse sector, a one-size-fits-all approach cannot work. Policy needs to actively shape the system and enable different universities to focus on where they can add the most value.

    Source link

  • Asking students about value | Wonkhe

    Asking students about value | Wonkhe

    To value something (or not) is a curious thing.

    You can value anything; someone’s opinion, their feelings, their house, indeed nothing is out of the scope of being valued.

    In its broadest philosophical sense, value can be considered as the importance of any object, feeling or an action, prescribed by an individual before, during or after the fact.

    If we consult the ancient texts, then Plato offers a binary view of value. There is instrumental value, where something serves as a means to another end, and then there’s intrinsic value, which is just that.

    Its value exists by virtue of its own existence, it does not need to enable any other end or objective.

    The value of higher education

    So, is a degree and any student loan repayments just a means to graduate employment and taxpayer ROI (instrumental value), or is being within university education in of itself valuable (intrinsic)?

    I’m going to dodge the question early doors, to be honest, and instead invite discussion alongside a presentation of the student view of all of this. I’m nearing the end of a three-year longitudinal data collection process, whereby I’ve been annually surveying and interviewing the same cohort of undergraduate students from five different HEIs since the end of their first year back in May 2023. This has largely been in service of my part-time PhD, but with a day job in student experience and enhancement there’s some ready employment applicability.

    How did we get here?

    Please do check out my PhD literature review when it’s published for a fulsome answer, but in summary, a series of neoliberal policy interventions since the 1963 Robbins Report have led us to where we are today. The commodification of HE has crept in over time, and instruments like the NSS launched in 2005 (happy 20th anniversary!) and a new market regulator in 2017 are not insignificant markers of this creep.

    “Value for money” as a phrase, for the full villain origin story, appeared in the 1980s via the Local Government and Finance act, defining value for money in terms of 3Es: economy, efficiency and effectiveness. With the creation of the aforementioned HE regulator in 2017, value for money became part of regular policy parlance, given it was a central feature of the OfS’ strategy documentation and purpose. It also inspired people like myself and others to get under the skin of what it actually means in this context.

    Right here, right now

    By annually surveying and interviewing the same cohort of students across five institutions throughout their university education so far, I’ve found a few threads to pull on that I want to share. The first one is all about time and the temporal location of student value for money perceptions.

    Current policy is at odds with how students think about the value of their education. It looks into a hazy future of graduate earnings and loan repayments, with the higher of each being the better for all concerned. From my research, and the addition of a ‘temporal location’ to all my survey interview responses, student perceptions of value for money are located in the present day or recent past. They are not looking to a near-future and PAYE potential; they are looking at what they currently get versus the expectations they had and that is the challenge for institutions to overcome.

    Non-users and peer influencers

    A second research thread to dangle for readers here is that of non-user bias in student value for money perceptions. From my data, students are more likely to rate a particular aspect of their student experience as negative value for money when they haven’t used it. They don’t opt for neutral ratings; they go for negative as “I don’t know what they do.”

    As a counterpoint from my data, those students who do engage are far more likely to rate aspects as good value for money and on the whole are receiving excellent customer service (their words, not mine!). These two things in tandem really are a challenge for institutions, as while engagement leads to positive perceptions, very few will have the resource capacity to cater for all of their students.

    The influence of near-peers also can’t be understated. Students in my research will think something is bad value for money if a peer tells them so. This isn’t perhaps a shocking revelation, but what it can create is a barrier to that student ever engaging with that service for themselves, as it didn’t work out for their friend (as is their perception).

    How do you deliver timely (and personalised) messages to students in order to make them aware of the variety of things on offer for them? In an NSS context this is vital because students who think over the course of their degree that something hasn’t happened or not been available may well score you as such.

    Value for money when money is tight

    In my research I ask students about their value for money perceptions of student services and support. For positive perceptions one thing is very apparent in that they are largely driven by a direct engagement with any particular service, and doubly that their expectations of that service were met. They got what they thought they came in for.

    If you want students to think you offer value for money, then any investment you have in student support ought to focus on providing an excellent service, and meeting student expectations of that. This sounds simple, and indeed rather basic, but a bad experience leads to that student telling their peers, who may then not engage when they themselves need to access that particular service. In the current era we can’t give every student everything, and nostalgia for a more affluent time won’t help. All you can do is excel at the services you do offer to students and feed that positivity cycle.

    Dark and dangerous times lie ahead

    The sector is in a tricky financial situation, resources are shrinking, international numbers are in flux and your current and next incoming cohort are going to feed your APP, NSS, and TEF metrics for the remainder of this decade. Looking through a value for money lens, the things that drive positive student perceptions are excellent service levels that align to what they were expecting to happen. Focus on doing that very well is what you have to do when expansion and new projects aren’t an option.

    As one last bit of insight from my research, I ask students each year if they feel like they know what their tuition fee is spent on, and the majority say no. I also ask them to rate their overall university experience for value for money, and 44 per cent give it a very good or good rating. That 44 per cent is slightly above what you see in the annual HEPI Student Academic Experience Survey, but for those in my data who do feel like they know where their tuition is spent, this rises significantly to 73 per cent. You don’t need an itemised Council Tax type bill, but something not far off that demonstrates the breadth of fee spend could work wonders.

    Source link

  • Games and their cheat codes can show universities how to unlock new purpose

    Games and their cheat codes can show universities how to unlock new purpose

    I was recently browsing Board Game Geek, an online forum for nerds who like tabletop games, and came across a thread entitled “anyone have a use for the University?”

    This contained a complaint about the board game Puerto Rico. In Puerto Rico, although the University is potentially a very powerful card, it’s considered too expensive and therefore not worth players’ investment – and I couldn’t help being struck by a resonance with real life higher education in the UK.

    Following the recent increase in tuition fees, reports of students perceiving university education as a poor investment of time and money have proliferated. As such, understanding and communicating the value of higher education has become an increasingly pressing concern.

    Value and metaphor

    In 2024, over 1,000 papers were published which mention the value of higher education, going over themes like economic gain, professional and academic experience, networking, “cultural capital”, and a sense of the value that higher education institutions offer to society in general. Authors explore how value is perceived differently by applicants, students, graduates, staff and the public, and by different demographic communities within these groups. Undoubtedly, the value of higher education is multifaceted and complex.

    A powerful way of understanding value is through metaphor. When we use a metaphor, we ascribe the value of one thing to another. For instance, universities are beacons of knowledge positions universities as guiding lights, illuminating the path to progress (or something).

    Some common metaphors ascribed to universities include: universities are innovators that drive progress and create new ideas; universities are catalysts for personal and societal transformation; and universities are providers which supply a skilled workforce to deliver economic growth.

    When metaphors are layered together, they become a narrative – a way of conveying greater meaning through interconnected symbols. Games, as a form of interactive storytelling, take this concept even further. They combine metaphors with player agency, allowing players to actively engage with and shape the narrative. In games, players don’t just passively observe metaphors at work; they inhabit and interact with them.

    The player of games

    Because games are dynamic, this means that universities appear in games only when they are actively doing something: acting on the simulation and changing the outcome for the player. Analysing these dynamics leads to some thought-provoking insights into how universities are perceived as acting on the real world, and therefore what value higher education holds in society.

    Our most familiar metaphors for universities are easily recognisable in games. For example, in strategy games such as Age of Empires, universities are innovators which generate “research points” which can be spent to unlock new things. In city-building games like Megapolis, universities are providers that give the player more resources in the form of workers. In Cities: Skylines, universities are catalysts for growth: once a citizen has attended university their home will be upgraded to higher building levels, and they can get better jobs, which in turn levels up their place of employment.

    To return to Puerto Rico: in the normal rules of the board game, players can “construct” a building (such as a factory or warehouse) but cannot use it until the next “mayor phase” is triggered, at which point they can be “staffed”, and its benefits can be used by the player thereafter. The university card grants the player the ability to both “construct” and “staff” new buildings instantly, without waiting. This significantly speeds up the gameplay for the owner of the card.

    When used in this way, the university card changes the mechanics of the game for the player who can use it.

    Puerto Rico is not alone in this. For example, in Struggle for Catan, the university card allows the possessor to buy future cards more easily by swapping one required resource for any other kind. This has such an unbalancing effect that it changes the game from that point onwards. As one Board Game Geek user puts it:

    When I play with my wife we ban the University to keep it a friendly game […] In a four player game everyone just gangs up on whoever gets the University.

    In both of these games, universities are cheat codes: “a secret password […] that makes something unusual happen, for example giving a player unusual abilities or allowing them to advance in the game.”

    Cheat codes are used by players to create exceptions to the standard game rules everyone else must abide by. Universities change the mechanics of the game and enable players to act in a way that would be otherwise impossible.

    Real-life cheat codes

    The idea of students using universities to gain an advantage is not new. When university strategies talk about “transforming students’ lives”, this is generally what they’re referring to. “Educational gain”, “cultural capital”, “graduate attributes”, and “personal development”, are all facets of the same sort of idea.

    However, I’d argue that using the metaphor of a “cheat code” forces us to see students as active players who are using their experiences agentically and strategically, rather than just passively receiving something. When a player uses a cheat code, they generally have an intention in mind. Using the game metaphor reminds us to see students as individual players, who are interested in developing their own palette of cheat codes for their own personal goals.

    If the value of a university experience for students is in developing and testing cheat codes, then we should be intentionally structuring higher education to teach the most effective “hacks”. As Mark Peace has argued on this site in the past, we mustn’t be complacent about the process by which students “catch” transferrable skills. We need to be much more intentional about how we scaffold the development of these cheat codes, and how we work collaboratively with students to identify the skills they want to build and create meaningful ways to help them develop their own toolbox of cheat codes.

    Without this, there is a real danger that we will return to the original scenario of this article, the forum post bemoaning the high-cost, low-return of the university card in Puerto Rico. We must guard against the “university card” being almost unplayable, because it is too expensive, not flexible enough, or too dated. The challenge to institutions is to ensure our provision is more like the university card in Struggle for Catan: truly game-breaking.

    Thinking about universities in terms of game design invites us to rethink the rules we’re playing by and imagine a world where some rules don’t apply. It’s a reminder that the narratives that shape higher education aren’t set in stone. Players have autonomy and can change the direction of the game. This might mean building a toolbox for life with students – and for us, it means taking a wider look at the system we’re part of. What would it look like to recover our agency and, as Edward Venning puts it on HEPI recently, “recover an assertive self-confidence”? For too long, universities have been stuck playing the game instead of changing the rules.

    Source link