Last week thousands of students and academics marched on parliament to protest against sweeping changes to higher education funding. The coalition government has announced an astonishing 80 per cent cut in public funding for higher education. As a result, fees will treble to £9,000 per year. Students will foot the bill as government withdraws.
David Lammy is the Labour MP for Tottenham; he is a former Minister of State for Higher Education and Intellectual Property and is a former Minister for Culture
Last week thousands of students and academics marched on parliament to protest against sweeping changes to higher education funding. The coalition government has announced an astonishing 80 per cent cut in public funding for higher education. As a result, fees will treble to £9,000 per year. Students will foot the bill as government withdraws.
Unsurprisingly, no one is happy with a deal that increases fees for students but not funding for universities. If that were all, the government could probably ride out a rough period, even with the prime minister telling students on a visit to China that they will pay less because their British counterparts will pay more. But it is not.
These reforms are not just a hike in the cost of university, they are an unprecedented attack on the liberal arts in higher education. Some of this country’s greatest institutions, from the London School of Economics to SOAS, will effectively be privatised.
Whilst departments teaching science, technology, engineering and mathematics (S.T.E.M.) subjects have the capacity to secure sponsorship from industry, arts subjects do not have such connections. The result is that when the teaching grant cuts are cut, it will be the liberal arts that suffer.
If George Orwell or Adam Smith applied to university today, they would be told to pay their own way. David Cameron (PPE), George Osborne (History) and Nick Clegg (Social Anthropology) might also reflect on whether their own education deserved public subsidy.
There is the view that the eternal human need for knowledge and self-expression will be enough to sustain demand. But the truth is that the certain subjects will become the preserve of a small elite whose exposure to the arts reflects their upbringing rather than their interests of aptitudes. This concern may not register in a government with 22 millionaires sitting around the cabinet table, but already those from poorer backgrounds are less likely than middle class students to study arts and humanities.
Students will no longer ask themselves which subjects they are passionate about, or which skills they want to acquire. The only question will be a depressing, utilitarian one: which courses are worth taking all the debt on for?
The rationale for the changes is framed in economic terms, but even this belies the nature of work in the modern world. Google doesn’t just employ physics graduates. It also needs people to work in marketing, communications, legal, managerial and human resources roles.
To address problems like climate change, we need scientists to determine the impact of carbon emissions, but also economists and social psychologists to help establish what really drives more environmentally-friendly lifestyles.
Above all these reforms beg wider questions about the kind of society we want to live in which go beyond material wealth or inequality. The presence of liberal arts in higher education provides a voice of sanity, of cultural analysis and resistance that business and science do not. The very fact that it does not attract corporate sponsorship makes its presence in the academy an increasingly important counterweight to the inroads of big business in every part of society.
If university is where the boundaries of knowledge, analysis and creativity are stretched, then Britain will become decidedly lopsided if S.T.E.M. subjects forge ahead whilst liberal arts subjects are left underdeveloped. The arts are not all pretty rhymes and sunsets, but rife with philosophical, social, historical and economic insights about the modern, complex societies we live in.
In a global age these things matter. The strength of work produced in British writing, performing arts, visual arts and architecture is universally recognised and envied. Forget Trident, the arts are the one thing which allows Britain to punch above its weight on the world stage. Despite this, we may become the only major Western democracy to withdraw public funding for the arts and humanities. In the US, France, Germany and across Scandinavia the government pays its fair share. Britain will now stand alone.
In the name of austerity the government is undercutting one of the central planks of British culture and British identity. It is an historic constitutional decision and it is a mistake. The government must think again.
40 Responses to “In defence of the liberal arts – why the government must think again”
Angela Pateman
EXCELLENT: RT @leftfootfwd: In defence of the liberal arts – why the government must think again http://bit.ly/cmBDAb by David Lammy
Chris Roberts
“Some universities will charge less than £9000” not many I’ll bet and precisely because according to the figures of UCU and govts own figures, universities will need to charge approx £8200 just to “stand still”. Also it will firmly establish a two tier university system. Universities serve an incredibly useful social, pedagogical, cultural function. Many post 92 universities, often in metropolitan districts, provide access to university research and teaching that would be denied, and historically was denied to a large proportion of working class and lower middle class people. It’s a sort of invaluable civic socialisation that is very useful, for individuals, society as a whole….and the economy. A great deal of this (AHSS) research and teaching takes place in new and metropolitan universities – Goldsmiths; Middlesex; Kingston; South Bank; Westminster; declaration of interest – Roehampton…and this is just in London.
Writing that the “UK borrows £155b A YEAR” is a fiscal argument, whilst the decision to cut (off) all teaching funds for AHSS subjects is ideological. Subordinating university education to the needs of “the market” is utterly preposterous and is the de-facto privatisation of universities – at precisely the time when it should be abundantly clear that ‘the market’ is incapable of providing for the needs of society in and of itself. Incidentally, the £155b is small change when compared to the estimated £850b that the bank bail-outs are expected to cost Remember that? Odd that we’re now being encouraged to transfer costs for this mess onto the public sector, and in this case, transfer all future costs onto the shoulders of students. This is surely a form of outsourcing (costs) isn’t it? There is no reason why the 6th largest economy in the world cannot support a well-educated population, it’s merely a question of priorities and political will. Your starting point: “something’s got to give” is not necessarily true, I’m afraid you’ve internalised the neo-liberal logic. However, even if we take this as a starting point, there are ways and means of “reducing the deficit” by “raising funds”. Not *all* about swingeing cuts. Progressive taxation; raising corporation tax to levels on a par with the rest of Europe (Ireland notwithstanding); cutting Trident; Closing tax loopholes that cost – on a very conservative estimate upwards of £15b PER YEAR (sorry, I’m just appropriating your shouty style).
Another important thing is that this government are effectively placing themselves in a position whereby they are “social engineers and workforce planners”. Any reason why anyone imagines that governments and businesses are particularly well placed to perform such functions? Governments in particular have not got a glowing record in this area – import nurses and teachers from abroad anyone? That’s one of the things about academic research in Arts, Humanities and Social Science, sometimes ahead of the curve that then ‘feeds back’ into wider society. Things are pursued because they’re interesting, socially, politically, civically and culturally important. Not because they meet the demands of capital.
This will be the only government in the world where subsidises for teaching costs in four areas – science, technology, engineering and mathematics/medicine – will be maintained but the rest of them will be deemed surplus to (economic) requirements. Even from an economic perspective it’s nonsensical and idiotic
Chris Roberts
P.S. @jdennis_99 apologies, you may not have “internalised the logic of neo-liberalism” I don’t know, or know you, I was simply trying to widen the debate, and get away from the fiscal towards the ideological.
P.P.S. Good article from David Lammy BTW (forgot to mention)
VAGA, UK
RT @DavidLammy: bit late to this, but my article on defending the arts at Univ is up on LFF – http://bit.ly/duwMv7 #arts #artsfunding
Michael Brannigan
A bright piece. I can’t disagree with your logic or your predictions. Enough said.