Million+ speaks out against concentrated postgraduate funding

A top university think tank has condemned those in favour of more concentrated research funding, saying this could damage the UK economy in the long run.

Million+, who represent mostly post-1992 universities, produced a report last week in which they highlight the potential effects of concentrated funding going to a select number of universities.

According to the report, “there's a real risk that the UK will lose its competitive edge in the international marketplace, with serious economic consequences for universities and the UK economy”.

The publication of the report comes shortly after a speech delivered by Paul Wellings, chair of the 1994 Group of research intensive universities, to the 8th annual postgraduates national policy conference in London.

Mr Wellings, also the vice-chancellor for Lancaster University, said: “Funding should be more concentrated that it currently is in order for government investment to be chanelled as effectively as possible. This would still allow all institutions to provide PhDs if they wish, but provision below the quality threshold would be reliant on fee income rather than government funds.”

The report compiled by Million+, who represent Edinburgh Napier University, has based its argument against postgraduate funding being sent to a select number of elite universities on facts and figures showing a large proportion of that research is provided by modern institutions.

Currently, post-92 universities provide 37 percent of all postgraduate studies in the UK and 30 percent of international postgraduate provision.

The think tank has said the removal of funding to these universities would hit the economy hard, due to the fact they tend to focus on subject areas of direct relevance to the economic climate.

Wendy Piatt, director general of the Russell Group of leading research universities including the University of Edinburgh, echoed the views of Mr Wellings.

According to Ms Piatt, funding should be directed to a select few universities who are capable of providing the level of excellence students expect.

Equally, the director of the Russell Group argued the concentration of research funding would result in a concentration of students, suggesting this would encourage them to succeed academically.

“Postgraduate students cannot thrive in isolation – their programmes must be underpinned by excellent research. They need to experience a demanding and stimulating research environment reflecting the latest developments in their field, including access to first-rate facilities, infrastructure and expertise. Doctoral students benefit greatly if they are working in a critical mass of researchers and fellow postgraduates their own and other disciplines.”

Commenting on the proposals, Aaron Porter, National Union of Students' vice-president for higher education, said: “We are concerned that many universities, and therefore many students, would lose out under the proposals. For instance, some people choose to take a PhD at a university close to home because of work or family commitments. The closest university might not happen to be a member of the Russell Group or 1994 Group.”