On jargon

Away from the brouhaha of current HE policy developments (TEF, Brexit, Diamond Review, HE and Research Bill …) and back to an initial purpose of this blog – the art and science of management. I caught myself the other day speaking jargon without knowing it. Perhaps a word or two on jargon might be a good idea.

What is jargon anyway? I think there are two distinct uses, one acceptable (and for which we have a different name) and one bad.

The acceptable is when it is genuine technical language, used to denote a concept which is clearly defined and understandable, but which cannot be expressed more simply by other words. So, subject benchmarking is a jargon term within the world of higher education quality assurance: it refers to the use of agreed statements in different disciplines which set out shared expectations about capabilities of graduates in a discipline, expressed in terms of knowledge, skills and attitudes. It’s a lot easier to say subject benchmarking than it is to repeat all of that last clause. So as long as those involved in the conversation understand that this is what subject benchmarking refers to, then all is well. It is helpful jargon, as it enables communication to be shorter and more focused, and therefore potentially, more complex ideas to be expressed and developed. Humanity 1, World 0: well played, everybody.

There also unacceptable jargon, which I think comes in two flavours. The first is where jargon conceals disagreement. Think about hard Brexit and soft Brexit. At the moment these terms have great currency in political and news discourse. But do they have a clear meaning? I’m not sure – it seems more that they are used as continuation of the remain-leave debate, without much reference to the legal, financial or political realities of the UK’s leaving the European Union. Please note that I’m not trying to make a point here about how or whether Brexit should happen, simply that the terminology used in the debate isn’t helping us. (I blame Mrs May for this – if she’d managed a less tautological line than Brexit means Brexit we might be able to engage more seriously with a serious issue).

The other flavour is where the jargon passes the test of meaningfulness, but fails on significance. Either because the material isn’t important (says who!) or because it isn’t about something that you’re personally interested in. Here’s a wonderful example. Jargon here is an interesting expression in the English language – I use technical language, you use jargon, they are unutterably trivial.

Is the use of jargon ok? Well, I think it is, as long as all of those involved in the discussion know what it means. And if it’s useful language to them, then they’re being smart. But often communication goes beyond the immediate audience, and if this might be so, perhaps better to cut down on jargon, or at least define your terms up front.

And what of business speak? On the radio a couple of weeks ago I heard a big data expert talk about drilling down into users of social media. That’s not a good image, and immediately tells you why jargon isn’t always appropriate. And don’t get me started on filler jargon such as ‘on a going forwards basis’ …

Brexit - bad news for conservatoires

A lot of people within the HE sector are shocked by the Brexit vote, and the impact is beginning to be felt. Individually, people on both sides of the issue will take time to adjust, but it’s important for institutional leaders to get quickly beyond the shock and think about how Brexit will affect them.

One obvious concern relates to students from other EU countries. Presently, such students are able to access student loans company funding, and are treated the same as students in the home nation for fees purposes. (This latter point gives some curious results: Scottish universities charge zero fees to Scottish domiciled students, and £9k for students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Students from other EU countries are treated the same as Scottish students, paying zero fees.)

There’s obviously big uncertainty about what happens in the future. In the short term, current EU students, and those who start in 2016-17, will continue on the same terms and conditions. Beyond this, there isn’t certainty yet. And so universities need to start contingency planning. (It’s all in the negotiations. An EEA-type outcome may include special dispensation for students, but that is simply an unknown.)

At some point it seems possible that EU students will be treated the same as any other overseas student. If that were to happen, we could expect EU student numbers to decline. Universities will need to respond, and there are fundamentally two choices – replace the ‘lost’ EU students with others, or admit fewer students. So what is the scale of the challenge, and who is most affected?

EU undergraduates comprise over 5% of the current (2014-15 HESA data) Home/EU undergraduate population. Scotland has the highest proportion – perhaps unsurprisingly as EU students pay no tuition fees – but London is not far behind.

It is reasonable to assume that some universities at least will try to make up the shortfall with UK students, and that means greater competition. Universities with stronger recruitment profiles will admit students who may have gone elsewhere, and universities which recruit less strongly will have to admit students they otherwise would not have, if they wish to remain the same size. This may not always be possible. In London this competition will possibly be intense – the number of EU students in the region - almost 17000 - is larger than most universities’ total student intakes.

It’s also useful to look at the impact on individual universities. In absolute terms, the ten universities with the most EU undergraduates are:

The three Scottish universities are unsurprising, and the differences in Scottish university finance probably mean that in purely financial terms the loss will be less significant for them than if they were in England. But the English universities in the list vary in character, some being very strong recruiters, others less so.

In proportionate terms, another issues arises. Here’s the ten institutions with the greatest percentage reduction, if EU students are lost:

This list includes the four London conservatoires – specialist music institutions – and the broader performing arts conservatoire which is the Conservatoire for Dance and Drama. These institutions don’t have a normal recruitment pattern. To gain admittance you have to already be a very capable musical performer. The number of lost students is greater than the total intake at two of these institutions. It is hard to see how the conservatoires could remain at their current size without EU students. And they probably aren't big enough to easily survive such large changes in tuition fee income.

Here is, I suspect, the first unanticipated and unintended consequence of Brexit: there’ll be fewer conservatoires. To avoid this, increased governmental support will be needed. Which won’t be straightforward in the more straitened times we face.

On #Brexit and Universities

The EU referendum on 23 June is a timely prompt to look at what impact the EU has on universities.

There’s no doubt where Universities UK – the sector-wide representative group – sits. “The UK’s membership of the European Union makes our outstanding universities even stronger, which in turn benefits everyone in the UK.”. So that’ll be a preference for In, I guess.

No, it isn't Eurovision ...

The underlying argument is one about mobility: through schemes like ERASMUS, staff and students in UK universities get a chance to work and study at other EU universities, and vice versa. And this leads to a better education, better research, and more capable people.

The EU funds such schemes, and helps to make them happen: it is clear that there are not similar exchanges from UK universities to non-EU countries. The closest thing to such a scheme beyond the EU is the junior year abroad programme that many US universities operate, with some UK universities very happy to bring such students in for a semester or a year. But it’s one way traffic: there aren’t many UK students spend a year at an American university, and where it happens – such as American Studies at UEA – it is linked to a specific degree programme, and arises because the University has worked hard to make it so.

There’s a financial angle too. The EU funds research across its member states, often for projects done in collaboration between EU universities - and UK universities are active in this. And students from other EU nations study at the UK’s universities, on the same terms as home students. (This gives rise to some oddities: Scottish universities are free for Scottish students and non UK EU students, but students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland are liable to pay fees …)

If we left the EU, other things being equal, the research funding would stop, and EU students would be like any other overseas student – and pay the same fees. So what do UK universities currently get from these EU sources?

HESA data lets us find out. Using data for 2014-15, it is possible to calculate for each university how much they get in EU research funding (from finance table 5); and how much they get in tuition fees from EU students (finance table 4 and student table 11a). And this in turn lets you calculate what proportion of their overall income comes from EU sources.

You’ll be pleased to know that I’ve done the maths for you. Across the UK as a whole 4.7% of funding in 2014-15 came from EU sources, with research funding accounting for slightly more of the whole than tuition fees. Of the tuition fees, two thirds is accounted for by full-time undergraduate fees.

The picture varies greatly: while a few universities get less than 1% of their income from EU sources, for others it is a noticeable amount. Here’s the top 10:

What is immediately obvious is the London bias, and also the absence of the big-money research universities. None of the top 10 have medical schools, which drives a lot of UK research money. And of these 10, eight get most of their EU income via tuition fees. But for all of them, the risk of Brexit is clear: 10% of income is a lot to lose, and recovering it is uncertain.

Does this mean that universities are right to campaign for the EU? Money is uncertain, and in truth we simply don’t know what would happen, especially in the medium to long term, if the UK left the EU. To my mind, the better reasons are those of mobility and opportunity, and they are good and noble reasons. The Universities UK campaign seems to me to be based on hope and optimism about making a better tomorrow. I’m all in favour of that.