Massification and Wider Participation
John Field
University of Stirling
University of Warwick
July 2006
Headline figures
Net entry rates into tertiary education, 2002
%
Ireland
Denmark
France
Germany
Sweden
UK
USA
39
50
37
35
75
47
64
Source: OECD 2004 – full time entrants only
Some intriguing aspects of an
expanding system
A new gender balance
Short cycle higher education
Growth in graduate education
Expansion through internationalisation
HE students – a new gender balance
New entrants, Germany percentage
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
4
9
19
Females
Males
6
9
19
8
9
19
0
0
20
2
0
20
4
0
20
Net entry rates into tertiary
education in 2002 by gender
60%
70%
50%
60%
50%
40%
Females
Males
30%
20%
40%
Females
Males
30%
20%
10%
10%
0%
0%
2002, EU
2002, USA
HE students – women more successful
Absolventen, Germany percentage
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
4
9
19
Females
Males
6
9
19
8
9
19
0
0
20
2
0
20
4
0
20
The importance of short cycle
higher education
• Technological and vocational focus
• Non university institutions
• Institutional control and steering
Percentage share of new
enrolments in Germany,
1994-2004
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Universities
Fachhochschulen
4 95 96 97 9 8 9 9 00 01 02 03 0 4
9
19 19 1 9 19 19 19 20 2 0 20 20 20
Students in Irish higher
education,
1992/3 to 2003/4
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
Universities
1 99 2
1 99 3
1 99 4
1 99 5
1 99 6
1 99 7
1 99 8
1 99 9
2 00 0
2 00 1
2 00 2
2 00 3
I T sector
Short cycle higher education:
expansion without democratisation?
• Completion rates
• Credit transfer rates
• Graduate outcomes
• (Not forgetting the issue of private sector higher
education)
The growth of graduate education
18000
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
1994/5 1997/8 2000/1 2003/4
PhDs awarded
in the UK
The expansion of graduate studies
• Growth has been sharp but uneven
• Gender equity and social inequality
• A focus for internationalisation
• From apprenticeship to the doctoral programme
Consequences of a mass system
A changing balance of funding (a familiar theme)
The effects of scale
The larger tertiary ‘system’
Public visibility
Mismatches between personnel and students
Scale effects
• Approaches to teaching and learning
• Managing people (including the infamous question of flexible
employment)
• Managing infrastructure and estates
• Accountability
• Vulnerability to market fluctuations
• Capacity for support provision
• The diseconomies and beauties of small scale
A ‘tertiary system’?
• Responsibilities for policy and funding may be divided
between different ministries and quangos
• Protectionism and the contested idea of a tertiary system
(eg Scotland)
• Role in regional development and involvement in place
management
• Balances and tensions between social equity and
competitiveness
Everyday visibility
• Being a student is part of the ‘normal biography’
• Universities are big news (eg widespread coverage of
the UK salary dispute)
• Universities exploit mass media for promotional
purposes
• Everyone is an expert
• Perceptions lag behind reality (mortar boards and
gowns)
• The endless search for a ‘distinctive’ brand
Lag between student population
and teaching personnel
• Gender – an inverse pyramid
• Age/generation – boomers in charge
• Ethnicity – a complex story
• Values and orientations
The gender pyramid
C4 Professors
Professors
Junior
academics
Habilitationen
1994
2004
Source: Statistisches Bundesamt 2005
The 21st century student lifestyle
• Generations have distinctive patterns of
behaviour, networks and values
• “Many lecturers in HE are far removed in age
and life experience from students who are now
entering HE” – Mary Stuart (now PVC at
Kingston University)
Old questions, new realities
• Massification and democratisation
• Modernisation and continuity
• Place versus universalism, engagement vs
research
• If massification is limited to the young, do we
need new structures for lifelong learning?
A final thought
“. . . transformative change will be
generated outside universities, not from
within. Most universities can be relied
upon to be dragged screaming and kicking
into the future” (Chris Duke 2005).
A final thought
“. . . transformative change will be
generated outside universities, not from
within. Most universities can be relied
upon to be dragged screaming and kicking
into the future” (Chris Duke 2005).
Most universities – but perhaps not all?