Government after government chooses to expand the university while the higher education institutions' long-term quality work has to wait. Investments in higher education must be based on well-thought-out trade-offs where neither the number of education places nor the quality of the education is completely kept down. SFS agrees that more people should have access to higher education, but we believe that it is unacceptable to only invest in quantity if the quality of education suffers. From time to time, money is added to fix the worst deficits, but we are still waiting for measures that reach all students in need.
On paper, the budget increases, but in practice the number of students and other higher education institutions increases faster than the increase in funding. When the government yesterday presented the budget bill for 2018, the appropriations for universities and colleges were, as usual, calculated on the basis of a twenty-five-year-old funding model.
25 years with reduced grants
The system for financing higher education was introduced in 1993. The system includes that the higher education institutions' education grants are adjusted every year so that they follow the price and salary development in the rest of society. Price and salary recalculation is based on the fairly obvious idea that higher education institutions should be able to continue to pay salaries, room rents and other costs as these rise. The recalculation is based on a comparison with the private service sector. Since the model was introduced almost 25 years ago, the private service sector has become more efficient. For each year, an employee has been able to produce a little more than the year before. However, the education, or rather the meeting between teacher and student, has not been able to be made more efficient at a corresponding rate. Nevertheless, a recalculation is made based on the incorrect comparison, which leads to the universities' resources being gradually eroded.[1]
Then add that the educational grants for a higher education institution are largely based on how many students take points on the courses they are registered for. If an education suffers from a problem for a year, the grants are reduced. This makes it harder to get back on your feet. In combination with the deficient price and salary conversion, the system is designed to provide some educations with a lack of resources.
The consequences of the erosion
The most obvious consequence of a lack of resources is that the number of students per teacher will increase. One way for higher education institutions to handle this is to reduce the number of lectures and seminars. Students may instead study more on their own. It impairs the conditions for learning, deeper understanding and scientifically grounded discussions on the subject.
When there is barely enough time to give lectures and correct exams, it is hardly surprising if other tasks can also be deleted. Despite the fact that teachers must have time to both teach and do research, there is a risk that some will not have time to conduct their own research. In the long run, this can lead to them losing contact with the research front and not developing the skills an active researcher needs. However, it is the research teacher who must convey current knowledge as well as scientific methods and ways of thinking. When the link between research and education is broken, students also stand as losers.
The demand for efficiency also undermines the conditions for actual efficiency. There is probably no doubt that the structure of many educations could be developed and that students could have left the university with even more knowledge than today. Such a development, however, presupposes that there is time and knowledge to plan and make good pedagogical decisions. In addition, the educational offer must be constantly adjusted, in order to be relevant for the next generation of students, in a society in constant change. When resources are scarce, long-term development work becomes difficult.
Society's needs and the individual's right to education
Although the appropriations per student have been gradually eroded, the total appropriation for higher education has increased. This is because the number of students has increased. During the 90s, the university underwent a major expansion, and since the most recent major university reform began, the number of study places has in principle doubled. It has been part of a development that has been going on since the first half of the 1900th century. Society's need for an educated population has constantly increased, not least as a result of rapid technological development. The educational level of the population, the economy and democratic development have taken place in parallel. Thus, the individual's need for education has also increased, simply because the demands in society have been raised.
At the same time, there always seems to have been a widespread desire to study. A university education opens up career paths, provides personal development and increases the individual's opportunities to control his or her own life. In a society that strives for everyone's equal opportunity, access to education has therefore become an important part of the social contract. However, the higher education system has not been able to accommodate everyone who would like to study, which further justified an increase in the number of places.
Develop or expand - a matter of priorities?
We can state that the conditions need to be strengthened to improve higher education. We can also state that both from a societal perspective and for individuals, there is an interest in more people being given the opportunity to study. However, both quality reinforcements and expansion require resources. If at the moment it is not possible to finance both, in what order should the development take place?
From a societal perspective, it is a question of a balancing act. On the one hand, there must be people who can carry out all the tasks that democracy, the economy and culture call for. The education system must be adapted so that enough people get the skills needed when society changes. On the other hand, it is important that those who are educated gain sufficient knowledge to be able to contribute to society in a good way. There is no point in letting someone complete an education if they are then unable to benefit from its content.
From an individual perspective, the answer depends in part on who we ask. Those who have already been accepted are hardly affected by an expansion at the undergraduate level, but have an obvious interest in getting the most out of their study time. For existing students, quality investments therefore seem to be more important. On the other hand, an expansion can make a huge difference for those who have not yet started an education and have difficulty coping with the competition for places for the educations they want to attend.
In the long run, however, an expansion without quality reinforcements can be fraudulent. Admittedly, more are given the opportunity to study, but if the quality investments are not forthcoming, many of them will leave the education disappointed. If students feel that they are not given the conditions to assimilate the education, or in the end do not feel that the education is useful, the studies will almost be a waste of time. A student in such a situation may be at least as disappointed as the one who applied but was not accepted. From society's perspective, it is also not much to cheer about, if the expansion does not lead to more people learning or that those who study learn more.
Expanding the university without first ensuring the quality is therefore risky. In the worst case, the resources provided will not be useful and the new students may be disappointed. An expansion must be made on a solid foundation, where all educations maintain the quality the next generation of students deserves.
The Budget Bill 2018
With the last autumn budget now presented before the election, we are approaching the end of the sixth term since the last major higher education reform was implemented. Year after year, education grants have been eroded. On several occasions, governments have added emergency resources to the educations worst affected by reduced funding. The latest addition was introduced in 2016 to keep education in mainly the humanities, social sciences, theology and law afloat. The addition meant that 250 million would be paid out annually until 2018. In the budget bill for 2018, the government proposes to extend it indefinitely. It will thus be a permanent support for the constantly declining educational grants. The basic problem remains. The education grants are eroded and continue to be eroded.
At the same time, the government proposes to expand the university with 7815 study places. It is socially important educations that are being expanded. The question is what effect it will have on the higher education institutions. The study administration will probably have more to do. Even if more teachers are hired, some teachers will probably have more to do. No support is given for the teachers to have better conditions to develop either the content of the educations or the pedagogical approach. The research funds are partly distributed so that they end up where education takes place, but on the whole, it is at the research-heavy universities that the grants increase the most.
Admittedly, there must be a readiness to receive more students. The University Chancellor's Office showed earlier this year that the university would not have the capacity to handle the increased search pressure that will arise if the economy declines and the labor market for young people deteriorates. In bad times, more people take the opportunity to educate themselves. But in good times, with falling unemployment and large surpluses in the state budget, it is important to raise the quality of the education that already exists. For both individuals and society at large, a high level of education is a protection against bad times.
In the spring, the government appointed an inquiry which, among other things, aims to get the financing of higher education in order. It was long awaited. However, the Government was clear from the outset that the investigator's proposal should not affect the number of training places or the total training grants. The inquiry should therefore only examine how the insufficient resources can be better distributed. It's not enough.
The government now has one year to report on how the quality of higher education will be strengthened before the end of the term. The question is whether we will see the political courage required for students to get the education they deserve. It is high time to act.
[1]For more details on how the erosion is calculated, see SULF's report Continued expansion, continued erosion from 2012.