Brenda Gourley: The White Paper overlooks the Open method of learning

The recent White Paper on the future of higher education represents a watershed in the sector. It puts forward policy decisions that, if implemented, will change the face of higher education in England. The policies are intended to meet the challenges it describes: the need for expansion to meet rising skill needs; the removal of the social class gap among those entering higher education; the necessity for the leading research universities to compete globally; the improvement of the links between business and universities; the retention of the best academics; and the improvement of investment in higher education and the funding per student.

These are indeed challenges. One would be more confident of the prescriptions if the world described by the Paper was indeed the world of higher education – but it is not. The overwhelming impression conveyed is that it is a world dominated by residential universities and filled by 18- to 24-year-olds. In fact, the traditional time and space boundaries of higher education have already been forever changed: the time dimension is changed by the necessity of lifelong learning and the space barriers are falling before the information and communication technologies (many students e-learn, often across national boundaries).

The Paper faces the essential reality that institutional differentiation is bound to accelerate and that a great variety of institutional missions are a natural outcome of a complex and competitive marketplace – one that makes it sensible to seek collaborations. We have seen alliances in the business world that would have been unthinkable barely two decades ago and it is likely we will see similar ones in the university sector. Already Massachusetts Institute of Technology has put its course material on the internet for anyone who chooses to use it. There are pros and cons but the fact is that the rules of the game and what it is that a university purveys are being altered. The rules of the marketplace will pursue their own logic in such a world – for better or for worse.

I do believe some of the propositions in the Paper are reasonable enough and I cannot think they require such a heavy burden of regulation to make them work. The sector will no doubt be more stratified – but who did not believe it was pretty stratified already? Quality has never been the same as reputation – and the marketplace often takes time to discern the difference. Businesses could go bankrupt in the meantime. The proposal to invest heavily in foundation degrees ahead of the certainty that employers will give recognition to such degrees could be an expensive gamble some institutions are unwilling to allow.

Although the Paper does not focus particularly on part-time students, the Open University appears well placed to support many of its aspirations. Our experience and the groundwork we have laid down puts us in a good position to contribute to the extension of foundation degrees. Likewise, we are well placed to work with other institutions both in the public and private sector in a variety of collaborative arrangements. We already have a validation service which we hope will become a central node in the network envisaged. And for potential young students discouraged by the higher levels of fees imposed elsewhere, we offer a more affordable alternative.

The Open University has a distinctive mission and we intend to build on that – furthering the basic goals outlined in the Paper but staying true to its core mission. It is a world leader in open and distance learning. It promotes social justice by providing ongoing opportunities for high-quality university education to all who wish to fulfil their potential, wherever they may be. That is the 21st century.

Brenda Gourley is Vice-Chancellor of The Open University