The higher education revolution - is there any evidence for it?

As VCs gather for their annual conference, Louis Coiffait considers the main drivers of change and examines whether or not they will lead to revolutionary transformation in UK HE

Universities are currently experiencing an unprecedented volume, velocity and variety of change. In commissioning contributions for the 2012 UK edition of Blue Skies, Pearson Think Tank's collection of essays on HE, it became apparent that the drivers for change can be group under the following headings: funding, quality, fairness, and technology.

Indicating the degree to which change is needed in HE funding, Ken Starkey, a professor at Nottingham University Business School, argues that universities need a new narrative that places themselves, rather than banks, as the true engines of growth. Such a narrative could not be more timely, as around the world the cost-sharing mix for university funding is changing, with the burden shifting from public sources to private ones (parents, students, businesses and donors). The UK has just experienced one of the biggest such shifts, despite already spending less than the OECD average. Universities minister, David Willetts, has often defended these developments as the only sustainable funding option in the long-term – and one that is attracting significant interest from other countries. Yet, tripling student loans has raised public finance fears, with student number controls the primary method of defence against over-exposure.

So do these changes constitute revolution or evolution? With institutions responding in a variety of ways, some slashing staff and courses, there are many in the UK who fear the former. But reaching a firm conclusion is difficult as it seems the much maligned HE White Paper is unlikely to result in a parliamentary bill. What is clear though is that uncertainty around funding is hampering the ability of both families and institutions to plan for the future.

When it comes to quality, the perceived risks of private for-profit providers free-riding on the wider academic community, as well as identifying an appropriate role for employers, remain key issues. Such changes are not new, harking back to fundamental questions about what university is for and who it serves. As ever, there are no simple answers, and the sector continues to serve a multitude of masters and purposes.

For me, the key indicators of quality to watch over time are the course choices of applicants, the destinations of graduates and softer measures such as wellbeing. I'm confident that the sector will continue to focus on high quality provision and that this will help dictate the pace and degree of change – rather than the reverse: the pace of change leading to a fall in quality.

Social mobility and fairness also remain key drivers of change. To some the sector is a launch-pad that enables disadvantaged young people to improve their situation. To others, it is an elitist ivory tower that cements advantage over time. Personally, I agree with Tessa Stone of the Bridge Group when she says that the sector needs to do better than the patchy, and often poor, guidance it currently provides, the variable and confusing admissions policies that rarely makes good use of valuable contextual data.

Arguments about excellence and global competition do not seem sufficient if fairness is forgotten. Similarly, placing the blame for poor performance only at the door schools feels like a cop-out. Given high rates of unemployment addressing fairness – or the lack of it – is only likely to increase in importance, though sadly the revolution that many hope for currently feels unaffordable.

The last area of note is the role of technology, which for many might hold the key to solving the other three issues. Though the technological revolution in higher education is only beginning, staff and students are already better connected than ever before, making learning an increasingly social and virtual enterprise.

A key outcome of these developments will be a huge increase in the data produced by higher education, in ever more open and accessible formats. This will include linked data about research, learning resources, the curriculum taught, assessment, achievement and performance. Although we are currently data rich and analysis poor this situation will begin to change as new technologies, systems and training help us capitalise on this wealth of data in ways we cannot yet imagine. Learning will become more personalised and could achieve better outcomes than ever before – as hinted by some early studies into 'flipped classrooms' and US MOOC initiatives.

These changes will not only have an impact on accountability by informing policy and practice with better evidence, but will allow for a real revolution in efficiency and innovation. Despite some fears of a two-tier system (created as a result of increased specialisation and competition), technology also has the potential to dramatically improve access by offering high quality and cost-effective higher education for all. Although hyperbole is rife at the moment – as some fear that we are entering an edtech bubble – ultimately it is technology that promises to be the most revolutionary driver of change in higher education.

There is much hype of revolution, much of it will not filter through to reality. Still, it is clear that debating these issues is vital for wise, long-term decision-making today that will determine the future success of UK HE.