TEF: The ultimate degree classification

We are in the season where boards of examiners are meeting to decide the classifications of students. Data on the performance of students is carefully brought together, and a set of rules applied to render three or four years of work into a single classification. There is a parallel with the TEF – a single classification for the teaching – at least the undergraduate teaching – of a whole university. Sadly, many of the same problems apply.

One of the complaints about the degree classification system is that it presents a cliff-edge between grades.  Even ministers have backed the elaborate mechanisms put in place to present the HEAR and GPA alongside the honours classification.    TEF will also have its extra information, but the first focus will be on the three grades: gold, silver and bronze.

TEF Bronze

If any import is attached to these grades then the cliff-edge will really matter. It’s very helpful that ministers have explicitly ruled them out of bounds in the visa system but other uses apart from fee setting will be found in the future.  As with a degree system, the difference between the very lowest of the silver and the very highest of the bronze will be tiny.  Here the sorities paradox must come into play (see my discussion of that in terms of visa rules here).  Universities who excitedly claim they’ve moved 10 places in a league table know that they are only fractionally different from the peers they moved past – but that may take them over a threshold.

The good news (and simultaneously the bad news) is that the TEF will be published with both the metrics data, the submission and the panel’s reasons for the judgement.  In my degree classification analogy; not only do we get the degree class, but a transcript (the metrics) and the outcome of the viva (the submission).  When the data is released to both universities and the media, there will be a frantic scramble to discover who has a ‘good’ silver, or who only scraped their gold. More fun, we’ll surely be able to tell whose written submission pulled them up, left them where they were – or conceivably pulled them down (viva voice exams tend not to have the scope of reducing your grade – but the statement might do that).

The TEF gets described as a new ranking – there’s no way the ranking business will let the sector get away with three grades.  All those data will get puled apart to create a GPA for the sector (no doubt with new means of stretching the data).

Now that the fee-level jeopardy has been pushed into the future, some of the jeopardy has been reduced, but we have already seen signs of universities reacting to TEF by changing the things that contribute to the sets of proxy data, not by being better at teaching. It’s easier to get students who will do better in the TEF, than get better outcomes for them –  that’s certainly the context of some comments about Manchester’s redundancy round.  If so, we’ll have the most awful consequences of accepting proxy data for assessing teaching excellence.

I should say that I write this from a Rawlsian veil of ignorance. I don’t know the metrics data of any university, what that might have indicated their award would be, or what they tried to say in their submission.  I know that no rational university ought to be pleased with the situation we will find ourselves in when TEF is published.  Even if they’ve just done enough to get a silver…


UKIP: Righting Wrongs in Higher Education

The UKIP manifesto, in so many ways the ultimate proof that a little learning is a dangerous thing, contains a whole range of policies that sit at one remove to orthodoxy in their fields.  There are too many to recount, but in the field of Higher Education they make an outstanding contribution to the development of the More Means Worse argument, and so should be recognised here.  No doubt UKIP being led by former PhD student Paul Nuttall helps enormously.

First we have policies for students in health.

Despite our national doctor shortage, nearly 800 straight ‘A’ students are turned away from medical school every year.
UKIP will lift the cap on medical school training places from 7,500 to 10,000 and make sure no suitable ‘A’ grade student fails to get a place. Provided medical students commit to working within the NHS for at least ten out of the fifteen years after they qualify, we will cover the cost of all their tuition fees (18-19)

This policy ignores the measures already in place to expand medical student numbers, but this is an area where it is notoriously hard to grow capacity quickly.

While 3 A grade A levels has been necessary for some time for acceptance to medical school it is not sufficient.  Being a doctor is about much more – hence their more extended selection process. Intrigued how UKIP will determine ‘suitability’ to allow all of them to get places?

The NHS needs 24,000 more nurses and 3,500 more midwives, yet again potential students are being turned away, tens of thousands of them every year.
UKIP will increase the number of nurse training placements, reinstate funding for bursaries to cover nursing, midwifery and allied health professions’ tuition and accommodation costs, and cover the cost of  re-training for nurses who have taken career breaks. (19)

We wait to see how changing from a contracting system to an uncapped student number system is going to work out.  There were more applicants than places, but just as with doctors, nursing education is selective.  Contracts meant Universities had to be very clear on recruiting people who would succeed – that’s what they were contracted to do.  A student loan system might open that up.

A key reason for moving to loans was to reduced pressure on Health budgets – going to uncapped places & bursaries would be expensive.

The average student debt is £44,000. The poorest students who are now denied a grant fare worst of all, with debts averaging £53,000. These debts are often pointless in career terms: the latest figures from the ONS show 46 per cent of new graduates will not find a job needing a degree. The taxpayer fares badly too. Only around half of the money spent on tuition fee loans will be paid back.
The quota system promoted by both Labour and Conservatives is not a good enough reason for taxpayers to pay for students to go to university. Students would be better off following another route into the workplace than taking degrees that are unlikely to help them get a job or guide them onto their chosen  career path.
The politically motivated decision to increase university places has deceived and blighted a generation. UKIP will stop paying tuition fees for courses which do not lead at least two thirds of students into a graduate level job, or a job corresponding to their degree, within five years after graduation. We will also cease offering EU nationals student loans when we leave the EU. Repayment rates are extremely low and 10,000 EU students currently owe Britain £89 million. (25)
UKIP’s long-term goal is to abolish tuition fees entirely and we will seek to enact this as soon as economic conditions allow. Meanwhile, to help the poorest students now, we will immediately restore maintenance grants.
To plug the skills gap in these areas, UKIP will abolish tuition fees for undergraduate science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) students, provided they work in their discipline and pay tax in the UK for at least five years after they complete their degree. We will cover the cost of all tuition fees for medical students, provided they commit to working within the NHS for at least ten out of the fifteen years after  they qualify. (25)

UKIP falls into line with the Labour and Green parties in wanting to abolish fees, although they clearly don’t want as many students to go into higher education.

They’ve never avoiding saying that too many people are going into higher education, and have been fixated by Tony Blair’s supposed 50% target. Never mind that Blair hasn’t been PM for a while now, or that 50% quickly got some important caveats, this is at the heart of their problem.  The move to a mass HE system is clearly a problem for them and UKIP have threatened courses and whole institutions before.

Here they propose a grim system whereby the tenuous evidence of causation of previous cohorts of students will be applied to the fee status of future cohorts.  Assuming this will be based on courses in individual universities, if the class of 2015 fail to obtain sufficiently graduate jobs in, say, law, then the intake in 2021 won’t have their fees paid.  Given the differences between courses or demographics – this will produce wild variations with an extraordinary cliff-edge for individual courses.

We need an educated work-force.  For a party that seems content to model education policy on the 1950s, they should take a look at the nature of work (if that’s really the only goal of higher education) and wonder why this fantastic proliferation of studies has happened?  It’s a response to the complexity of our world.  Both in ‘vocational’ and ‘non-vocational’ degrees, we have so much more to understand and manage.

Finally, the systems they propose for ‘abolishing’ STEM fees or forgiving Medical fees would need a really complex system to manage.  The student must incur the liability, which must then be waived by 5 years (STEM) or 10 years (medicine) work.  Who decides which jobs qualify?  As an example, if the medicine version doesn’t include university work it will remove clinicians from medical research – surely not the aim?

Operated on a strict principle of non-discrimination between peoples of all nations applying for work, study, or to visit the United Kingdom, our new International Visa System will begin on the date we leave the EU and offer four principal visa categories: …
3. STUDENT VISAS We want to encourage students to study in Britain, but will not tolerate abuse of the system. (33)

Worth ending on a happy note. UKIP want to encourage international students. No talk of caps or quotas.
You could argue that in 2015 UKIP pulled the Conservatives towards their policies by their share of the vote – examples are Brexit, of course, but also grammar schools.  That’s less likely in 2017.  But each party threatens some form of review of HE funding, and UKIP shows the More Means Worse argument is still alive and kicking.

Return of the Colleges of Advanced Technology

Are the Conservatives raiding the 1950s for ideas?  Adopting ideas from UKIP seems to be in vogue, and they were very keen on themes from the 1950s.  Is that where the next big ideas are coming from?

The Conservative Party manifesto has moved the notion of institutes of technology on, now saying:

We will establish new institutes of technology, backed by leading employers and linked to leading universities, in every major city in England. They will provide courses at degree level and above, specialising in technical disciplines, such as STEM, whilst also providing higher-level apprenticeships and bespoke courses for employers. They will enjoy the freedoms that make our universities great, including eligibility for public funding for productivity and skills research, and access to loans and grants for their students. They will be able to gain royal charter status and regius professorships in technical education. Above all, they will become anchor institutions for local, regional and national industry, providing sought-after skills to support the economy, and developing their own local identity to make sure they can meet the skills needs of local employers.

This has provoked some comparison with the binary policy, where polytechnics were set up to focus on technical education, responsive to local needs.  However, I think they have more in common with an earlier initiative, the Colleges of Advanced Technology, a 1950s answer to the need for higher technical skills.

As it emerged from post-war austerity, the UK became enthused by the prospects of technology.  The Festival of Britain was a marker of this as was the development of iconic technologies such as Comet, the first jet airliner.  Britain was producing increasing numbers of qualified school leavers and the universities had moved from an immediate expansion after the war to cope with returning veterans to also cope with an growing number of applicants.

Technical education, whose status seems a permanent problem, was organised into local, regional and national colleges.  The Colleges had a mixture of full and part-time courses, with some specialisation at the regional colleges and the national colleges serving small, but nationally important, industries such as horology and scientific instrument making or rubber technology.  David Eccles presented the 1956 White Paper on Technical Education proposing that the bulk of full-time or sandwich courses should be concentrated in  a small number of colleges.

The rationale for concentrating courses in a few colleges was linked to standards; sufficient staff, linked subjects in allied technologies and fundamental sciences and opportunities for research.  Building on previous decisions twenty four colleges were highlighted, based on those that had received a specific grant because of their advanced work.  In the end, only ten Colleges of Advanced Technology were approved in England and Wales, and three were not included in that initial list.

White Paper CAT Status Present Designation
Acton Technical College Brunel CAT Brunel University
Birmingham College of Technology Birmingham CAT Aston University
Borough Polytechnic London South Bank University
Bradford Technical College Bradford Institute of Technology University of Bradford
Brighton Technical College University of Brighton
Cardiff College of Technology & Commerce Welsh CAT Cardiff University
Chelsea Polytechnic Chelsea CAT Merged into Kings College, London
Glamorgan Technical College University of South Wales
Huddersfield Technical College University of Huddersfield
Lambeth, Brixton LCC School of Building London South Bank University
Leicester College of Technology and Commerce De Monfort University
Liverpool College of Building Liverpool John Moores University
North Staffordshire Technical College University of Staffordshire
Northampton Polytechnic Northampton CAT City, University of London
Northern Polytechnic London Metropolitan University
Nottingham & District Technical College Nottingham Trent University
Royal Technical College Royal CAT University of Salford
Rugby College of Technology and Arts
Sir John Cass College London Metropolitan University
Sunderland Technical College Sunderland University
West Ham College of Technology University of East London
Woolwich Polytechnic Greenwich University
Loughborough CAT Loughborough University
Battersea CAT Surrey University
Bristol CAT University of Bath

Measures of university prestige are awful, but it’s worth noting that by virtue of their CAT status, nine of the original 24 have a royal charter, a distinction that the Conservative manifesto would bestow on the new Institutes of Technology.  Robbins had suggested the CATS become technological universities or that they might join existing universities.  Chelsea CAT was often fought over, nearly moved to St Albans, and became part of the University of London in 1966, finally merging with King’s College in 1985.

The CATs were not given degree awarding powers, but the Council for Technological Awards accredited a new form of qualification: the Diploma of Technology.  this was set at degree standard, and given the same official standing.  However, as technology was seen in a new light, technologists were to be given a different education.  It mandated a sandwich approach to placements and other distinctive features such as a liberal studies programme.

The new Institutes of Technology seem to fit the CAT pattern.  In the Industrial Strategy Green Paper they were intended to specialise in technical disciplines and to cross the old post-compulsory age range.

We would expect most Institutes of Technology to grow out of high-quality provision. All Institutes of Technology would be expected to: specialise in technical disciplines (such as STEM) that are aligned to technical routes; offer high quality provision at levels 3, 4 and 5 ( i.e. the equivalent of A-level to just below degree); and have a local focus to deliver qualifications of value that meet the skills needs of local employers.

One of the issues that affected the CATs, and later the Polytechnics, was the balance between lower and higher work.  Although not officially a problem, often the sector would be split into sheep and goats on the basis of the proportion of higher education – as it was in 1988 when Kenneth Baker used an arbitrary measure to decide which colleges would become incorporated and move to the PCFC and which would remain under LEA control.  The notion of Academic Drift seems to have already started to work before the institutes even open.  The manifesto now has them operating at degree level or above, potentially accessing funding from both OfS and UKRI and having professorships, Regius or otherwise.

Implicitly these Institutes recognise the failure of ‘Challenger Institutions’ to do the work that the Government wants them to do.  These Institutes will be planned and receive government funding.  They will be distributed in ‘major cities’ – so that will mean a bidding process (the process for both CATs and Polytechnics was fraught).  I would also expect any specialism to need approving in some manner to avoid unhelpful duplication.  There has been limited interest among the Challengers in this form of broad technical provision, except for small specialist places such as Hereford and Malmsbury (Dyson), so here we have publicly funded colleges delivering the Conservatives’ new mission:

Above all, they will become anchor institutions for local, regional and national industry, providing sought-after skills to support the economy, and developing their own local identity to make sure they can meet the skills needs of local employers.

The 1956 White Paper was clear that is would be the ‘attitude of individual firms’ that would count the most towards success of technical education.  60 years on, the issues of the need for partnership remain the same, and it looks like the solution will be remarkably similar.

Bogus Colleges (8) Bogus News

The last stages of consideration for the Higher Education and Research Bill will bring back the issue of whether international students should be included in the government’s net migration target.

The government has held firm on this issue, and when pressed, argues that there have been multiple cases of abuse in the student visa system, and the key evidence for this is the number of ‘bogus colleges’.

Clearly, there were once abuses. The system of policing fraudulent colleges had been left to Trading Standards – which was probably appropriate when there was limited opportunity to defraud members of the public. But there were few controls on the way the Home Office allowed providers onto their new register when they introduced a points-based system. As other avenues to immigration were closed, the system of private college accreditation couldn’t cope with determined efforts to cheat the system. No doubt there were colleges that cheated students, students who cheated colleges and probably colleges and students who colluded together to cheat the government. After the 2010 election, the Home Office acted, layering new rules on all providers, resulting in a large number leaving the register.

Taking the register

The Home Office register currently has 1,300 providers on it. The number constantly changes: a new register is published most weekdays as a provider joins, changes status or leaves. The Home Office knows that since 2010 over 900 providers have left the register, and ministers in all departments are briefed to use this number – a very large number – as part of the argument for tight controls on student visas.

The problem is that the Home Office isn’t sure which providers were bogus and which were real, and ministers (and their speechwriters) have hardly differed in how they’ve described the number.

In October 2014 David Cameron said that the government “stopped nearly 800 fake colleges bringing people in”. In June 2015 Jo Johnson talked of stopping over 870 “rogue providers and dodgy operators”.  In August 2015 James Brokenshire noted they had “stuck off nearly 900 bogus colleges”.  In October 2016, Amber Rudd told the Conservative Party Conference “the coalition stopped 875 bogus colleges bringing in overseas students.  In January 2017 at the HE Bill Committee, Viscount Younger noted abuses and carefully said “More than 900 institutions lost the ability to bring in international students”.

The Tier 4 register is a public document, but changes are not flagged on it. Sometimes it is very obvious when a provider is removed from the Register: sadly London Metropolitan University’s removal was all too visible.

I have now asked for the list of the providers removed from the register on three occasions through the Freedom of Information Act, so have something of a time series to work with, with lists from 2014, 2015 and 2016. I made my most recent request in October 2016 – but, after six months, I got a list of the revocations dated 7th May 2010 to 30th June 2016, which is the basis for the following data.

The first thing to note is that there are 957 names on the 2016 list. That should vindicate ministers straight away, except that UKVI has to note that the list contains sponsors who have been revoked multiple times. The list is just of the provider’s name at the time it was on the register; there is no other identifier. Just by comparing names I found 67 exact duplicates. At best, therefore, there were only 890 institutions who lost the ability to bring in international students.

It’s also clear that if you compare the list of those removed in the past, with the current register, there are plenty of places who have started bringing in international students again. Happily, that includes London Metropolitan University, but at least 24 more other providers – places such as Magdalen College School or Hereford Cathedral School. When studying the list, you discover that many colleges have similar names. As I only have the names, I can’t be sure that one provider hasn’t just changed their name. The Home Office would know, but they’re not telling me.

To illustrate this, here are just the colleges on the 2016 removal list whose name starts ‘London College’:

London College of Accountancy and Management(London CAM)
London College of Accounting & Finance
London College of Advanced Management
London College of Beauty Therapy
London College of Business and Computer Studies
London College of Business Management & Information Technology
London College of Business Sciences Limited
London College of Care Education Ltd
London College of Commerce
London College of Commerce
London College of Computing and Management24
London College of Computing Ltd t/a Bickenhall & London College
London College of Engineering and Management
London College of Executives
London College of Finance & Accounting
London College of International Business Studies
London College of Law and Management
London College of Management
London College of Management
London College of Management & Computer Sciences
London College of Management Studies
London College of Research ltd.
London College of Social and Management Sciences
London College of Social Studies
London College Wimbledon

There’s an interesting mix of capitalisation and punctuation in the Register which helps in this process of comparison. For example, in counting, I have assumed that London College of Management has one duplicate, but is different from any of the other variants listed here.

But the biggest group of problematic providers are those who are on the list of those removed, yet seem (at least on first look) entirely bona fide operations. It was clearly a goal of government to make sponsoring international students an onerous duty. Some of these institutions may have been removed from the register because they were not compliant, and others because they decided they wanted to come off it, but there are a slew of genuine schools and colleges who are no longer able to recruit internationally.

Again, as there is no way of being sure. I have traced over 100 such places: sixth form colleges such as Ludlow or Newham; further education Colleges in Bracknell, Havant, or Waterlooville; prep schools and secondary schools. Language schools feature as clearly a number moved from using Tier 4 to student visitor visas. In all, they are a minority of those who have been removed, but absolutely not who you’d describe as ‘fake’ or ‘bogus’.

As it happens, checking that Berkshire College of Agriculture in Maidenhead was bona fide (it is), I found a nice story about the local MP, Theresa May, opening a new technology hub there.

This is pedantic, of course, but at least 200 of the names of providers on the list provided by UKVI can’t count as a bogus college.

Poor proxies

Logically, there must be a slowing down of the discovery of ‘bogus colleges’, as the regime brought in by May has now been operating fully for a few years. By comparing lists, I found that 50 were removed between October 2015 and June 2016 [see below]. I suspect that all of these 50 were attempting to be a proper college, but had either opted out or fallen foul of the compliance rules.

I think Amber Rudd is right, therefore, to put the bogus college issue in the past as something that has been dealt with (although her 875 figure is almost certainly wrong).

I’ve written to ministers a couple of times now to point out that the use of the number of providers removed from the register is a poor proxy for the number of ‘bogus’ colleges and they should avoid potential confusion by dropping it. The Home Office have noted that the data they send me in these FOI responses is live data, and not to the standard required for official statistical information – which, of course, highlights that none of the ministerial speeches has used information at that standard either.

Just to underline that, the 2016 list does not contain the names of 33 providers who were on the 2015 list. Somehow, providers who had been removed from the register by 2015 are no longer noted as having been removed from the register.  Someone has tidied up the database, which is good for the 33 (which included some prestigious names), but is a further dent in the case for this being reliable data.

As we gear up to have the debate again about including students in the immigration targets, it should be clear that no one wants to go back to the days of “rogue providers and dodgy operators”. It did nothing for the reputation of UK higher education to have the ‘Royal College of London’ operating out of a back street in Barking. As John Fielden and Robin Middlehurst have noted, even with the incoming OfS regime, hundreds of providers will remain outside the regulatory framework – they should not be allowed to sponsor students’ visas.


The former site (now demolished) of the former ‘Royal College of London’ (no longer on the Tier 4 Register) seen via Streetview


But, neither should fear of ‘bogus’ colleges, however many there once were, prevent the government from honestly explaining the reasons for its successive crackdowns on international students’ right to enter and be educated in the UK.

50 new providers removed between October 2015 and June 2016

  • Access Skills Ltd
  • Arden College
  • Brigham Young University
  • Bucks New University
  • Capital School of Business and Management
  • Capital School of English
  • CELT – Centre for English Language Teaching
  • Colchester English Study Centre
  • Edgware Academy
  • Ffynone House School
  • Golders Green College
  • Greys College (UK) Ltd
  • GSM London Limited
  • Heathfield School GDST
  • impact international college
  • inlingua Cardiff/Swansea (a trading name of Ciris Language School Ltd)
  • Institute of International Education in London (Registered as Humanet International Ltd)
  • James Watt College
  • Kings Priory School
  • Live Language
  • London College of Business Sciences Limited
  • London College of International Business Studies
  • London Meridian College
  • London School of Management Sciences
  • London School of Science & Technology
  • Lords Independent School
  • Macclesfield College
  • modern montessori international
  • Newlands School
  • Operation Mobilisation
  • Princes College School of English
  • Ray Cochrane Beauty School
  • Severnvale Academy
  • Sherrardswood School
  • SMU Post Licencing Team
  • Sompting Abbotts School
  • Southbourne School of English
  • Speak Up London Ltd
  • St Annes College Ltd
  • The From Boyhood to Manhood Foundation
  • The National Autistic Society
  • The Oldham College
  • Tower College
  • University of Minnesota Duluth Study in England Programme
  • Wake Forest University
  • Westminster Academy
  • Winsor Education
  • Worcester College of Technology


A version of this article first appeared on WonkHe as Ministers must stop spreading bogus news about bogus colleges on 25 April 2017

The Many Mergers of English Higher Education

Most English universities have had some form of merger at some point.

I’d done a piece of work for a session on the Higher Education world since 1992 looking at the changes in institutions.  I’d started to compile a list of the institutions that had changed, hoping that I might do a nice graphic showing the ones that had merged, but it soon transpired that most of the HEIs that transferred into HEFCE’s sector in the 1990s had done some form of merger.  Then there was an interesting piece by Anna Fazackerley in the Guardian on take-overs and mergers which, by highlighting only three mergers gives the impression that they’re rarer than you’d think.

The biggest structural change since the start of the binary policy was the amalgamation of  local authority colleges to create the polytechnics.  Government was looking for large centres to sustain standards, so authorities brought together collections of their colleges into one big college.  Then the major change in policy after the James Report saw many colleges of education merge either together or into a university of polytechnic.  The final major wave was the transfer of health care to the HE sector, with schools of nursing or other health studies merging into HEIs.  These mergers came about because of major external policy drivers.

The other comprehensive exercise which resulted in mergers was the rationalisation of colleges in the University of London – first the general colleges, and later the medical schools.  Some of the mergers carried the name forward, with Royal Holloway and Bedford College or Queen Mary and Westfield, but these have now vanished from the trading name.  Driven by reductions in funding, the UGC had also amalgamated provision, say by moving Bradford’s psychology course to Leeds, but I have excluded that as not being a merger.

Of the 140 HEIs which were on HEFCE’s books in 1994, I reckon only 32 haven’t had some form of merger.    Although colleges have migrated to Oxford and Cambridge, I’m only counting Homerton as a merger – as it was a HEFCE-funded HEI.  I may have missed information on an old merger – some universities are proud of the many different places that form their roots, but other want to emphasise a single stem.

Institution in 1994
Anglia Polytechnic University Merger of CCAT & Chelmer Institute (in turn two colleges) plus nursing merger
Aston University none
University of Bath none
Bath College of HE Merger of Art & education colleges
University of Birmingham Merged with westhill
Birkbeck College none
Bishop Grosseteste College none
Bolton Institute of HE Merger of Bolton Institute of Technology & Bolton College of Education
Bournemouth University none
University of Bradford Merger with nursing college
Bretton Hall Merged into Leeds, site closed
University of Brighton Merger at designation, later with Brighton College of Education East Sussex College of Higher Education & nursing colleges
University of Bristol none
Brunel University Merged with West London Institute of HE, site now closed
Buckinghamshire College of HE High Wycombe College of Art and Technology merged with the Newland Park College of Education
University of Cambridge Merger of Homerton College into Education & as a College
University of Central England 5 Colleges merged at polytechnic designation, then 3 education colleges & 2 nursing colleges
University of Central Lancashire none
Central School of Speech & Drama none (save joining London University)
Canterbury Christ Church College Merged with College of Guidance Studies
Cheltenham and Gloucester CHE Merger of colleges of education & College of Technology
Chester College of HE Merger with Warrington Collegiate Institute
Chichester Institute Merger of colleges of education
City University Merger with nursing college & Inns of Court School of Law
Coventry University Merger of Lanchester College of Technology, College of Art & Rugby College of Engineering Technology
Cranfield University Merged with National College of Agricultural Engineering
Dartington College of Arts Merged into Falmouth
De Montfort University Merged with Bedford College & FE Colleges & de-merged
University of Derby Art, Technical & education colleges merged, then Matlock College of Education
University of Durham Merged with College of Education
University of East Anglia Merger with College of Education, merger & de-merger with Newcastle
University of East London Three colleges merged at polytechnic designation
Edge Hill College of HE Merger with nursing college
Institute of Education Merged into UCL
University of Essex none
University of Exeter Merged with college of education
Falmouth College of Arts Merger with Dartington
Goldsmiths College none
University of Greenwich Woolwich Polytechnic merged with Hammersmith College of Art and Building at Polytechnic designation. Then Dartford College (1976), Avery Hill College (1985), Garnett College (1987) and parts of Goldsmiths College and the City of London College
The College of Guidance Studies Merged with CCCU
Harper Adams Agricultural College none
University of Hertfordshire Mergers with colleges of education and nursing
Homerton College Merged into Cambridge
University of Huddersfield Merger of College of Technology & Oastler College of Education at desgnation, later with Technical Teaching Training College at Holly Bank
University of Hull Merger with Scarborough
University of Humberside 5 Colleges merged to become Hull College of HE, later merges with Lincolshire colleges of De Montfort
School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine none
Imperial College Royal Colleges of Chemistry & Science, School of Mines & C&C Central Institute. Later medical school merger
Institute of Advanced Nursing Education
Keele University Merged with health studies colleges
University of Kent at Canterbury None
Kent Institute of Art & Design Merged into university of creative arts
King Alfred’s College Merger with nursing colleges
King’s College London De-Merger & re-Merger with Queen Elizabeth College & Health mergers
Kingston University Merger at designation, later with Gipsy Hill College of Education
Lancaster University none
La Sainte Union College of HE Mergerd into Southampton, site closed
University of Leeds Merged with Bretton Hall, site closed, also health studies
Leeds Metropolitan University Merged at designation – later merged and then de-merged with Harrogate College
University of Leicester Merged with Vaughan College (1927)
University of Liverpool none
Liverpool Institute of HE Merger of colleges of education
Liverpool John Moores University Mergers before polytechnic designation
University of London Federal university – constant mergers…
London Business School none
London School of Economics & Political Science none
London Guildhall University Merged with UNL
The London Institute Merger of Art Colleges
Loughborough University of Technology Merged with Art College
Loughborough Coll of Art & Design Merged into Loughborough
University of Luton Merged with nursing colleges, merged with Bedford campus of De Montfort
University of Manchester Merged with UMIST
UMIST Merged with Manchester
Manchester Metropolitan University Merger of lots of colleges, including Crewe & Alasager
Middlesex University Mergers before polytechnic designation, then Trent Park College of Education, New College of Speech and Drama & College of All Saints
Nene College Colleges of Technology & Education merge, health care studies added
University of Newcastle upon Tyne Merges and de-merges with Durham University, with merge with parts of Durham again
Newman College none
University of North London Merged with Guildhall
North Riding College Merged into Hull, site closing
Northern School of Contemporary Dance none
University of Northumbria at Newcastle Merger at polytechnic designation, later with Northern Counties College of Education and then health studies
Norwich School of Art & Design Merged with Great Yarmouth College of Art
University of Nottingham Merged with Midlands Agricultural and Dairy College (1947)
Nottingham Trent University Merger at polytechnic designation, later with Nottingham College of Education
Open University none
School of Oriental & African Studies none
University of Oxford none
Oxford Brookes University Merger with health colleges & education colleges
School of Pharmacy Merged into UCL
University of Plymouth Merged with Rolle College, the Exeter College of Art and Design, Seale-Hayne College & Plymouth School of Maritime Studies
University of Portsmouth Merged with Portsmouth College of Education
Queen Mary & Westfield College Merger of Queen Mary & Westfield, merger with medical schools
Ravensbourne College Bromley School of Art merged with the Department of Furniture Design of the Beckenham School of Art
University of Reading Merger with Henley Business School, Bulmershe College
College of Ripon & York St John Merger of two colleges, Ripon site now closed
Roehampton Institute Merger of four education colleges
Rose Bruford College none
Royal Academy of Music none
Royal College of Art none
Royal College of Music none
Royal Holloway Merged with Bedford College
Royal Northern College of Music none
Royal Postgraduate Medical School Merged with imperial
Royal Veterinary College none
St George’s Hospital Medical School None (merger called off)
College of St Mark & St John Two colleges of education merged in 1923
S. Martin’s College Merged into University of Cumbria
St Mary’s College none
University of Salford Merged with College of Tech
Salford College of Technology Merged with Salford
University of Sheffield Merger with Sheffield and North Trent College of Nursing and Midwifery (but no longer teaching nursing)
Sheffield Hallam University Merger at polytechnic designation (Sheffield School of Design & College of Technology) later Sheffield City College and Totley Hall College
University of Southampton Merger with LSU & WSA
Southampton Institute of HE Merger with school of navigation
South Bank University Merger at polytechnic designation, later Rachel MacMillan College of Education & Battersea College of Education
Staffordshire University Merger at polytechnic designation: Stoke-on-Trent College of Art, North Staffordshire College of Technology & Staffordshire College of Technology plus college of education later
University of Sunderland Merger at Polytechnic designation: art, education & technology colleges
Surrey Institute of Art and Design Merged into Uni of Creative Arts
University of Surrey Merged with Roehampton, de-merged with Roehampton
University of Sussex none
University of Teesside Merger with Teesside College of Education
Thames Valley University Merged with Reading College & demerged
Trinity & All Saints Two colleges of education merged
Trinity College of Music Merged with Laban Centre
University College London Merged with IoE, Slavonic Studies, Pharmacy & Medical Schools
University of Warwick Merged with college of education
Westhill College Merged into Birmingham
University of Westminster Merger with Holborn College of Law, Languages and Commerce
Westminster College Merged into Oxford Brookes
University of West of England Merger at Polytechnic designation, then college of education (St Matthias) & nursing colleges
Wimbledon School of Art Merged into University of the Arts
Winchester School of Art Merged into Southampton
University of Wolverhampton College of Technology merged with College of Art & later West Midlands College of Higher Education
Worcester College of HE Merger with nursing college
Writtle College none
Wye College Merged into Imperial, site closed
University of York none

Mergers have come about because of a combination of strategy and exigency, generally the sense that a larger comprehensive body will better survive or thrive – Merging Colleges for Mutual Growth as described in James Martin and James E. Samels helpful book.  What the English experience shows is that an external body has often been involved, if only to validate the necessity of merger.  Sometimes it is clear that the external body has eased the path; HEFCE Chief Executives have sweetened emergency mergers in a way that their predecessors at OfS might struggle to achieve.


Some of these ‘mergers’ have, in the long run, been managed market exits.  This route protects students and staff but also the alumni.  There’s little physical trace now of La Sainte Union College, Southampton – its site is now housing – perhaps it’s only ongoing remnant is the podiatry course.  The Wheatley site of Lady Spencer Churchill College (merged with Oxford Polytechnic in 1972) will finally go for housing in 2022, but members of its staff stayed all the way to retirement having clocked up 40 years service.  Will Secretaries of State really let a university close?  When Cardiff had its crisis in 1986, Ken Baker could have let it close – but he chose not to, and emphatically issued a press release making clear that ‘No University Will Close’ (DES News 247/86).  Maybe the OfS will find that it will still be in the business of facilitating mergers…





Bogus Colleges (7) The replies 

Having waited six months for a reply to my FOI request for the names of providers who have left the Tier 4 Register – the number that ministers claim were bogus colleges – I wrote to the Home Secretary.

Outlining my issue about the use of the number of providers on the Tier 4 Register, I asked if her office could facilitate compliance with the data protection act (after all, non-compliance with the sponsors duties would be a sure-fire way of getting bumped off the Tier 4 Register).

As you’d hope, something happened. After all those months, on 28 March I had a response from the Home Office with the information.

I’ve also now had a reply to my letter to Amber Rudd, which is a such a classic non-reply, non-apology, letter that you’d be a curmudgeon not to be pleased as the standards of the modern British Civil Service.

Firstly, no causal link is made between my writing to the Home Secretary, and the FOI info being sent.  It’s just noted.  Nothing about the six month delay.

Then, the issues about ministerial use of the number removed from the Register is non-answered by reference to the data being in an live operational database (more on that to follow).

Finally, I get the ‘brightest and best’ line, the good news there is no cap (even though the Home Secretary had herself mooted a reduction in numbers) and the better news that the ‘Government has no plans to limit any institution’s ability to recruit international students’ (although that’s exactly what the Home Secretary had said they would consider).   This is the crux: the Home Office can’t handle the contradiction that if there’s a target to reduce met migration, and students are in the net migration figures, then there must be a target to reduce student numbers.

The easiest way to remove students from net migration is not to stop counting them (as Christopher Howarth had complained about)  but to be very clear that they don’t contribute to the net part of net migration which the want to reduce.  People come on a student visa, and then they stop being on a student visa.  If the Home Office don’t know what happens to them, then that is really an argument for sorting that out.

But, phew.  The Government has “no plans to limit any institution’s ability to recruit international students”.  They can accept the Hannay amendment to the HE Bill, and we’ll hear nothing more about this,   All that’s left is for me to do some pedantry about the numbers of ‘bogus colleges’…

Read More About: Exciting Stories about Universities

Every week seems to bring an exciting range of stories about universities. Clearly some media are actively looking out for new tales of ‘snowflake’ students or other madcap adventures.  Sometimes this comes with an unhealthy dose of purience – look how easily companies can plant stories about ‘sugar daddies’ for example.

The Telegraph isn’t the only media outlet doing this, but they do have an ‘online education editor’ who collates a lot of this stuff.  If you read through to the end of the story you find links to other similar stories. Taken out of context – these give a strange impression of the coverage universities are getting.

Can you guess the stories?

These are just picked from the first three months of this year, who knows what exciting links will come up next…