How much do pupils know about the new university fees structure and could an awareness campaign make a positive impact? Gill Wyness reveals LSE's research findings.
Many people point to the fall in 2012/13 applications to English universities as evidence that students have been put off applying because of the near trebling of tuition fees. In theory, however, no-one should be put off by this change. Fees will now be deferred and paid back gradually after university, once a graduate is earning a good wage. And there are generous maintenance loans and grants on offer, meaning everyone, regardless of background, should be able to afford upfront to go to university.
But how many potential students actually understand this new payment structure? So far there is little evidence of whether young people making important decisions about university actually understand how much it costs, how and when they have to pay, and crucially, whether the financial benefits outweigh the costs.
A team of researchers at the LSE, led by Professor Sandra McNally, undertook a study aiming to find out what school pupils know about the costs and benefits of going to university and the potential impact on their knowledge and aspirations of an 'information campaign'. Our study took place in the 2010-11 academic year with 54 participating London schools. In each school, we surveyed all year 10 pupils (14-15 year olds) – around 12,000 took part in total.
An initial survey questioned pupils about their knowledge of the costs and benefits of higher education, after which some schools were given an information package, including access to a website, leaflets, a video and a presentation about staying in education. Other schools were given the package only eight to 12 weeks later, after all participants had completed a second survey. Both surveys took place at the time when the increase in tuition fees was announced. Results therefore reflect not only the impact of the information campaign but also the short-term impact of media reporting of the fee increase.
The survey revealed large gaps in pupil knowledge about the costs and benefits of higher education. For example, less than half of pupils knew that fees are paid after university, and once they have a job, while fewer than half regarded student loans as a "cheaper/better way to borrow money than other types of borrowing". Furthermore, around a quarter of pupils held the view that going to university was "too expensive".
Media reporting around the time of the fees hike improved pupils' knowledge of how much university would cost but also increased the negative perceptions of affordability, with a significant increase in the proportion who thought university was too expensive. This increase was greater among pupils from comprehensive schools compared with those from independent schools.
Results also suggested that misperceptions over the costs and impact of the fee increase can be easily corrected with an information campaign. Pupil attitudes changed considerably in response to the information package, which stressed the availability of grants and how loans can be repaid rather than focusing on the fee increase per se. As well as improving student knowledge about the benefits of higher education – something lacking in the media focus – the campaign significantly reduced negative perceptions of affordability across the board.
Previous research has shown that factors determining whether pupils go on to university are largely set before they finish their compulsory education at the end of Year 11. We should not be waiting until exams have been sat and subject choices made before ensuring that pupils have the correct information on which to base their future decisions. Nor does the fact that careers information classes are not specifically resourced or required by government help create the right incentives for schools to raise their game.
Gill Wyness is an education researcher at LSE and research associate of the liberal think tank CentreForum.

In light of the increasing number of higher education providers that claim to be recognized by the Council of Europe or other international organizations, we wish to make it clear that the Council of Europe does not recognize or in any other way bestow legitimacy on any higher education institution, programme or provision. Institutional recognition is normally within the competence of national authorities and is normally conditional on the institution or programme undergoing quality assessment.
There seems to be an increasing number of higher education providers that claim to be recognized by the Council of Europe, alone or in cooperation with other international organizations, such as UNESCO, or by individuals acting on behalf of an international organization. Sometimes providers also claim that the Council of Europe/UNESCO Convention for the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education in the European Region confers recognition on their education provision. In some cases, providers claim to have been recognized by the Council of Europe, whereas in other cases their text is phrased in such a way as to give the impression that they have been recognized, even if technically they do not say so.
In light of the increasing number of such claims, we wish to make it clear that the Council of Europe does not recognize or in any other way bestow legitimacy on any higher education institution, programme or provision.
Attention is also drawn to the alert published on the UNESCO web site on this topic.
The different categories of unsubstantiated claims of recognition features on this site in large part also apply to claims of recognition by the Council of Europe.
Education provided within national systems
It should be recalled that most education provision belong to a national education system, and that the competence to determine what institution, programmes or other provision is recognized belongs to the public authority responsible for the education system in question. Increasingly, recognition or acceptance of higher education institutions by national authorities is made conditional on the institution or programme undergoing a quality assessment. In Europe, this is the policy adopted by the Ministers responsible for higher education in the framework of the Bologna Process aiming to establish a European Higher Education Area by 2010. In 2005, the Ministers adopted a set of European Quality Assurance Standards, which are based on a background report elaborated by ENQA – the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education and partners.
International, transnational or cross-border education
Some of the providers claiming to be recognized also claim to provide “international” or “European” education, in other words they do not claim to belong to a higher education system. There is no competent international body, independent of national education systems, with a mandate to recognize or assess such provision. However, UNESCO and the OECD have elaborated Guidelines on Quality provision in Cross-border Higher Education that “aim to support and encourage international cooperation and enhance the understanding of the importance of quality provision in cross-border higher education” as well as to “protect students and other stakeholders from low-quality provision and disreputable providers as well as to encourage the development of quality cross-border higher education that meets human, social, economic and cultural needs”. In 2001, the Lisbon Recognition Convention Committee adopted a Code of Good practice in the Provision of Trans-national Education, which also provides useful indications of what students should look for in a provider claiming to offer international education.
Precautions students should take
Students should carefully verify the status of an institution, programme or provider before they decide to enrol in a higher education programme. They should ask the institution whether it has undergone a quality assurance exercise, and if so, by what body it has been assessed. While some higher education providers that do not belong to national education systems are of good standing, it may be wise to pay particular attention to the status of institutions claiming to be international or European. Providers claiming to be recognized or supported by international organizations such as the Council of Europe should be regarded with scepticism.

This report is based on the ENQA workshop “Quality Assurance and Qualifications Frameworks: exchanging good practice”, which took place in Dublin, Ireland, on 9-10 February 2012 and presents articles on themes such as the state of development of qualifications frameworks, the role of agencies in the self-certification process, and the meaning of qualifications frameworks in external quality assurance.
The theme of qualifications frameworks and their relation to quality assurance is gaining urgency in the European scene as more and more countries are completing their national qualifications frameworks and quality assurance agencies need to take important decisions on how to implement them. Some of the key features of the qualifications frameworks are the specification of learning outcomes, processes for assessing learners’ attainment of the expected outcomes, their relation to the ECTS, identification of transfer and progression routes, and recognition of prior learning. Download the report Quality Assurance and Qualifications Frameworks: Exchanging Good Practice.
Conclusions
Several current reforms in higher education are having a significant impact on quality assurance and the work of quality assurance agencies. Among these, the establishment and referencing to qualifications frameworks and the adoption of assessment methods focusing on student learning outcomes pose important challenges to the methods and processes used for internal and external quality assurance.
The ENQA 2012 workshop on Quality Assurance and Qualifications Frameworks: exchanging good practice and these articles covered a wide range of issues related to qualifications frameworks, such as the state of art in their development and adoption, the role of agencies in the self-certification process, and the impact of qualifications frameworks on external quality assurance. In addition, a view from the stakeholder community was presented through an article outlining the use and importance of qualifications frameworks to the labour market and employers. Recognition of prior learning, assessment of learning outcomes, and learning outcomes in programme oriented quality assurance were also discussed in smaller working groups during the workshop.
As the first article underlines, it is clear that while several changes have already taken place, we are still at the beginning of implementing qualifications frameworks. It is important to make sure that they are developed jointly with quality assurance, learning outcomes, and other recognition tools. At the same time, the article emphasises the importance of making sure that European, but especially national qualifications frameworks become more visible and better known, so as to bring real benefits to the end users, whether individuals, higher education institutions, academic staff, or employers.
In terms of self-certification, the second author underlines that verification by selfcertification is a process in which each QA agency has a significant and obligatory role to play. The role of quality assurance is to demonstrate that programmes are based on intended learning outcomes and that qualifications are awarded on basis of achievement of these outcomes. If, however, we are to realise the objectives of the QF-EHEA in relation to transparency, mobility, and recognition, self-certification is only the first step. The Swedish case example presents a recently adopted approach to quality assurance. In line with the Bologna Process and the goal of increased employability of students, qualification descriptors were introduced and have become the tool in quality assurance of higher education in Sweden. Continuous reviewing in the coming years will help to develop best practice in implementing the new approach, and will be able to provide informed answers to questions such as: Can results of an academic study programme be measured? If yes: how can that be done? And is this European quality assurance of the 21st century?
The system used in Denmark relies on the use of external examiners for the measurement of achieved learning outcomes. Discussions on the use of learning outcomes in programme based QA in the related working group brought up a number of different methods. A conclusion of the group’s work was that if the scale of the potential small revolution brought about by learning outcomes based assessment is to be investigated seriously, the answer lies perhaps not in better measurement, but instead in finding new ways of stimulating ownership of the concept of learning outcomes itself. The working group on recognition of prior learning discussed different ways in which prior learning is used for entry into further study, achievement of credits, or for the award of an entire degree. It became clear that recognition of prior learning practices is politically sensitive and highly dependent on the national context. It was felt thus that agencies must explicitly assume this political dimension in order to define what role to play regarding recognition of prior learning processes in their own frameworks.
The working group discussing the assessment of learning outcomes concluded that there is a need to analyse the assessment of learning outcomes paying attention to the legal framework and academic context. In addition, the maturity of the higher education system as a whole, and the degree of implementation of other ‘Bologna tools’, such as qualifications frameworks, play a significant role in the process. The group felt a need to focus on the quality assurance of the assessment procedures of learning outcomes through checking the assessment practices used by programmes to assess different learning outcomes. The participants agreed that the focus of such assessment should be on the programme learning outcomes, not on the achievement of individual student.
Overall, the main conclusion of the workshop and of this publication is that there is great benefit in sharing and comparing national practices, and learning from good practice at the level of quality assurance agencies. However, the national political and legal context, as well as the degree of implementation of the Bologna reforms, has a significant impact on the way in which agencies can and should react and relate to the implementation of qualifications frameworks. Coordinating efforts in developing and implementing qualifications frameworks and other Bologna reforms is important to ensure a successful consolidation of the European Higher Education Area. In addition, all relevant actors should make efforts to ensure that information on the role and purpose of qualifications frameworks and learning outcomes-based assessment is provided to all interested parties, including employers, so that student employability can be improved, mobility facilitated, and recognition of non-formal and informal learning further developed. Download the report Quality Assurance and Qualifications Frameworks: Exchanging Good Practice.

Reducing development departments is short-sighted, says Steve O'Connor. As a £7m gift to the University of Leicester shows, investing time, thought and people power pays dividends.
There is no quicker conversation stopper at a party than saying you work for a university development office. But those in the know realise there's a lot more to the job than "rattling a tin". The rewards can be spectacular, as today's announcement of a £7m donation to the University of Leicester from a single benefactor testifies.

Auteur : Max Anghilante avec la contribution de Marie-Blandine Prieur. Source : Matinale IFFRES du 17 juillet 2012. Moins de 10% du mécénat et des dons individuels vont vers l’enseignement supérieur et la recherche, soit pour le mécénat d’entreprise une enveloppe de l’ordre de 200 M€. La faiblesse de ce montant s’explique probablement par le fait que pour l’entreprise comme pour le citoyen, ces domaines sont d’ordre régalien et relèvent de l’Etat et donc ne légitime pas une générosité particulière.
Ces 200 M€ sont à mettre en perspective, d’un côté, l’Etat, avec les dépenses intérieures de l’éducation nationale (23,7 Mds €), le budget de la recherche publique (7,4 Mds €), d’un autre côté, les entreprises, avec les dépenses en R&D des entreprises qui atteint 24 Mds soit plus de 100 fois le montant du mécénat, le Crédit Impôt Recherche (2,1 Mds €) ou encore les dépenses en formation continue (11,2 Mds €).
Selon Jean-Louis Lacombe, Vice Président de l’IFFRES et ancien VP d’EADS, lors de la Matinale IFFRES du 17 juillet sur le rôle et la place des incitations fiscales dans le mécénat, «les entreprises sont des caméléons de la société civile. Elles font du mécénat essentiellement pour des aspects de communication, interne ou externe, et donc choisissent des thèmes qui utilisent la même grille de valeur que les particuliers, à savoir: la santé, la solidarité, l’humanitaire, puis la culture, le sport, l’écologie et la politique. Pour elles comme pour les citoyens, la recherche et l’enseignement supérieur restent du ressort de l’Etat.»
En matière de communication l’entreprise peut d’ailleurs aussi bien faire du sponsoring qui relève d’avantage de sa culture « marchande ».
En ce qui concerne la Recherche, l’entreprise se tournera plus naturellement vers le Crédit Impôt Recherche qui est, en ce domaine, la principale incitation fiscale dont elles peuvent bénéficier et qui présentent trois avantages majeurs par rapport au mécénat:
- L’entreprise conserve l’entière maîtrise de son projet de recherche;
- L’entreprise est propriétaire des résultats et détient les droits de propriété intellectuelle;
- Le CIR est fiscalement au moins aussi avantageux que le mécénat.
En revanche, pour l’enseignement supérieur, il n’y a guère d’autre alternative au financement privé « volontaire » que le mécénat. La Taxe d’Apprentissage que versent les entreprises par définition n’a rien de volontaire, sauf dans le choix des établissements auxquels l’entreprise souhaite la verser.
Pour compléter ce tableau, rappelons que depuis 2004, les fondations et structures assimilées dédiées à la recherche et l’enseignement supérieur foisonnent. De l’ordre de 300 en 2008, tous statuts confondus, elles sont passées en 2012 à près de 700 parmi lesquelles une quarantaine de fondations « universitaires » mais surtout 228 fonds de dotation. Comme le précise Jean-Louis Lacombe « nous n’avons pas vu les financements privés, dons et mécénat, suivre la même évolution ». Pour illustrer ce propos, Max Anghilante, Président de l’IFFRES, relève que « sur ces 228 fonds de dotation, seuls 7 ont été créés par des mécènes (deux par des particuliers et 5 par des entreprises), les autres disposent pour la plupart de fonds initiaux très limités et sont à la recherche de ressources pour financer leurs missions».
Dans cette perspective, il est nécessaire de mesurer l’impact que pourrait avoir une remise en question des incitations fiscales pour le mécénat. Qui devraient être considérées plutôt comme des encouragements à un investissement privé en faveur de la recherche et l’enseignement supérieur pour lequel aucun retour n’est attendu que comme des « niches fiscales », point de vue de Bercy.
Le risque est grand que ne soit remise en cause, la relation « non marchande » entre le monde académique de la recherche et de l’enseignement supérieur et le monde socioéconomique. Celle-ci se construit depuis peu sur la base de l’intérêt général et nécessite pour produire tous ses effets, constance et durée car il s’agit avant tout d’acculturation réciproque.
Pour Gilles Gleyze, Directeur du développement de l’Ecole Centrale de Paris, « il ne faut pas oublier que le mécénat coûte toujours plus cher que de ne rien donner et que dans la culture française où la philanthropie pour la recherche et l’enseignement supérieur demeure une notion assez nouvelle, l’incitation fiscale a un effet déclencheur tant sur l’acte de donner que sur les montants. Le repli de l’avantage fiscal aboutirait sans doute à un reflux de la dynamique de mécénat. Il convient donc de procéder avec prudence. »
Selon Max Anghilante, « pour nombre de nos interlocuteurs, l’incertitude induite par l’annonce d’une remise en question des avantages fiscaux du mécénat, dans un contexte de crise économique, se traduit dès à présent par une frilosité perceptible des entreprises à s’engager. »
Il est vital, à ce stade que les acteurs du mécénat, entreprises et bénéficiaires, clarifient leur compréhension de ce qu’est le mécénat et de ce à quoi ils s’engagent. Selon Karim Maatoug, Chargé de mission à la Mission du mécénat au Ministère de la Culture et de la Communication, « trop souvent les entreprises n’ont qu’une compréhension limitée du sens du mécénat et de l’intérêt général. Elles les confondent avec le sponsoring. Cela conduit à des dérives, notamment en matière de dépassement des contreparties attendues dont la tolérance est fixée par Bercy à 25% du montant du don pour l’entreprise, uniquement sous la forme de communication ».
Or comme le constate Gilles Gleyze, « nous avons changé de dimension avec des niveaux de dons de l’ordre du ou des millions grâce à un déplafonnement de l’engagement de l’entreprise. Cela change profondément le regard en interne et le regard de l’entreprise, d’entrer dans le débat sur le mécénat sans contrepartie est un vrai changement dans la politique de l’entreprise.»
Pour empêcher les abus, constatés par la Cour des Comptes, il faut mieux réglementer et contrôler le cadre juridique et fiscal du mécénat. C’est pourquoi le Ministère de la Culture travaille sur l’élaboration d’une charte éthique du mécénat. Dans la perspective de sauver la loi Aillagon, préserver le mécénat et ses retombées économiques, Karim Maatoug, du Ministère de la Culture, espère que les autres ministères concernés se joindront à eux pour conduire une réflexion commune.
Cette démarche, d’une plus grande « moralisation » et rigueur en matière de mécénat, est soutenu par de nombreux acteurs tels le Centre Français des Fondations ou encore Admical.
L’IFFRES a de son côté, à la suite de la loi dite du médicament et de ses retombées inattendues dans les relations entre les entreprises et les organismes à but non lucratif du secteur de la santé, lancé il y a plusieurs mois un think tank dont l’objectif est l’élaboration d’une charte du mécénat et du partenariat dans la recherche et l’enseignement supérieur. Les premiers résultats devraient être communiqués lors du prochain colloque IFFRES en novembre 2012.
Intervenant à la Matinale IFFRES du 17 juillet, Jacques Fontanille, Conseiller au cabinet de Madame Geneviève Fioraso, Ministre de la Recherche et de l’Enseignement Supérieur, a fait savoir que les fondations de recherche et de l’enseignement supérieur étaient un sujet sensible. « Quoiqu’elles ne soient pas visées particulièrement par les Assises de la Recherche et de l’Enseignement Supérieur que vient de lancer le ministère, elles en font partie puisqu’elles sont porteuses de projets issus notamment de la LRU (fondations universitaires et partenariales) ou du Plan Investissements d’Avenir (Fondations de coopération scientifique). »
Il n’est pas rare qu’un chercheur soit à la fois impliqué dans un Labex, un Equipex, une FCS tout en étant rattaché à une université et un centre de recherche. Et que ce même chercheur passe son temps à rédiger, tour à tour pour chacune de ces entités, des demandes de financement public ou privé, au détriment de ses travaux de recherche.
Les dix dernières années ont vu en effet, des réformes et des programmes s’empiler et s’imbriquer: LMD, LME, LRU, Plan Campus, Investissements d’Avenir… et les structures se démultiplier. Il est temps d’en faire l’inventaire, de recueillir des propositions et d’aménager l’existant. Tels sont, au travers d’un débat au niveau des territoires et au niveau national, les objectifs des Assises qui s’achèveront en décembre 2012 dans la perspective d’une loi d’orientation pour fin 2013.
Trois thèmes principaux seront traités:
- La réussite des étudiants avant, pendant et après leurs études sous tous ses aspects: pédagogie, logement, aide sociale, insertion professionnelle…
- La réorganisation afin d’assurer un plus grand équilibre entre le niveau national et le niveau territorial, revitaliser la recherche fondamentale et permettre aux chercheurs de se concentrer sur leurs travaux;
- Les territoires, qui par exemple, devraient être plus impliqués dans la gouvernance des établissements en leur qualité de partenaires de plus en plus fréquemment sollicités. Tout comme il est attendu une meilleure articulation des relations entre les établissements, les territoires et les entreprises.
Selon Jacques Fontanille, « le mécénat ne sera donc pas oublié des Assises et le ministère invite à faire les contributions utiles sur ce sujet. »
Par ailleurs, le ministère envisage d’établir une cartographie des fondations dans la recherche et l’enseignement supérieur.
Mettre les étudiants au coeur des Assises est de bon augure. En matière de mécénat, ils sont trop souvent négligés dans les projets proposés par les fondations et établissements d’enseignement supérieur que ce soit en qualité de bénéficiaire ou d’acteur.
En France, le mécénat des individus est effectivement récent et complémentaire du mécénat à gros impact de l’entreprise qui se voit rapidement. Ainsi pour les alumni de plus en plus sollicités, il ne s’agit pas de financer du fonctionnement mais des projets d’avenir, des projets plus long terme comme par exemple un nouveau bâtiment, ou de faire preuve de solidarité envers leurs jeunes camarades.
Il est crucial aussi, pour conduire une vrai démarche de mécénat, de trouver un équilibre entre l’intérêt du chercheur et celui de l’entreprise et d’assurer une véritable transparence au niveau de la gouvernance qui doit savoir et pouvoir justifier de la bonne utilisation des fonds qui lui sont confiés.
«Il faut à la fois que s’opère un gros changement culturel», rappelle Jean-Hervé Lorenzi, Président du Cercle des Economistes, « et préserver l’indépendance de la Recherche et de l’Enseignement Supérieur.» Les habitudes universitaires n’ont pas tellement changé et la tendance ne s’y est pas encore imposée d’encourager la diversité, d’agir de concert, de partager, de confronter les points de vue et de s’ouvrir. « On ne saurait limiter le mécénat d’entreprise au seul financement des chaires par exemple ». Il convient « de faire du développement de la recherche et de l’enseignement supérieur un outil pour notre développement économique » et pour cela « jouer sur notre plus bel atout: la diversité ».
Renforcer les pôles d’excellence, certes, mais pas au détriment de la diversité de nos savoirs et expertises. Tout comme il est indispensable de favoriser les liens entre recherche et enseignement supérieur et PME et d’encourager ces dernières à innover.
Le mécénat pourrait donc jouer un rôle d’impulsion en matière d’innovation et pour faire émerger de nouvelles pistes de « collaboration » privé-public.
Pour tous ces points et bien d’autres, on retiendra que le mécénat est un sujet qui relève des ambitions des Assises de la Recherche et de l’Enseignement Supérieur. L’IFFRES entend apporter sa contribution aux débats.

ByWilliam Patrick Leonard. In an article in The Seattle Times last month, featured in University World News, two members of the University of Washington’s board are quoted as saying: “This is the fourth year in a row our students have seen a double-digit tuition increase…It can’t go on.”
The University of Washington is not alone in facing declining external support. The American higher education community’s prospects for its own sustainability are questionable. It is unlikely to endure as we know it, with reliance on tuition fee and enrolment increases compensating for the failure to more rigorously control costs and balance budgets. Public and non-profit private institutions alike have focused for too long on short-term solutions. Without a large endowment income cushion, the bulk of US public and non-profit private institutions have been focused on the short-term imperative of bringing revenues in line with an array of immediate, unavoidable and inflexible operating costs that these institutions bear. Short-term remedies to balance institutional budgets present only a limited solution. Decades of relatively predictable government support appear to have engendered a sense of unquestioned entitlement, as institutions have added programmes and services on top of existing expenses.
There are three short-term internal tools for balancing institutional budgets. To date, only
two – increasing tuition fees and-or enrolment – have been regularly used. Tuition fee increases have become an annual expectation. Conversely, increased admissions, while not often recognised as a revenue enhancement tool, have been used with equal frequency. The former has been until recently grudgingly accepted by students and their benefactors. The latter has been widely accepted inside and applauded outside the academy as a means of expanding access to the American dream. Unfortunately, economies of scale aside, increasing the size of the student body tends to lead to future cost increases, as more faculty, staff and other resources are needed to support a larger student body.
An unsustainable cycle
Near-exclusive reliance on these two short-term remedies has trapped many of the nation’s public and non-profit private institutions in an unsustainable cycle. After decades of tuition fee increases exceeding the Consumer Price Index, coupled with declining measures of value added, students and their benefactors are increasingly less tolerant of these annual increases. This disquiet has been exacerbated by mounting student debt and questions about the subsequent income students need to earn to settle the obligation.
Popular expressions of growing dissatisfaction have in turn prompted the steady decline of the once unquestioned support of elected officials. In recent years, state subsidies to public institutions have declined to the point that some flagship public institutions are publicly considering morphing into some form of non-profit status without any governmental support. Enrolment and tuition fee increases appeal to institutional leaders. They have been perceived as far less internally contentious alternatives. Pushing for a higher enrolment gives the institution and the public a sense of positive momentum. Increasing tuition fees has been received by students, parents, elected officials and the public at large as inevitable. The objections from external constituents have been met with the reminder that quality must be maintained, if not enhanced. Recently, the traditional grudging acceptance of the quality defence appears to have reached its limit.
Cutting costs avoided
The third internal budget balancing tool, cutting costs, has been the least favoured. It can negatively influence programmes and hence careers. I suggest that many institutions, large and small, have found it politically easier to increase revenue rather than control costs. They have tended to resist seriously questioning the viability of ineffective or inefficient programmes and services. Simultaneously, many have increased their continuing cost burden by enhancing existing programmes and services as well as adding new ones.
Simplistically, institutional costs may be crudely subdivided into two categories – external and internal. The external costs are composed of purchased goods and services. Unless the institution has the power to negotiate price, its utility, insurance, contracted services and consumable costs are largely beyond its control. External costs are strongly influenced by the internal costs that institutions should have more control over. The place to start is internal costs. In American higher education internal costs are governed as much by unquestioned culture as by contractual obligations. Institutions have tended to regard the traditional mix of faculty, curriculum, calendar and infrastructure as immutable. This has been accompanied by an exaggerated sense of entitlement to external support.
The majority of US higher education institutions can no longer rely on the historic levels of government support or philanthropic largesse. Nor can they depend on the continued utility of tuition fees and enrolment increases to align revenue with their immutable culture-driven costs. In order to endure, these institutions will have to restrict, rather than abandon, their dependence on external support. In the near term they should carefully assess the relevance, efficiency and effectiveness of each existing programme and service in their current cost portfolio. To further dampen cost escalation in the longer term, they would be wise to recall that it is far less painful to stop a recommended programme or service addition before implementation than to subsequently terminate it.
Institutions must become much more responsible for the internal balancing of their budgets. Otherwise, their sustainability is questionable. Consistently demonstrating internal cost control could go a long way towards rebuilding external trust and funding.
* William Patrick Leonard is vice dean of SolBridge International School of Business in Daejeon, Republic of Korea.

DBA in Higher Education Management 10th Anniversary Conference. Monday 17th September, 2012. Hosted by International Centre for Higher Education Management (ICHEM), University of Bath.
Higher education is currently experiencing what has been described as a period of disruptive change. The significant forces from the external environment including the financial crisis and globalisation are impacting substantially on higher education. As well as these external factors higher education institutions are experiencing numerous disruptive forces including  dilution of funding sources, changing student demographics, questions regarding the quality and value of qualifications as well as increased competition within the sector. It has even been suggested that globally higher education is enmeshed in a crisis which some commentators have likened to the recent economic bubbles and which threaten the long term sustainability of higher education institutions and systems in their current form.
This conference looking at the impact of disruptive change on higher education institutions and the broader higher education sector internationally will feature keynote addresses by three respected international higher education experts, each with a different perspective on the challenges faced. The conference will feature interactive sessions examining how the forces of disruption are impacting the steering, governance, management and operation of institutions and systems of higher education.
As well as this conference there will also be:
A 10th anniversary dinner at 7.30pm on September 17th.
A DBA(HEM) Students, Alumni and Staff Seminar on September 18th.

L'émission de France Inter, Le téléphone sonne du 25 juin 2012, était consacrée à: Etudiant et apprenti en même temps: c'est possible... et ça marche!
L'apprentissage concerne aussi l'enseignement supérieur avec 100 000 "apprentis". Reste parfois le plus difficile: trouver une entreprise qui accepte de jouer le jeu...
Invités:
- Yves Lichtenberger, professeur à l'Université Paris-Est Marne la Vallée et Directeur du Programme modernisation des formations en apprentissage au Commissariat des investissements d'avenir (à Marne la Vallée, 20% des étudiants sont en apprentissage)
- Emmanuel Maurel, Vice-Président en charge de la formation professionnelle, de l'apprentissage, de l'alternance et de l'emploi au Conseil régional d'Ile-de-France
- Frédérique Bouvier, directrice du recrutement externe chez Axa France
- Avec Laetitia Saavedra de France Inter. Ecoutez l'émission en podcast.
Stages étudiants en entreprise: une nouvelle fiche technique
Depuis quelques années la règlementation des stages en entreprise, hors formation continue, s'est précisée, avec la volonté de mieux encadrer les pratiques et d'assurer des garanties aux jeunes bénéficiaires. La loi du 24 novembre 2009 a interdit les stages hors cursus pédagogique et institué le versement obligatoire d'une gratification pour les stages de 2 mois ou plus. La loi Cherpion du 28 juillet 2011 a intégré les dispositions d'un accord national interprofessionnel du 7 juin 2011, renforçant la règlementation et les droits des stagiaires.
L'ARFTLV publie une fiche technique F 2.2 pour faire le point sur ce dispositif.