What are universities for - teaching or research?

In England, the higher education funding council has announced a 6.8% increase in the money allocated to universities for the next year.

The council hopes that some extra money for teaching will be enough to fund another 23,000 full-time student places.

But it cannot afford to fund all the research that is going on - so only the very best departments will have their income maintained, the others face cuts of up to 70%.

Is it right for ministers to be trying to get more and more students into higher education? Will universities be put at risk by possible cuts in research departments?

This debate is now closed. Read a selection of your comments below.

---

Your reaction

Research is simply the best form of investment a country makes for its future

Haile, UK

Research is simply the best form of investment a country makes for its future, both in the service and manufacturing sectors; developing innovation services (e.g. online banking, internet, mobile commerce), new products and new processes, including better exploitation of renewable energy sources. Good research is a significant difference between third world and first world country economies. Its the 20 years return that people can't be bothered about (except that it affects the pensions significantly.)
Haile, UK

I'm not going to denigrate the vast majority of staff in our universities who, in my opinion, make an invaluable contribution to our country. However, it has to be said that the government is quite right to look to eliminate any waste that might exist as a result of entrenched management cultures either within universities or related research establishments. When other lower paid public sector workers (whether nurses, junior doctors or most teachers) are far more regularly demanded upon to "produce the goods", then I fail to see why research departments should be immune from the same scrutiny. I applaud this government for, unlike their Conservative predecessors, having the intelligence to identify and tackle underlying issues.
Robert Crosby, Nottingham, UK

Without the research there is nothing to teach. Without research, there are no new developments to drive the economy. Without teaching there are no new educated workers to drive the economy. They are both absolutely equally necessary.
Arri London, EU/UK

Universities across the UK, including my own, are already seeing worrying increases in the sort of sponsorship which diverts research towards corporate agendas and away from areas that would benefit the university and the students. The only reason this is happening is because universities are increasingly starved of funds with which to sustain world-class research and support teaching. We don't need any more students, we need universities that are better funded in order to be able to teach the students we have got now. The appalling funding of universities means that it has become increasingly difficult to learn; with only three copies of a core course book in the university library between 25 people, and a library with restricted opening hours at that, is it any wonder that people despair at the quality of graduates entering the job market?
Laura Walton, Sheffield, UK

While I agree that money should be spent on teaching, I believe that the amount per head needs to be increased, not the total number of places available. Given that the cost of educating a student is mostly fixed, less popular courses will have to accept less able students to maintain the funding levels required to balance the books. This can only lead to more lower calibre graduates and a poorer reputation for the University with employers.

As far as research funding goes, it was this lack of funding and the resulting lack of job security for researchers that lead me to give up science for a career in finance. It saddens me that society appears to value me more for bean counting than for stretching the frontiers of human knowledge. A lot of good minds are going to waste because of this under-investment.
Sarah, England

I'm going to take my skills elsewhere

Allyson, UK

Well I'm off! I've spent the past 8 years as a student of Chemistry in the UK intending to go into research and lecturing. Now, with the pay decreasing (in real terms), the fight for funding more desperate and the morale decreasing ever more rapidly I'm going to take my skills elsewhere. Switzerland here I come! The UK used to be a world leader, the greatest minds in the world used to study here, now other countries are going to prosper by our loss.
Allyson, UK

A lot of the youngsters going to university could be doing better things. As a society we should be concerned about the lack of individuals with practical skills - in ten years' time there won't be any plumbers, carpenters and so on. All we'll have is thousands of academically trained people with no useful skills for society.
Stephen Luke, Wales

The obvious answer is to follow the US model and allow the elite universities to concentrate on research, and let the second-rate ones concentrate on teaching. This works better than you might suppose, because the best students educate themselves with very little help from lecturers, while weaker students need much more help from faculty who are more dedicated to teaching.
Jon Livesey, USA

After getting my MSc, I wanted to go onto a PhD. Although the uni said that they could find some of the money for the tuition fees, they recommended that I actually signed on to fund living and housing costs. I went to several US universities as well to see what they could offer, but they were all in a similar position to the UK unis. There's just no money to be made in some academic fields, so there's no funding.
Jon, Luton, UK

Most lecturers stop at nothing to dump their teaching loads so they can concentrate on research.

Dave, UK

Teaching and research should be equally weighted, but in reality they are not. I work at a University in a non-academic support role. The reality I see is that most lecturers stop at nothing to dump their teaching loads so they can concentrate on research. This is to enhance their careers - teaching is seen as a poor relation to active research. Additionally, research can be and is used by academics to practice consultancy work with which to enhance their salaries. Anything that can be done to promote teaching and enhance the working lives of those that place emphasis on teaching at university should be done. Research is self-perpetuating and can look after itself. Staff at universities would do well to realise they would be out of work was it not for the income universities receive for each student they teach on undergraduate and postgraduate courses.
Dave, UK

To Dave, UK: one of the reasons that some lecturers "stop at nothing to dump their teaching loads" to do research is because the only way to gain promotion is to have an international reputation and a publication list as long as your arm. The salary only starts looking reasonable (and not very reasonable even then) once one gets to Reader level, and that can only be done by having a good publication record. I am a lecturer in Chemistry at the University of London with no research budget and a lecture load that reads like the pre-flight check list for the Apollo moonshots. My job isn't guaranteed past October and the pay is paltry. Until the powers that be start taking *both* teaching and research seriously - give them then funds they need *and* start paying highly trained academic and technical staff something approaching their real value, things will get no better.
Matthew Salter, UK

From my personal experience, university is an invaluable way to meet so many people from different backgrounds who have a common interest to learn and understand. Its often the first time people venture out from their comfortable, easy and narrow life of living at home with their parents. I don't think its outrageous to suggest that people who do not go to university are far more likely to stay within the realms of what they have been brought up with. Indeed, the experience of university often opens people minds to the reality and potential of what is out their and this leads to a more inquisitive and understanding mind. The more people who go to university, the better!
Mark, Germany

University courses are filled enough without an extra 23,000 places.

Anonymous

University courses are filled enough without an extra 23,000 places. In most places of employment, a degree is not necessary - it's just an excuse for people to spend an extra three years of their life not working. Put more money into research rather than trying to disencourage teenagers to go to work.
Anon, Studentsville

This is a worrying trend because it means to survive, university research programmes will have to take on even more commercial sponsorship. Companies tend only to sponsor types of research which are likely to deliver a short-term commercial advantage, closing the door to research designed to investigate how the world works, the human mind & body, nature etc. Universities certainly exist to spread existing knowledge, but are also uniquely placed to expand it over the long term, and this capability must not be lost.
Antony Williamson, UK

Research of today is teaching tomorrow. The Government is very daft if it thinks it can dispense with it and still expect the UK to be leading edge and attract overseas investment.
Gareth, United Kingdom

Third level education used to be available only to those with the best A level results but now you can pursue Spice Girl Studies on half a GCSE.

Phil, UK

Funding numbers of students for its own sake is a mistake. What matters is quality not quantity. Third level education used to be available only to those with the best A level results but now you can pursue Spice Girl Studies on half a GCSE. If the selection mechanism was tuned to cream off just the highest capability students into third level education then there might be more funding for pure research.
Phil, UK

These things go in cycles. When I was an undergraduate science student in the mid 1980s, teaching was a dirty word and research was everything. Now apparently the pendulum is swinging. It's fair to say that a few outstanding individuals are both great researchers and great teachers. Most are good at one or the other. Some are great researchers when younger, whilst transferring their skills to teacher in later life. I believe that the top organisations need a mixture of great teachers and great researchers, whilst smaller organisations must focus on one or the other and form alliances with complementary partners, be that in the UK or globally. I wouldn't take this whinging too seriously.......
Rhys Jaggar, England

There appears to be the idea amongst the many critics out there that universities contribute very little, while receiving an awful lot. Without universities, advances in medicine, technology etc, would be massively affected. Who do we think produces the vast amounts of new research, which is often transformed into useful products or tools? Academic staff demonstrated their commitment through the RAE scores. If the Business sector scored as highly in their area, they would have rewarded their staff accordingly. How on earth can we expect increasing numbers of young people to aspire to Higher Education, if successive governments treat it with such contempt? If governments continue to insist on quality education and research, it has to accept that this requires adequate funding and support.
SW, UK

To be taken seriously now, one needs to finish gradate school, as well.

Matthew, USA

It is always good to educate the population, and it has many great benefits for individuals and society at large. In time, however, as here in America, you will find that a university degree is not worth as much as it used to be. A great percentage of Americans go to university here, many simply for a sort of pedigree. To be taken seriously now, one needs to finish gradate school, as well. For my grandparent's generation, simply finishing high school was enough to guarantee a prosperous life for your family.
Matthew, USA

There is no simple answer to this situation. Firstly, universities need to be able to cope with the increased demand for undergraduate places. They also need to do the research that will forward our knowledge of science, the arts and so forth. Perhaps the model should be that the research facilities climb down a couple of steps from their ivory towers and court industry for investment into research. This 'paid' research can fund the 'blue skies' research.
Edward DB, UK

I'm studying at a university with a high reputation for teaching and research and the one thing I have noticed is that the high-quality research that is carried out benefits the undergraduates as it becomes part of our syllabus. As long as everyone, including other universities, gets a chance to benefit from this research, it could be justifiable. There is always the question of why universities or departments within universities that have poor research ratings should actually get any extra income. If they are not producing good enough work, then they shouldn't be paid the money.
Chris L, UK

In the late 1970's I worked as a Research Technician in a University. In the end, a combination of lousy pay, poor public perception of the job, and inability to win funds for continuing our work forced me to leave, and start a new career. Twenty odd years later, and things are no better.

Most people in this country have no idea how much value pure research contributes to our economy. The media constantly ridicules researchers by referring to them as "Boffins" and poking fun at their work. Wake up Britain! We still have world class research going on in our Universities, but for how much longer? This decision is short-termism at it's worst, and will damage our economy in years to come.
John, England

Without the research, teaching standards would slip

David Hazel, UK

Universities are all about both research and teaching. Without the research, teaching standards would slip, as the lecturers would not have the degree of first-hand expertise that they get from doing their own research. I think the problem here is not so much government targets for higher education, but the fact that these days every aspect of life is ruled by accountants, who tend to make short-term financial decisions on matters which should be the subject of long-term planning. UK research has already been the victim of cuts in research grants imposed by the Tories when they were in power. The last thing we need now is to have further reductions in research activity due to organisational problems.
David Hazel, UK

I think it's a great idea. The pupils will become more experienced and responsible in a live environment and if anything fails they always have the excuse of "I'm just a student" to fall back on. I think it will be a magnificent cost saving.
Paul Robert, Ruislip, Middlesex, UK

Sorry, wrong priorities. It's not the number of students in higher education that needs increasing, it's the funding per student that needs addressing. Currently universities are in such a poor financial state they are forced to pass on costs to students that many of them cannot afford to pay, and many potential students don't apply because of the thousands of pounds you commit yourself to paying back later. Why is the government so keen on another 23,000 under-funded places? Why can't it give better funding for the existing student numbers? This is a case where quality is more important than quantity.
Chris Neville-Smith, England

Actually working in the HE sector I am aware of the increasing disparity between post 1992 universities and pre 1992 universities is growing ever larger. Universities should be funded adequately and according to expertise. For example a learning and teaching university should be recognised for that fact so they don't have to compete in the research stakes and therefore miss out on extra funding.
Jonathan Woodhead, UK