Higher Education Marketplace

How much is enough.

Each year state universities appeal to the state legislatures for increased investment from the state. Often the response is "when will the universities be satisfied?" Universities correctly can demonstrate that with more investment they could produce higher quality results; and it will always be true.  The question to be asked is what is the point of diminishing returns. In the for-profit marketplace, the "bottom line" is the bottom line, so there are inherent constraints. When the cost of improved quality of widgets is such that the required selling price causes demand to drop and net revenue to decrease, the for-profit enterprise makes alternative investments. We would argue that any increase in quality of education has a positive effect but the impact of this improvement must be weighed against other public sector investments.  

Since the "bottom line" for universities is less tangible, it is more difficult to determine how much investment is enough.

Perhaps folks can suggest appropriate metrics that would help universities answer that question.

Matt P. recently posted on the issue of student feedback ratings in UK higher education, and posted a link to coverage by the Guardian newspaper. Looking at the survey results, I'm left with many questions, and hope to continue this discussion.

My first comment is that it is crucial to note that no Scottish universities participated in the survey. The survey therefore is not UK-wide and it misses out some of the country's leading institutions, that just happen to be located north of the English border. Another major gap comes from the absence of the universities of Warwick, Oxford and Cambridge.

These latter three are among Britain's most prestigious and successful (they are certainly "popular" with students, if you take a glance at admissions statistics), yet they did not participate in the survey. And this decision not to participate came not from the institutional administration but from the students themselves. At Cambridge, the student union campaigned against participation, largely on the grounds that the survey methods employed were highly invasive (including repeated unsolicited emails and personal telephone calls, including calls to mobiles).