The failure of vice-chancellors to fight for more funding comes as no surprise. The way they have squeezed staff salaries and hounded students for debt suggests they are more intent on reducing government spending.
If Sir Howard Newby sees no point in pressing for more cash, why did he commission business consultants London Economics and Sir William Taylor to provide options for future funding? How much did these reports cost and who footed the bill?
At the end of last year, you opined that the challenge for UUK was to achieve agreement on a single policy option and that failure would leave the new brand with the same problems as the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. So what was the point of wasting our money on the new stationery?
Pat Brady
Senior lecturer
London Guildhall University