ABSTRACT
After Robbins, Kingsley Amis claimed that ‘more’ would mean ‘worse’ in higher education (Amis, 1960). After Baker, Sir Christopher Ball declared that ‘more means different’ (Ball, 1990). As our preceding analysis suggests, neither got it right. There is no evidence that substantially increased participation has meant a drop in student academic performance, or that Robbins’ famous pool of people ‘with the ability to benefit’ has been used up; what evidence there is (from quality assessment and from degree results) suggests the opposite. Equally, the increased flexibility and responsiveness of the system, ideally creating a ‘customer-friendly’ pattern of participation (by mode of study, method of study, and level) anticipated by Sir Christopher has yet really to emerge (see chapter 7 on modularity). In this chapter we tackle three dimensions of this debate: the worry about falling standards; the concern to maintain and enhance ‘efficiency’; and the real-world as opposed to the claimed flexibility and responsiveness of the system to both student needs and demands.
