ABSTRACT
In essence, HEIs have, on the one hand, had to become more accountable for the way they manage their affairs while, on the other, been obliged to cater to the needs of a mass student clientele, rather than those of a privileged few. While this transition in role and function has been neither smooth nor uncontested, HEIs have, by and large, successfully managed to do ‘more’ (that is, teach more students) with ‘less’ (fewer resources) while simultaneously maintaining ‘quality’. In the UK for example, HEIs have accommodated a tripling of student numbers over the past 25 years while assimilating a 50 per cent reduction in the unit of public funding per student. More than that, HEIs have maintained their international standing in research while continuing to produce first-degree graduates quickly and with low drop-out rates compared to other countries (NAO, 2007; Eastwood, 2008). Universities, then, can quite rightly be proud of their collective achievement. Once perceived as a drain on the public purse, they are increasingly recognized as key contributors to wealth creation and economic well-being.
