A?strong “do as I say, not as I do” vibe was thrumming down the line from wherever Gavin Williamson was holed up for his speech to the Universities UK conference.
In a whistle-stop tour of his greatest hits,?in what proved to be his last turn as?education secretary before he was sacked in this week's reshuffle, he took universities to task for allegedly clinging to online teaching as the new term begins.
With some half-hearted caveats about the value that a mixed approach could bring, he told the vice-chancellors – almost all of whom had turned up in person – that he “does not expect to see online learning used as a cost-cutting measure”, and that they should get on with a return to face-to-face provision wherever possible.
The irony that Williamson delivered this rebuke remotely was not lost on anyone – even he acknowledged it, claiming weakly that he would much rather be at the event in person.
It was indicative of the weird disconnect and double standards evident in much of the tension between government and universities.
Among his many other gripes, Williamson told vice-chancellors (who, remember, are constantly being told they must do more to protect freedom of speech) that if they “allowed” debates about statues and microaggressions to dominate on campus, they “do nothing but undermine public confidence” and “damage the sector”.
It may have struck those in the room as a bit rich that someone straddling so many bandwagons was accusing them of “pursuing a divisive agenda”.
The new UUK president, Steve West, vice-chancellor of the University of the West of England, had tried valiantly to pre-empt the inevitable, pointing out in his introductory remarks that “political sideshows” detracted from universities’ ability to help the government in its efforts to rebuild and recover from the damage caused by the pandemic, but to no avail.
The most substantive theme of Williamson’s speech was the focus that he and the government are putting on what they call quality.
He accused “some” (he did not say who) of “clinging to the myth that the quality of a course or degree makes no difference to a student’s outcomes”, which he said was in fact to “say you don’t believe in education”.
And he described as “simply unacceptable” the proportion of graduates at certain institutions who do?not go on to graduate-level jobs.
The question on vice-chancellors’ lips will have been what this jaundiced view means when it comes to this autumn’s comprehensive spending review – which it was confirmed last week will be a three-year settlement, putting to rest fears that it might focus on just a single year.
Liz Barnes, the outgoing vice-chancellor of Staffordshire University, was brave enough to ask it, and Williamson’s response was to talk again about “quality” as the driving principle.
“I do recognise that requires funding,” he said, before adding that there was a “quid pro quo”: that universities must help deal with the "gaps the country has in terms of its economy”.
Quite what that tells us about how the government sees “quality” is open to interpretation, but Jonathan Simons, a director at the well-connected political consultancy Public First, saw a hint in Williamson’s suggestion that the government would proceed with a consultation on minimum entry requirements about the likely response to the Augar review on university fees and funding, which is also due this autumn.
His prediction was that “the cost-saving element of the Augar package will be around minimum entry requirements (based on level 2 qualifications), not fees”.
The “Kremlinology” of such a decision, he said, was that the Treasury wants a fee cut, “but would settle for fewer students because that also drops cost. Whitehall also thinks (most) of the sector would prefer minimum entry requirements to a fee cut, and it allows for a narrative of quality first and high-quality technical alternatives.”
In our news pages, we take a closer look at the role of the Treasury in this policy debate, talking to former education secretary Justine Greening, who as a champion of social mobility warned that a long-held Treasury view that too many young people go to university risks “consigning a lot of talent to the dustbin”.
A final irony is whether Williamson’s own exam results would have secured a university place in a grade-restricted future; we shall have to guess. He has, of course, forgotten what they were.