It’s 20 Years Since Polytechnics Became Universities – And There’s No Going Back
Two decades ago, polytechnics became universities, marking a joyous occasion. However, the move was not free from criticism and negativity that often came across as condescension. Nonetheless, ten years ago, things were better. When I moved from a Russell Group University to a “post-1992” academic institution, I did not feel like I was crossing a significant divide. It appeared that the difference between universities and polytechnics was getting less noticeable.
However, the current situation is different. There is now a push for differentiation with the apparent belief that the divisive binary system should not have been abolished. The political and academic establishments appear to have widespread and exponential regret regarding the matter. The post-1992 universities are primarily viewed as ‘business-facing’ institutions that produce vocational disciplines and applied research. However, the concepts of ‘vocational’ and ‘applied’ are not always simple.
Even a Labour MP has advised the need to recreate institutions like the polytechnics, so why do former polytechnics fail to gain full acceptance? Nobody disputes the standing of Surrey or Bath as significant universities just because they were Colleges of Advanced Technology (CATs). Their ongoing commitment to world-class technology and engineering means that people do not question them. However, the reasons behind the non-acceptance of the polytechnics seem to be two-fold.
Firstly, the post-1992 universities have delivered mass higher education. They have expanded student numbers, including those from middle England, working-class homes, and ethnic minorities. Powerful groups are of the opinion that university education should only be available to the socially privileged and economically successful.
Secondly, the upgrading of polytechnics happened during a time when inequality was increasing, which went against the Thatcherite ‘zeitgeist.’ The abolition of the binary system was contrary to what was going on in Britain. This does not apply to the establishment of the earlier wave of universities, such as Sussex, York, Warwick, and other so-called Shakespearean institutions. The upgrading of the CATs corresponds with the zenith of the welfare state and meshes with the zeitgeist.
Increasing inequality is a concern, even in the current era. More unequal societies generate more anxiety, and everyone is affected by the insecurity they create. The instinctive desire to “pull up the drawbridge” to restore order in the absence of security might have been inevitable. The dismantling of university solidarity in favor of the “market” has made matters worse. These policies create winners and losers, much like in the Premier League, and absolute gains are represented as comparative losses.
Regardless, the post-1992 universities have opened up higher education, and this change cannot be reversed. Additionally, two key facts worth noting include the fact that the students joining universities this year were not born when the binary system was abandoned, rendering it irrelevant to them. Also, the “pre-1992 universities” have become like the former polytechnics over the past two decades. The socially-engaged and entrepreneurial University that has become a model for 21st-century higher education with a handful of world-class research institutions is their monument.
