OU must look ahead

S

Steve Hill (https://www.timeshighereducation.com/comment/letters-ou-must-look-ahead) supplies no reassurance whatsoever to Ormond Simpson (https://www.timeshighereducation.com/comment/letters-nothing-personal) or to the other correspondent (https://www.timeshighereducation.com/comment/letters-openly-self-seeking), and is evasive. Hackneyed phrases such as ‘we are not complacent’; ‘we acknowledge that we can always improve’; ‘a determination to put the interests of students at the centre of all we do’, etc. along with yet another statement of the obvious, the OU’s commitment to ‘equal access to all’, will not fill anyone at the OU with confidence. Hill is a member of the OU’s VCE and, as such, should be able to demonstrate some intellectual grip of the problems raised. These are the OU's appalling retention which is unacceptable in the age of fee-loans, and the steps moving the OU away from the personal support for students’ learning given by tutors. Neither of correspondents were ‘harking back to a mythical golden age in HE’ nor disputing that the OU should reject a principle of ‘equal access to all’ and it is simply disingenuous to suggest they were. Perhaps he could simply address the question: how can a University in which tens of thousands of students drop out in their first year of study and about 15% of students complete a qualification be regarded as ‘making a real difference to people’s lives’ or enhancing their ‘social mobility’? The OU is not the only University with a large WP/low PEQ population. Completion rates at other universities for part-time and socially disadvantaged students are far better. The facts remain, and it’s of note that Hill has not disabused us of them, that the OU’s recruitment strategy is irresponsible: a majority of students enrol online over 95% of whom pay on a student fee-loan, with no checks that they have the skills, competencies and time commitment to embark on degree level study. Perhaps the THE's reporters can investigate the 'ambitious' programme to reshape the OU for its second 50 years but it will hardly live up to this ambitiousness if doesn’t face its Achilles heel on behalf of the vast majority of its students whose aim is to complete a degree.