The early 1960s saw the biggest transformation of English higher education of the past hundred years. It is only matched by the break-up of the Oxbridge monopoly and the early Victorian reforms. It will be forever associated with the name of Lionel Robbins, whose great report came out in November 1963: he is for universities what Beveridge is for social security. His report exuded such authority and was associated with such a surge in the number of universities and of students that Robbins has given his name to key decisions which had already been taken even before he put pen to paper. In the 1950s Britain’s twenty-five universities received their funding from fees, endowments (invested in Government bonds which had largely lost their value because of inflation since the First World War), and ‘deficit funding’ from the University Grants Committee, which was a polite name for subsidies covering their losses. The UGC had been established in 1919 and was the responsibility not of the Education Department but the Treasury, which was proud to fund these great national institutions directly. Like museums and art galleries, higher education was rarefied cultural preservation for a small elite. Public spending on higher education was less than the subsidy for the price of eggs. By 1962 there were 118,000 full-time university students together with 55,000 in teacher training and 43,000 in further education colleges. This total of 216,000 full-time higher education students broadly matches the number of academics now. Young men did not go off to university—they were conscripted into the army. The annual university intake of around 50,000 young people a year was substantially less than the 150,000 a year doing National Service. The last conscript left the army in the year Robbins was published. Reversing the balance between those two very different routes to adulthood was to change Britain. It is one of the many profound differences between the baby boomers and the generation that came before them. Just over half of students were ‘county scholars’ receiving scholarships for fees and living costs from their own local authority on terms decided by each council.
The learning context within technical and further education colleges as perceived by apprentices and their workplace supervisors
