Donations to universities are at a record high. Why does half go to Oxbridge?

Probably because they spend more.

A report released yesterday by the National Centre for Social Research shows that during 2011-2012 the UK’s universities received more money from philanthropists than ever before. A total of £774m was given, up from £676m in 2010-2011.

The UK’s top universities are receiving the majority of these gifts, with Oxford and Cambridge alone receiving half of the total amount given last year. It can be no coincidence, however, that the universities that receive the most are also spending the most on fundraising.

Out of the 143 institutions that took part in the survey, which was carried out for The Council for Advancement and Support of Education (CASE) and the Ross Group, Oxbridge and Russell Group universities received an enormous £644 million of the total given, with the remaining 119 universities receiving just £130 million between them. Twenty nine universities received donations of less than £100,000.

While many will attribute this imbalance to the fame and prestige of Oxbridge and Russell group universities — Michael Moritz’s gift of £75 million to Oxford last July makes up a substantial portion of the total given during 2011-2012 — the report suggests that, far from resting on their laurels, the top institutions are working hard to attract funding.

Anyone familiar with the challenges of fundraising knows that you have to spend money to make it. This is borne out by the fact that the universities that are receiving the largest donations are spending the most on attracting philanthropists: out of a total of £79 million spent on fundraising initiatives by the 143 participating institutions, £50 million was spent by Oxbridge and the Russell group universities — just 24 institutions in total.

The remaining 119 institutions spent just £29 million between them on fundraising, which averages out at £244,000 per institution as opposed to just over £2 million for the Russell group universities (including Oxbridge).

Interestingly, the figures also illustrate that while together the Oxbridge and Russell Group Universities made about £12.88 for every £1 spent on fundraising, other universities only made about £4.48 for every £1 spent.

This could be due to scalability, as Oxbridge and Russell Group institutions depend on large fundraising and development offices. Oxford and Cambridge alone employed 310 fundraising staff between them last year, and the Russell group employed 422. The other 119 institutions had only 429 fundraising staff between them – equivalent to 3 per university.

It might seem unfair that a handful of leading universities are receiving the vast majority of philanthropic gifts made to the UK’s higher education sector. But the CASE report suggests that these institutions are not merely cashing in on their fame, but making a sustained effort to attract the attention of private donors; to the UK universities that received little last year, it should therefore serve as a reminder that spending money can make you money.

This article first appeared in Spear's magazine.

Utter punts. Photograph: Getty Images

Mark Nayler is a senior researcher at Spear's magazine.

Getty
Show Hide image

Everyone's forgotten the one issue that united the Labour party

There was a time when Ed Miliband spoke at Momentum rallies.

To label the row over the EU at Thursday’s Labour leadership hustings "fireworks" would be to endow it with more beauty than it deserves. Owen Smith’s dogged condemnation of John McDonnell’s absence from a Remain rally – only for Corbyn to point out that his absence was for medical reasons – ought to go down as a cringing new low point in the campaign. 

Not so long ago, we were all friends. In the course of the EU referendum, almost all of the protagonists in the current debacle spoke alongside each other and praised one another’s efforts. At a local level, party activists of all stripes joined forces. Two days before polling day, Momentum activists helped organise an impromptu rally. Ed Miliband was the headline speaker, and was cheered on. 

If you take the simple version of the debate, Labour’s schism on the EU appears as an aberration of the usual dynamics of left and right in the party. Labour's left is supposedly cheering a position which avoids advocating what it believes in (Remain), because it would lose votes. Meanwhile, the right claims to be dying in a ditch for its principles - no matter what the consequences for Labour’s support in Leave-voting heartlands.

Smith wants to oppose Brexit, even after the vote, on the basis of using every available procedural mechanism. He would whip MPs against the invocation of Article 50, refuse to implement it in government, and run on a manifesto of staying in the EU. For the die-hard Europhiles on the left – and I count myself among these, having run the Another Europe is Possible campaign during the referendum – there ought to be no contest as to who to support. On a result that is so damaging to people’s lives and so rooted in prejudice, how could we ever accept that there is such a thing as a "final word"? 

And yet, on the basic principles that lie behind a progressive version of EU membership, such as freedom of movement, Smith seems to contradict himself. Right at the outset of the Labour leadership, Smith took to Newsnight to express his view – typical of many politicians moulded in the era of New Labour – that Labour needed to “listen” to the views Leave voters by simply adopting them, regardless of whether or not they were right. There were, he said, “too many” immigrants in some parts of the country. 

Unlike Smith, Corbyn has not made his post-Brexit policy a headline feature of the campaign, and it is less widely understood. But it is clear, via the five "red lines" outlined by John McDonnell at the end of June:

  1. full access to the single market
  2. membership of the European investment bank
  3. access to trading rights for financial services sector
  4. full residency rights for all EU nationals in the UK and all UK nationals in the EU, and
  5. the enshrinement of EU protections for workers. 

Without these five conditions being met, Labour would presumably not support the invocation of Article 50. So if, as seems likely, a Conservative government would never meet these five conditions, would there be any real difference in how a Corbyn leadership would handle the situation? 

The fight over the legacy of the referendum is theatrical at times. The mutual mistrust last week played out on the stage in front of a mass televised audience. Some Corbyn supporters jeered Smith as he made the case for another referendum. Smith accused Corbyn of not even voting for Remain, and wouldn’t let it go. But, deep down, the division is really about a difference of emphasis. 

It speaks to a deeper truth about the future of Britain in Europe. During the referendum, the establishment case for Remain floundered because it refused to make the case that unemployment and declining public services were the result of austerity, not immigrants. Being spearheaded by Conservatives, it couldn’t. It fell to the left to offer the ideological counter attack that was needed – and we failed to reach enough people. 

As a result, what we got was a popular mandate for petty racism and a potentially long-term shift to the right in British politics, endangering a whole raft of workplace and legal protections along the way. Now that it has happened, anyone who really hopes to overcome either Brexit, or the meaning of Brexit, has to address the core attitudes and debates at their root. Then as now, it is only clear left-wing ideas – free from any attempt to triangulate towards anti-migrant sentiment– that can have any hope of success. 

The real dividing lines in Labour are not about the EU. If they were, the Eurosceptic Frank Field would not be backing Smith. For all that it may be convenient to deny it, Europe was once, briefly, the issue that united the Labour Party. One day, the issues at stake in the referendum may do so again – but only if Labour consolidates itself around a strategy for convincing people of ideas, rather than simply reaching for procedural levers.