On Thursday, The Student sat down with The University of Edinburgh’s Principal and Vice Chancellor Peter Mathieson to discuss financial problems at the University. Industrial action, growing class sizes, and a general sense of despondency amongst staff have become an unavoidable part of university life. Controversial infrastructure projects sit in sharp contrast to staff redundancies and strikes, leaving questions about the future of the institution.
Mathieson took on the role of Principal and Vice Chancellor in 2018. On what he’s proud of, he feels “more likely to come up with a list of negatives than [he is] a list of positives” — significant achievements include investment in The Nucleus Building, and winning a Queen Elizabeth Prize for Education, though he remarked this had “nothing to do with [him].”
A medic by trade, Mathieson says he is “never happier than when I’m in a hospital,” and feels that this scientific background informs his approach to administrative work: “I try to continue to think as a physician, […] in kind of diagnostic and therapeutic terms.”
Higher education — a political priority?
On the place of higher education within the wider political sphere, he is glad to see mainstream political debate around funding, including more debate in Scotland “largely because of what’s happened at the University of Dundee.” Considering the upcoming Holyrood elections, Mathieson would like to see “political priority [given] to the sustainability of universities, because universities are one of Scotland’s jewels in its crown.”
Last month, Mathieson spoke on Scotcast about how he felt that the Scottish government should look into alternative funding models for Scottish students. Asked about this, he said: “I always make it very clear that I’m not necessarily an advocate of tuition fees [..] I don’t think I would have gone to university had I had to find money.”
“The current system of inadequate funding for a large number of places is not sustainable.
“One option is tuition fees. One option is a graduate contribution of some sort. Another option is that the government makes it a bigger priority and puts more money into it. Those are political choices that the next government will have to make. But doing nothing is not an option.”
Spending, Salaries and Sacrifices
The University’s extensive annual financial report, which came out last week, sets out the case for infrastructure investment and staff redundancies.
The Joint Unions Finance Working Group, in reaction to this report, argues that choices made by the Senior Leadership Team (SLT) around capital spending programmes on infrastructure contributed to the university’s financial struggles. The depreciation associated with this spending is a specific point of contention from the unions, who argue: “senior management has never owned up to their role in creating the pressures.”
“Most obvious is the spiralling depreciation costs, on which the VC’s silence is deafening.”
In short, the finance report alleges a 0.4 per cent gap between income growth and expenditure growth over the last year, which amounts to £5.7m in practice. 11 members of the University’s management earn £2.5m between them, a significant portion of the shortfall which needs to be bridged in order to correct the gap between expenditure and income.
Mathieson was more keen to focus on the £140m savings targets announced last year.
In his view, any pay cut “would be a gesture,” with little tangible impact on the University’s finances.
However, these earnings stand in sharp contrast to the redundancies, which could damage the experience of students. When pushed on this point, Mathieson was defensive: “Would you advocate not paying the senior team anything?”
“Everything we’re doing, everything we can to try and avoid that being the case, so that the ways we’re looking at reshaping the staff base, and reshaping the offer, are all designed to not only preserve the student experience, but actually to enhance it.
Though he “genuinely did not know” his salary when asked by Douglas Ross at a select committee last June, Mathieson now does know “because I went home and looked at my P60 after that,” which led him to the figure “£404,000” (though it might be noted that he told The Student in 2024 that he is paid £418,000). Ultimately, “He [Ross] quoted a higher figure, but it’s immaterial. It’s a high salary. I know that.”
Staff Redundancies
Mathieson was keen to highlight the focus on voluntary, rather than compulsory redundancies, “very much a genuine commitment.”
“The reality is, the staff of the university has grown by about two and a half thousand in the last three or four years,” which “we had to put a stop to because we couldn’t afford it.” Adding that “we’re now facing the reality that in order to make ourselves sustainable again, we do need to reduce our expenditure,” and with “60 per cent of our expenditure […] on staff,” this is the obvious site for budget cuts to be made. These recruitment drives were decisions taken under Mathieson’s SLT, “a kind of reaction to the pandemic.”
In response to evidence that the University had laid off a staff member, described by their own students as someone who had “significantly elevated [their University experience] by the excellence quality of teaching and engagement,” Mathieson repeatedly stated that he deeply cares about the student experience.
However, in the current Academic Contribution Framework, a document circulated internally to teaching staff, it is explicitly stated that, to assess staff performance there is “no differentiation based on student feedback or awarding outcomes,” while “timetabled hours for lecturing, tutorials, practicals or student placement supervision” is.
When confronted with this reality, Mathieson argued that “there’s a danger that we only measure the things which are easy to measure instead of the things we’d really like to measure” and cited plans to reform this Academic Contribution Framework to address this incomplete approach to assessing teaching performance. According to Mathieson, a new document is currently in the process of being drafted that “would allow assessment of quality, including student feedback” to be taken into consideration about teaching performance. Why this measure to factor in teaching performance was not introduced before announcing redundancies is a question that remains unanswered by the SLT.
The gap between supposed commitment to excellent teaching standards, and the reality of students’ and staff’s everyday experience, has led to significant disgruntlement among students.
Students Have Their Say
Many students interviewed concluded that the money they were paying for university fees was not worth it. International students argued that the fees were “too high for the quality” of teaching, claiming that “we shouldn’t do everything self-taught.” Other UK students said that they did not feel like their fees were worthwhile.
There was a sense that different degree subjects were affected to differing levels. Medicine and Nursing students, although aware of the problems confronted by other schools, said their university experience had remained largely unaffected.
Humanities students acknowledged the impact of staff redundancies most. One remarked that the “quality of teaching and tutorials are way worse than [they] expected,” and another argued that “budget cuts really affected SPS.” All humanities students interviewed noted that they were surprised by the lack of contact hours at University.
Some students noted that strikes had affected their teaching quality, however, they were often quick to reiterate their support for striking staff. One interviewee remarked “obviously I don’t think we should cross the picket line,” while another argued that they were in support of strikes “if it means that staff get better pay and better conditions.”
This led some students, when asked if they feel that the University cares about them, to say that “they try to frame it as such,” but in reality they do not feel cared for. However, this interviewee also stated that they think their professors care.
These opinions seemed to largely reflect the collapse of student satisfaction, as recorded by the National Student Survey. According to the Complete University Guide, the university ranked 128 out of 130 on student satisfaction this year, with a score of 73 per cent.
When asked about this, Mathieson remarked that he was “very concerned that there are students that feel that their educational experience will be impacted by their financial situation,” subsequently arguing that the “the ways we’re looking at reshaping the staff base […] are all designed to, not only preserve the student experience, but actually to enhance it.”
However, it is unclear how the current approach enhances the student experience. Mathieson did not share concrete details about how measures taken to “reshap(e) the staff base” tangibly improved the student experience.
There is a significant gap in the interpretation of the University’s challenges. The UCU, and some students that we spoke to, claim that there is a tension between excessive spending on infrastructure and teaching quality. However, Mathieson argues that infrastructure spending is essential to revitalise the university.
“I don’t agree with that … I think you walk around the Futures Institute, you see dozens of students in there studying.”
“It is not being done as a vanity project. It’s been done to improve the experience that people have using it. The other point I’d make…. is that… the financial challenges that we face, are not explained by the money we’ve spent on our estate.”
Where is the University going?
The Joint Unions’ report clarifies the financial risks of infrastructure spending, especially due to the depreciation that comes with it. This speaks to a wider point around the marketisation of universities, and who these projects are aimed at serving. Expansive infrastructure projects can improve the university’s image and attract prospective students, whilst not producing substantive educational improvements.
There is an overarching uncertainty about the direction of the university and the tension between educational and monetary goals, something attested to by staff. One lecturer remarked that there was a gap between “function and rhetoric,” claiming that the university is “pissing money up the walls.”
Another spoke of challenges to the “core mission of education and research”:
“Unfortunately, financial considerations appear to be more important to senior management than sustaining that core mission. Poor planning, banking on endless growth and excessive capital spending have created a claimed ‘financial crisis’ for which staff and students are paying the price.”
Mathieson argues “it’s responsible leadership to think about the future,” and that “the University of Edinburgh is more or less in command of its own destiny.”
“We’re keen on making the experience for our current students and stuff, as good as it can be, but we also have to think about the longer term, so that people like you in generations to come can still benefit from everything that the University of Edinburgh can offer.”
Mathieson, however, failed to elaborate on precisely how these educational goals would be achieved, something suggestive of the vague communication which staff highlighted to us.
Again, Mathieson disputes this: “There hasn’t been any lack of communication, but we recognise that the messages that we’ve been giving are not popular. And people don’t necessarily want to receive unpopular messages.”
Our interview, then, revealed little common ground between the position of staff and the stance of the University leadership. Mathieson was quick to push back against the feelings of the Joint Unions, maintaining the University’s presentation of events as set out in their financial report, and many of the staff concerns put to him about communication and teaching standards were refuted. Ultimately, many of the fundamental contradictions of the university’s positions, regarding the conflicts between staff and leadership, between infrastructure and teaching, and between education and economics, remain unresolved.
Image via Kathryn Darcus