The expansion of higher education since the 1960s in the USA and Britain has arguably produced the most far‐reaching effects of any post‐war social movement. As a result, both countries have become college or graduate societies. In both countries funding and how the funding is used is now a contentious issue, and politicians have high ambitions for education: increased participation, enhancement of the skill base, world class research and social inclusion, to name just a few of their priorities. Universities in both countries, now subject to the forces of managerialism and market forces, are required to meet these core goals.
Smith’s book (especially for Britain) is a much needed and timely contribution to the debate. In short, this is an important book. It is the most successful attempt so far to conceptualise the post‐war development of higher education in relation to the influence of market forces. Considerable skill is demonstrated in the organisation and argument of this book, which undertakes an analysis of the misapplication of market principles to the US system of higher education. The three‐fold treatment of the problem promises and delivers a comprehensive critical review. Smith highlights the major issues and concepts in the field and avoids the danger of superficiality that is only too common in such books. The book consists of ten chapters divided into three sections; sharp insight into the issues is demonstrated in each section, demonstrating a high level of scholarship and judgement. The bibliography is exemplary.
Academics and university administrators in Britain should not be misled by the title of this book. As we come to terms with the upgrading of the polytechnics to “new” universities, the issues of types of fees, loans and non‐taxpayer sources to supplement government investment are a few of the problems that we have to contend with. There are many pitfalls to be avoided if we are to reap the promises of the reform of our own system of higher education. Smith’s book is an essential read if we do not want to be looking for ladders. Now that the report commissioned by the vice‐chancellors of the Russell Group of leading research universities has been published, those of us in Britain would do well to be ordering Smith’s book.
