Is there, or should there be, any difference between universities and other institutions of post-school higher or further education?

Or is it all a matter of intellectual snobbery and academic elitism, as Bill Brown suggests (Letters, June 25)? As a retired university academic I believe there is a difference, but I also believe that the universities are largely to blame for not defining what they do and what the differences are. I suggest that the fundamental difference is that in universities students are (or ought to be) taught by teachers who are actively engaged in research in their particular disciplines. This means that they are not simply recycling received ideas, since university teaching is (or ought to be) always characterised by a readiness to challenge or critique received ideas by reviewing the evidence. You can only do this productively when you know what the evidence is and have mastered it.

If they are to do their job, universities have to remain independent of politicians, lobby-groups, and revisers of the curriculum, since the disinterested pursuit of knowledge for its own sake has to be their primary objective. Further education more generally has broader objectives, many of which the universities undoubtedly share - chiefly careers training and development, but also the range of mental processes that Bill Brown outlines, which are surely common to all education. Indeed it is precisely because "academic" study often produces the kinds of critical intelligence in its graduates that can be very useful to employers and to the world at large that universities have been under increasing pressure, in my lifetime, to narrow their role to these objectives, or to the training of potential employees in established types of expertise and areas of knowledge.

Only universities, however, are likely to produce the kind of graduate who knows not only how to do things, but also why things are done the way they are in any metier, with the instinct to question, innovate and improve on it. It is the close connection between teaching and research which encourages this understanding that all knowledge is provisional, all ideas have histories, and that you have to know your subject thoroughly before you can improve or develop it. Even though as a university teacher one is seldom (or only at postgraduate level) just teaching one's own research, it is only when you have done some original, peer-reviewed research that it becomes natural to teach with this awareness. Most time, even in universities, is necessarily spent teaching other people's ideas, but it is only when you have published research which has contributed to your field of study that you can really show students what the state of the art is which they are learning to practise. When, or if, the day comes when FE teachers are required to produce, and publish, original research of their own, then we shall be able to deconstruct the allegedly "contrived" distinctions which Mr Brown finds in Scottish post-school education. Until then, however, our universities need to insist on their independence and freedom of teaching and research from political pressures. And until then let the discussion about the different aims, and names, of post-school education in the 21st century in Scotland continue. We might even be able to show other parts of the world something relevant, given the Scottish inheritance of what George Davie taught us to call the "democratic intellect": other nations have the same issues.

Michael Bath (Emeritus Professor, University of Strathclyde),

6 Roman Road,

Balfron.

The universities in Scotland have been much in the news recently with regard to access arrangements ("University targeting 12,000 children in new access drive", The Herald, June 23) and how they are feeling threatened by the activities of government ministers ("Universities 'feel threatened'", The Herald, June 24).

There is another weighty matter, in relation to these institutions, which has not been sufficiently aired and debated. By that, I mean the continuance of the current arrangements for payment in Scotland of fees by English, Northern Irish, and Welsh students, should Scotland become independent and succeed in remaining part of the EU. Substantial income is realised by Scottish universities from the payments coming from such students.

The proposed maintenance of the SNP policy of charging students from the rest of the UK, come independence and continued membership of the EU, has already been questioned and could at some time in the future bring action from the EU on the basis that such a policy is discriminatory. It has been reported that an education minister in Wales has observed that he would have to give consideration to a court challenge if post-independence the Scottish Government persisted in charging Welsh students.

The other important issue arising , in this regard, is that should the SNP free university tuition policy be adhered to after independence, then it is obvious that many students from the rest of the UK, including high-fee-charging England, will seek to pursue their university futures in Scotland, should averments as to its discriminatory nature be upheld. One is led to ponder -what then ?

No doubt those responsible for the running of this extremely important sector of our national life have this under consideration.

Ian W Thomson,

38 Kirkintilloch Road,

Lenzie.