With the UK government¡¯s spending review last week offering no solutions to the university funding crisis, vice-chancellors face even more difficult decisions about how to balance their books.

Spooked by the twin threats of Putin abroad and Reform UK at home, Labour has chosen to but not higher education. The has come back to bite us.

The Office for Students says nearly three-quarters of English higher education providers face a deficit next year and the national insurance hike, announced in the chancellor¡¯s Autumn Statement, has made wage bills an obvious target for cost savings. Predictions of 10,000 job losses this academic year may prove to be an underestimate, with some universities pushing ahead with compulsory academic redundancies, having eked all they can out of voluntary schemes.

Managers insist that unless urgent cuts are made, some higher education providers will cease to be financially viable. Yet critics claim that they : surplus cash from the boom years should have been invested wisely, rather than being spent on expensive new buildings and expanded senior management structures (and pay) ¨C on the unlikely assumption that domestic tuition fees would keep pace with costs and overseas student numbers would rise indefinitely.

ÍøÆØÃÅ

That anger is reflected in the wave of industrial action that is sweeping the sector as unions argue that other cost-saving measures should be attempted before redundancies. These include pruning executive pay, reviewing capital expenditure, selling assets, drawing on reserves or renegotiating debts.

Moreover, there is a crucial parameter that typically gets overlooked in universities¡¯ cost-benefit calculations precisely because it is hard to figure reliably in a spreadsheet ¨C and that is reputation.

ÍøÆØÃÅ

Reputation could be said to amount to the academic and wider community¡¯s shared knowledge about institutional cultures and contributions over time. In that sense, reputation is very intangible and as easy to overlook as it is to lose. But as manifested in numerous league tables, reputation matters a lot to vice-chancellors. Whether indicating research prowess, teaching quality, impact, student satisfaction or an agglomeration of many factors, these metrics are vital for marketing and student recruitment.

Furthermore, community perceptions of academic institutions are not so abstract when they translate into public condemnations by well-known figures. Take Cardiff University, which earlier this year announced and close a number of departments. One of those was its School of Music, but when that decision was criticised by a chorus of famous musicians, including Ed Sheeran, Stormzy and Elton John, management walked back the decision.

Perhaps the university also had one eye on the global student market. Cardiff¡¯s cuts were widely reported in , and this matters as the number of Indian students who have opted for Wales since

Another vulnerable institution facing financial shortfalls is my own, Newcastle University, where the threat of compulsory redundancies has led to an extended period of industrial action.

ÍøÆØÃÅ

Plans to cut a projected budget deficit of ?20 million by deleting 300 jobs have been defended by management as vital to ¡°safeguard our long-term future¡±. But, again, reputational risk abounds. This can be seen in a recent University and College Union petition, whose call for Newcastle¡¯s management to ¡°¡± has so far been endorsed by 6,500 people from over 70 countries. A recurring theme in signatories¡¯ comments is the reputational damage that these cuts risk causing.

For example, Catherine, an academic at the University of Exeter, wrote that given the uncertainty over jobs, she ¡°will not be urging potential master¡¯s or PhD students to consider Newcastle¡± and will reconsider research collaborations ¡°especially when building partnerships for large grant applications¡±. Further afield, Carl Dahlman, of the University of South Carolina, described the redundancies as ¡°unwise¡±, undermining ¡°years of hard-won reputational excellence¡±.

Students report similar concerns. Emily, a research student about to graduate, worries about ¡°the reputation of my own professional certification¡±, while Amber ¡°will not recommend Newcastle University to anyone¡­as the quality of education is not guaranteed¡±.

The petition has also caught the attention of public figures. Rowan Williams, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, is ¡°deeply concerned not just by the substance of the redundancy proposals but by the methods being used¡±, while Philip Webster, former political editor of The Times, urges Newcastle to consider ¡°other, less painful ways of making savings¡± than by sacking academics, who he describes as ¡°the lifeblood of our university sector¡±.

ÍøÆØÃÅ

It is impossible to calculate the financial impact that such reputational damage will have on universities in terms of reduced student recruitment and research income. But it would be unwise to conclude that because it is not countable, it does not count. Some weaker institutions may struggle to recover from it.

Many universities clearly need to find ways to reduce their costs; bankruptcy is not good for reputations either. But as well as inflicting pain and impoverishing academic offerings, a hard-line approach to staff redundancies may eventually cost them more money than they will save in the short term.

ÍøÆØÃÅ

is a professor of political geography at Newcastle University.