Glen O'Hara @gsoh31 · 1h Student visas are already down nearly 30%, and I would say between 10 and 20 universities are going to get into deep trouble. Another 10 to 20 will follow rapidly. Imagine sending a further signal that you want the numbers down... (1/2)
We could do with a fundamental restructuring of FE in this county. Clearly I don’t want there to be a collapse of institutions (that serves no-one) but we could do with moving away from the New Labour model of degrees for all.
All want degrees (or many do). It's aspirational, which is supposed to be good. People with degrees, including many in this board, saying other people shouldn't have them is a poor look.
But yes higher education does need restructuring. To be specific undergraduate education needs to be a lot, lot cheaper. Education factories in other words, efficiency two year degrees, longer semesters and more part time degrees. Anyone who starts talking about Oxbridge, world rankings etc is self serving
Perhaps “degrees for all” was a bad choice of words. I believe that we need to look at making sure all qualifications are high quality and that everyone has the chance to access them. Where I am not convinced, is that a university degree in the traditional academic sense is appropriate for all trades, professions and wants/needs of young people. We need to move away from elitist interpretations of universities needing to be the places to go to get on in life, and see that there is better careers advice and more flexible pathways for the future workforce.
I agree with everything you say but that doesn't address the affordability issue. The problem is we can't afford 50% of young people going to university at current costs and prices. Employability is fine. In general graduates can find jobs more easily than non graduates. The cost isn't fine.
So that gives us three choices I think:
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
3 seems obviously the right answer to me but that will need radical changes to universities. They need become Premier Inns (where the bed and shower are better anyway) and no longer pretend to be the Savoy.
I am taking about undergraduate education. Postgraduate is a different requirement entirely.
If we compare to Ireland then the statistics I can find most easily are that, in 2022, 63% of Irish 25-34 year olds had a third level education. And that's in a country where the agricultural sector still makes up about a tenth of the economy.
It's kinda mind-boggling that the 50% target for university is still a matter of debate (although, of course, the great weakness in Britain is that an academic degree is seen as the only third level education worth having).
Britain needs an educated workforce.
I think Ireland provides third level education at a lower cost per student than the UK. Certainly used to be the case.
A lot of Irish students will go to the university in the nearest city which I think is one aspect which helps to reduce costs.
Matera is quite quite magical at night. Never been anywhere like it. And I’ve been EVERYWHERE
OK I am going. I love inland Sicily and this sounds a match. Internet says check out the Sassi caves.
I love Sicily but - honestly? - i reckon Puglia and southern Basicliata possibly beats it. Or at least it is close. Expect lots of litter, graffiti, bleak countryside, stretches of hideous industry, often derelict. Ie - just like Sicily
And yet at its best Puglia is incredible. The Gargano, Lecce, Mont Sant Angelo. Polignano (touristy like Taormina), Otranto (ditto), and then you have Gallipoli and Taranto (oh my!), and now Gravino, Altamura and finally Matera which is like nowhere on earth. Stay overnight!
The food is generally world class. the wine is great. the people are super friendly. And often you get a sense of true discovery (which you don’t in Sicily). Eg Altamura. Not even mentioned in any of my guidebooks apart from the Neanderthal/focaccia references in passing, yet a jewel of a medieval city in its core
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31 · 1h Student visas are already down nearly 30%, and I would say between 10 and 20 universities are going to get into deep trouble. Another 10 to 20 will follow rapidly. Imagine sending a further signal that you want the numbers down... (1/2)
We could do with a fundamental restructuring of FE in this county. Clearly I don’t want there to be a collapse of institutions (that serves no-one) but we could do with moving away from the New Labour model of degrees for all.
All want degrees (or many do). It's aspirational, which is supposed to be good. People with degrees, including many in this board, saying other people shouldn't have them is a poor look.
But yes higher education does need restructuring. To be specific undergraduate education needs to be a lot, lot cheaper. Education factories in other words, efficiency two year degrees, longer semesters and more part time degrees. Anyone who starts talking about Oxbridge, world rankings etc is self serving
Perhaps “degrees for all” was a bad choice of words. I believe that we need to look at making sure all qualifications are high quality and that everyone has the chance to access them. Where I am not convinced, is that a university degree in the traditional academic sense is appropriate for all trades, professions and wants/needs of young people. We need to move away from elitist interpretations of universities needing to be the places to go to get on in life, and see that there is better careers advice and more flexible pathways for the future workforce.
I agree with everything you say but that doesn't address the affordability issue. The problem is we can't afford 50% of young people going to university at current costs and prices. Employability is fine. In general graduates can find jobs more easily than non graduates. The cost isn't fine.
So that gives us three choices I think:
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
3 seems obviously the right answer to me but that will need radical changes to universities. They need become Premier Inns (where the bed and shower are better anyway) and no longer pretend to be the Savoy.
I am taking about undergraduate education. Postgraduate is a different requirement entirely.
As I was saying...
Ex-ministers warn UK universities will go bust without higher fees or funding: Vice-chancellors suggest fee rise of £2,000 to £3,500 a year, but others say that is ‘politically impossible’
Vice-chancellors and former ministers are warning that the cash crisis facing universities is so serious that the next government will have to urgently raise tuition fees or increase funding to avoid bankruptcies within two years.
They said the state of university finances was more dire than revealed in last week’s report by the Office for Students, which forecast 40% of England’s universities would end this year in the red.
Vice-chancellors said that increases of between £2,000 to £3,500 a year for each student would be needed.
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31 · 1h Student visas are already down nearly 30%, and I would say between 10 and 20 universities are going to get into deep trouble. Another 10 to 20 will follow rapidly. Imagine sending a further signal that you want the numbers down... (1/2)
We could do with a fundamental restructuring of FE in this county. Clearly I don’t want there to be a collapse of institutions (that serves no-one) but we could do with moving away from the New Labour model of degrees for all.
All want degrees (or many do). It's aspirational, which is supposed to be good. People with degrees, including many in this board, saying other people shouldn't have them is a poor look.
But yes higher education does need restructuring. To be specific undergraduate education needs to be a lot, lot cheaper. Education factories in other words, efficiency two year degrees, longer semesters and more part time degrees. Anyone who starts talking about Oxbridge, world rankings etc is self serving
Perhaps “degrees for all” was a bad choice of words. I believe that we need to look at making sure all qualifications are high quality and that everyone has the chance to access them. Where I am not convinced, is that a university degree in the traditional academic sense is appropriate for all trades, professions and wants/needs of young people. We need to move away from elitist interpretations of universities needing to be the places to go to get on in life, and see that there is better careers advice and more flexible pathways for the future workforce.
I agree with everything you say but that doesn't address the affordability issue. The problem is we can't afford 50% of young people going to university at current costs and prices. Employability is fine. In general graduates can find jobs more easily than non graduates. The cost isn't fine.
So that gives us three choices I think:
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
3 seems obviously the right answer to me but that will need radical changes to universities. They need become Premier Inns (where the bed and shower are better anyway) and no longer pretend to be the Savoy.
I am taking about undergraduate education. Postgraduate is a different requirement entirely.
As I was saying...
Ex-ministers warn UK universities will go bust without higher fees or funding: Vice-chancellors suggest fee rise of £2,000 to £3,500 a year, but others say that is ‘politically impossible’
Vice-chancellors and former ministers are warning that the cash crisis facing universities is so serious that the next government will have to urgently raise tuition fees or increase funding to avoid bankruptcies within two years.
They said the state of university finances was more dire than revealed in last week’s report by the Office for Students, which forecast 40% of England’s universities would end this year in the red.
Vice-chancellors said that increases of between £2,000 to £3,500 a year for each student would be needed.
Matera is quite quite magical at night. Never been anywhere like it. And I’ve been EVERYWHERE
OK I am going. I love inland Sicily and this sounds a match. Internet says check out the Sassi caves.
I love Sicily but - honestly? - i reckon Puglia and southern Basicliata possibly beats it. Or at least it is close. Expect lots of litter, graffiti, bleak countryside, stretches of hideous industry, often derelict. Ie - just like Sicily
And yet at its best Puglia is incredible. The Gargano, Lecce, Mont Sant Angelo. Polignano (touristy like Taormina), Otranto (ditto), and then you have Gallipoli and Taranto (oh my!), and now Gravino, Altamura and finally Matera which is like nowhere on earth. Stay overnight!
The food is generally world class. the wine is great. the people are super friendly. And often you get a sense of true discovery (which you don’t in Sicily). Eg Altamura. Not even mentioned in any of my guidebooks apart from the Neanderthal/focaccia references in passing, yet a jewel of a medieval city in its core
Fab
Let's hope your stalker SeanT doesn't start megaphoning it and ruin it for everyone.
Matera is quite quite magical at night. Never been anywhere like it. And I’ve been EVERYWHERE
OK I am going. I love inland Sicily and this sounds a match. Internet says check out the Sassi caves.
I love Sicily but - honestly? - i reckon Puglia and southern Basicliata possibly beats it. Or at least it is close. Expect lots of litter, graffiti, bleak countryside, stretches of hideous industry, often derelict. Ie - just like Sicily
And yet at its best Puglia is incredible. The Gargano, Lecce, Mont Sant Angelo. Polignano (touristy like Taormina), Otranto (ditto), and then you have Gallipoli and Taranto (oh my!), and now Gravino, Altamura and finally Matera which is like nowhere on earth. Stay overnight!
The food is generally world class. the wine is great. the people are super friendly. And often you get a sense of true discovery (which you don’t in Sicily). Eg Altamura. Not even mentioned in any of my guidebooks apart from the Neanderthal/focaccia references in passing, yet a jewel of a medieval city in its core
Fab
Let's hope your stalker SeanT doesn't start megaphoning it and ruin it for everyone.
Puglia has very definitely been “discovered”. Polignano and Otranto are overrun with tourists
however it’s not hard to find gems nearby that are entirely overlooked. Altamura and Gravina. Taranto because of its absurdly bad rep
Hopefully with my good work on the Gazette i can ruin everywhere
Spoiler: parents are not ditching their cars. A BBC Bristol journalist from BBC Bristol has spoken to a couple of left-wing parents in urban areas of what is now one of the UK's most left-wing cities who now cycle their kids to school.
It's entirely unrepresentative, it is very much exaggerated and it is absolutely very BBC. Met and preachy to the core.
I am a big supporter of the BBC - I think the country is trashing a huge soft influence asset by running it down...
But I have to say this is a fair cop Casino - DM or Express levels of journalism. I fear the journalist's/editor's biases got the better of them.
It’s noteworthy that there’s a BBC article that’s remotely biased in that direction given the torrent of Tory talking points the organisation is cowed into spewing on a daily basis.
There have always been weak articles like this on the site. Inevitable when you consider the volume they pump out daily. Though I’d note that at least a third of the parents at our primary school, possibly closer to half, don’t own a car. It’s perhaps of anthropological interest to those living outside big cities to understand the cultural norms and mores of the millions who do.
Yes. I think there's a more interesting story to be written about the inconvenience of bringing up a family without the use of a car that would still fit the topic.
To your point I'm guessing most young families are in cities because that's where the jobs are.
There was a great slightly provocative quote on the school run in the video about Waterbeach I posted yesterday:
"With the local schools team, we said what what do you need in terms of access - how much parking do you need for parents in the morning? They basically said we don't want any because whatever you do outside the front of a primary school it will be chaos.
If you provide 50 parking spaces they'll be filled and more. If you provide none it will all be filled and more. So we'd rather you didn't provide any. So that was actually quite encouraging and not really the answer we'd expected."
(Separate facility provided for staff, disabled access etc. Plus a local mobility hub within walking distance on paths through amenity space.)
My cynical side says that that response was from the developer: who would quite like that car parking space to cram yet more houses in.
Our school has a too-small car park; shared by it and the adjacent secondary. The approach is via a long road that leads from almost outside the village; most people have a long drive just to reach the access road.
There is lots of active travel to the school; a short path leads from the end of a residential road in the village to the main gate. At school times, this is crammed with people and bikes. Noticeably less so in wet weather, though, when the car park gets busier.
But: lots of people park, or drop kids off on, the residential road; it is a much shorter trip for many than negotiating the access road. The road is not designed for that sort of traffic load. I ca guarantee that this will also happen in Waterbeach; lack of provision of a car park will just lead to people using nearby residential roads.
Active travel is fine for people like me, where we live less than a ten minute walk away from the school, especially as I don't work. It may be very different if you need to drive to work immediately afterwards - in other words, the life many people lead.
I'd recommend watching the presentation - it is only 15 minutes. There is car park provision at the mobility hub nearby, which is provision for the area rather than just the school.
"Nearby roads" are tending to be replaced with open landscaped amenity space or walking / wheeling / cycling paths.
I haven't watched the whole thing yet, but I like the way that tactile paving is now deemed unnecessary (coz cyclists hate them). I wonder what the RNIB think of that?
This is one of my bugbears: if a path is to be shared use between cyclists and pedestrians, then cyclist should be restricted in speed relative to the pedestrians. Maybe not to walking speed; but no more than two or three times pedestrian speed. Instead, you get people going very fast. What they've created there is a racetrack for cyclists - and it will be used as such.
I am *very* cynical when it comes to the cycling lobby arguing for cycling infrastructure at the expense of pedestrians. Good infrastructure would involve compromises for all users.
Thoughts. There's a lot about the need to unlearn assumptions, and change cultural expectations. You see that in the hierarchy of road users in the updated Highway Code from 2022 - the pedestrian priority at side road entrances will remain difficult in some measure until general road culture changes, which will take years or perhaps 2 decades, especially when we have no routine continuing education required to maintain a driving license.
Or contraflow cycling on 20mph one way streets. Been done in Cambridge since the 1990s, and now I think (you may know better) on pretty much all one way streets. But try and do a single street in Mansfield, and all the Local Councillors will have a heart attack because it is "so dangerous". Or two way mobility tracks on Binley Road in Coventry and "people will never look both ways" (is it so difficult - Highway Code says it is a basic?and "it is dangerous when I reverse out of my drive into the busy road" (why the f*ck are you reversing *out* of your drive?)
Unlearning habits: One amusing thing that happened at Waterbeach (in the presentation) is that when they created a flat environment where pedestrians get priority, one of the first developers created and built another whole new level of pavements on top with kerbs even higher - not getting the basic philosophy that they were designed out. I'm interested how often tactile paving standards (which have been in place since the 1980s) are often simply not followed when it is installed.
Shared space is in debate. We are trained to make streets with kerbs, tactiles etc to make them readable by visually impaired. "Shared space" was a movement from ~2000-2005 which said "remove all of that and people will be safe because motor vehicle drivers will have do be considerate". That gave us spaces like Exhibition Road, which has failed because it treats shared space as fully including motor vehicles rather than allowing them in as "guests". It missed that that never works in practice because all drivers are human, and VI people / vulnerable road users can't trust their lives to that. Waterbeach is far more thorough, very much circumscribing spaces accessible by motor and changing priorities, but I'm not 100% convinced it will be successful. That's another one around cultural expectations.
Pedestrians vs cyclists. A development over maybe the last 2-3 years has been convergence around common needs, especially amongst disabled charities and organisations like Sustrans. The Cycle Design Vehicle required to be accommodated (and often not) by new cycling infra (1.2m wide by 2.8m long - that is, size plus a dynamic envelope aka wobble room) has almost identical needs to mobility aids.
Personally when lobbying or arguing I always take the PoV of a disabled pedestrian, because I am (or will be) one, I got radicalised on this stuff by not being able to wheel my mum to the GP as all the walkways had wheelchair blocking barriers, and it avoids a lot of spurious distractions, plus has more legal teeth.
There are certain small fringe organisations around - such as those feeding inflammatory videos about 'floating bus stops' to the Mail and the Telegraph - who *want* a cyclists-vs-disabled conflict, and say things like 'cycling organisation Sustrans using disabled people as a human shield'. On bus stop bypasses they ignore that banning them will force mobility aid users out into general traffic at every bus stop - so it's a balance to be struck with factors both sides, and they point blank refuse to acknowledge the other side of the equation. Mark Harper may try a wedge issue on this one before he is finished.
Speeds - my new e-cycle is interesting on that. The 3 levels of assist also reflect speed as well as power, so give me max assist speeds of ~10kph, ~17-18kph, and ~25kph on the flat. I find that 1 is for areas busy with pedestrians, 2 is for shared paths / rough surfaces, and 3 elsewhere.
Enough for now.
Near me, they put “floating bus stops” in. With a black asphalt surface and black curbstones.
After the inevitable happened, they painted white stripes on the curb stones.
Yep - it's in getting decent standards, following the standards and sweating the detail.
In London there has been a real issue for a number of years of Boroughs not following TFL standards, which have in general been good.
On that piccie, it's revealing all the yellow paintwork they had to put in the cycle track to stop ASB drivers abusing it. Something Edinburgh is still working on . There's a wonderful photo of a workteam replacing slabs on the footway smashed by delivery lorries, whilst behind them there is a 7.5 tonne lorry parked on the pavement, delivering.
Err… the double yellow line was there before the cycle lane/floating bus stop. As were the yellow markings on the curb.
The big problem is *lack* of adequate markings. Drivers who don’t know the area are visibly confused at junctions and sometimes only just avoid ending up in the cycle lane.
This is not helped by the idiots who put the cycle lane in changing their… minds?.. three times. Leaving three sets of somewhat faded and painted over markings to choose from.
I had no idea that curb stones could come in black - why would you want them to be?
That's interesting - so they pretty much modified the carriageway rather than reconstruct the whole corridor. It's interesting that they did not feel they could trust them enough to remove the yellow lines .
That will be budgets? Really expensive bits are when you start modifying foundations and underground features, as you start running into services. But grinding and repainting markings is not a big expense in the context of such a scheme, nor is getting it vaguely right first time - though often they need adjusting.
Where is it? What did it look like before?
The square ended island (which may be against a junction at the feet of the photographer?) looks like some of the things done on main roads through places like Peckham, where one complaint (from both user angles) is that some drivers turn their vehicles left into the end of the cycle track by mistake.
The kerb stones one is strange. They are usually a similar colour to the pavement and/or carriageway, and we have not had a history of needing to paint them back and white everywhere across the country.
One help would be for all cycle tracks to have their own surface colour wherever needed, but that would struggle to get adopted in the UK - we are too cheapskate.
On the question of floating bus stops, I'd note that the Hammersmith & Fulham one backs onto a road not a cycle path, and that might be why one is controversial and the other not. It can be easier for pedestrians to cross in the presence of cars than bikes. For a start, cars are easier to see. More subtly, that can work the other way. Car drivers are probably looking ahead. Cyclists, especially if going fast, might be looking mostly at the ground. Even if they've seen you, it is hard to make eye contact to confirm they've seen you.
The ones created on the Mile End Rd / Bow Rd section of the Cycle Superhighway 2 route in East London seem to work pretty well - one of the things they've done is to get buses to line up with the bus shelter before opening their doors.
That means that passengers can't simply exit the bus and take a couple of steps without looking before ending up in the cycle lane - instead, they first have to walk round the bus shelter which gives them a bit more time to gain situational awareness.
Of course, they were lucky in that they had loads of room to work with there - the inner part of the same route, along Aldgate / Whitechapel Rd is both narrower and busier, and as a result is far scarier.
I mean, that's sorta the issue, isn't it? The *pedestrians* have to walk around the bus shelter, coz cyclists have priority. How easy is that with a pram, or with limited visibility, or a dog, or with lots of people queuing, etc, etc?
It's not about pedestrians vs cyclists as the main question; don't fall for that one. That's a trope used by trolling lobbies and politicians wanting wedge issues. ASBO "cyclists" on pavements, of whom the majority of serious problems are likely ASBO motorcyclists with hacked ebikes or unregistered motorbikes such as Surrons, are a cultural and enforcement issue. The City of London are doing interesting stuff at present, including offering "responsible cycling" courses, as are sometimes transformative for lawbreaking motor vehicle drivers.
It's about equal access to the ability to travel. 40% of disabled adults do not have a driving license, compared to slightly more than half of that - 25% - for able-bodied adults. For many of that 40% it is not an option for medical reasons; I may in this category in 15-20 years if Diabetes damages my eyesight.
It's not acceptable that those peoples' autonomy is taken away; cycles (and e-cycles) as mobility aids are a part of that. The difference even on a manual cycle is that it is 6x more efficient than walking, which facilitates wider travel - it makes a huge difference to be able to get 10 miles from home rather than 1-2 miles.
I was advising someone with Fibromyalgia yesterday looking for a long (35 miles) off-road route around Derby to e-cycle today in the sun for half the day. It has to be entirely step free as she suffers serious pain from even pushing her cycle up one or two steps or a cycle groove, or any distance; "Cyclists Dismount" - NOPE. Many things we don't have around here; one thing we do have are former pit railways turned into rail trails. We have canal towpaths too, but many of them are barriered off.
One ask for the rumoured Transport Bill was for cycles - handcycles, tricycles, clip on e-cycles for wheelchairs and so on, to be recognised as mobility aids to bring them within the scope of eg motability. As remarked earlier, they are not cheap (a clip-on e-cycle is £2000 to £5000), and disabled people have a higher likelihood of being poorer.
Mobility lanes are also about mobility aids, and the possibility of using them easily and safely avoiding the dangers of being on the carriageway amongst the motor vehicles.
One of the most bizarre things you will see sometimes is clipboard-wielding Council Officers and others who think they are Jesus; they accost disabled people on cycles with legs that don't work properly, and essentially demand "Pick Up Your Mobility Aid and Walk". I have a friend who had that happen in St Pancras Station, when she was actually towing her wheelchair behind her Brompton which she was riding at walking pace. It talk 3 repetitions of "I can't walk; that's my wheelchair" before it sunk in.
"It's not about pedestrians vs cyclists as the main question; don't fall for that one."
It's my own view: all too often, then it the experience for pedestrians. And the cyclist 'lobby' are in denial about it. A pedestrian having to move out o the way because of some inconsiderate @sshat rider does not care if the rider was a 'serious' cyclist or an ASBO cyclist. And IME 'serious' cyclists - pepparami in lycra - are just as likely to be inconsiderate.
This is precisely the sort of attitude that pi**es me off with the cycle lobby. They can never be at fault; they're always the victim; no other road user matters. We saw this with the Huntingdon and the Regent's Park incidents, in different directions.
I recall some posters trying to tell me that the pavement in Huntingdon was a cyclepath...
More people are killed by mobility scooters. Cows. And lightning.
No one likes a deliveroo cyclist whizzing down a pavement, or a MAMIL doing 22mph through a quiet village. But what we've seen over the last week is people completely lose their heads over the issue.
It's not just 'deliveroo cyclists'. And I don't care if more people are killed by Leon's aliens; that doesn't excuse it. As we've seen; cyclist collisions with pedestrians are often unreported and are not investigated by police.
Cyclists are not above other road users. All road users need to muddle along; That is not the attitude that the cycle lobby give out.
I want cyclists to be safer. I want pedestrians to be safer. I want car drivers to be safer. That will only happen when everyone using roads takes responsibility for their actions, and respects the rights of others to use the road.
Sadly, in all three modes, there are people who think it is not 'the' road, but 'their' road.
I like the fact I “own” aliens. Ta
It would certainly explain your certainty about their existence...
Iranian defence analyst dude pointing out copters with high rankers can send out their exact location in case of a problem, unless they blow up or are suddenly destroyed. They flew into a mountain is my best guess.
Or blew up due to bad maintenance.
The copter in question looked both elderly and rather small. Poor maintenance has been something of an issue recently.
Can I utterly unpedantically point out that helicopter = helico as in helix, whirly and pter as in pterodactyl, wing. Copter is not a satisfactory abbreviation.
The very best “word” for helicopter comes from the pidgin English of Papua New Guinea
A helicopter in that language is “magimicks bilong Jesus”. I believe it was coined after a visit from a British royal (still the sovereigns of PNG)
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31 · 1h Student visas are already down nearly 30%, and I would say between 10 and 20 universities are going to get into deep trouble. Another 10 to 20 will follow rapidly. Imagine sending a further signal that you want the numbers down... (1/2)
We could do with a fundamental restructuring of FE in this county. Clearly I don’t want there to be a collapse of institutions (that serves no-one) but we could do with moving away from the New Labour model of degrees for all.
All want degrees (or many do). It's aspirational, which is supposed to be good. People with degrees, including many in this board, saying other people shouldn't have them is a poor look.
But yes higher education does need restructuring. To be specific undergraduate education needs to be a lot, lot cheaper. Education factories in other words, efficiency two year degrees, longer semesters and more part time degrees. Anyone who starts talking about Oxbridge, world rankings etc is self serving
Perhaps “degrees for all” was a bad choice of words. I believe that we need to look at making sure all qualifications are high quality and that everyone has the chance to access them. Where I am not convinced, is that a university degree in the traditional academic sense is appropriate for all trades, professions and wants/needs of young people. We need to move away from elitist interpretations of universities needing to be the places to go to get on in life, and see that there is better careers advice and more flexible pathways for the future workforce.
I agree with everything you say but that doesn't address the affordability issue. The problem is we can't afford 50% of young people going to university at current costs and prices. Employability is fine. In general graduates can find jobs more easily than non graduates. The cost isn't fine.
So that gives us three choices I think:
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
3 seems obviously the right answer to me but that will need radical changes to universities. They need become Premier Inns (where the bed and shower are better anyway) and no longer pretend to be the Savoy.
I am taking about undergraduate education. Postgraduate is a different requirement entirely.
As I was saying...
Ex-ministers warn UK universities will go bust without higher fees or funding: Vice-chancellors suggest fee rise of £2,000 to £3,500 a year, but others say that is ‘politically impossible’
Vice-chancellors and former ministers are warning that the cash crisis facing universities is so serious that the next government will have to urgently raise tuition fees or increase funding to avoid bankruptcies within two years.
They said the state of university finances was more dire than revealed in last week’s report by the Office for Students, which forecast 40% of England’s universities would end this year in the red.
Vice-chancellors said that increases of between £2,000 to £3,500 a year for each student would be needed.
The UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight, and a major driver for innovation and growth. We are never going to improve productivity by reacting to everything with an attitude of managing down.
Not long back from a pleasant social afternoon in metropolitan liberal London.
One of my acquaintances was berating me about politics - "I watch GB News", he said which was the first alarm bell as, rather like anyone posting on PB.com, anyone who watches GB News is by definition sad, mad or bad. "I don't trust any of the politicians" he said, "they're all liars" was the inevitable next point.
"So you've never told a lie?" I remarked. That slowed him down.
It seemed incredulous to me a reasonably intelligent man was only prepared to want to trust someone who never lied when most people lie occasionally (and some habitually). How can you run politics if you only want to vote for someone you think will never lie to you? Politics is if nothing else the art of telling convincing lies - the more convincing the better.
Is it somehow easier to choose to believe something even if it is demonstrably proved to be false? Is it somehow easier to believe and trust someone because you believe they are telling the truth even if it is demonstrably proved they aren't? The one conclusion from this experience is some people will believe and accept any nonsense put in front of them and if you challenge that truth and show beyond any reasonable doubt it's a lie you'll get no thanks for it.
The truth isn't important - what's important is getting people to believe it is the truth even when it isn't.
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31 · 1h Student visas are already down nearly 30%, and I would say between 10 and 20 universities are going to get into deep trouble. Another 10 to 20 will follow rapidly. Imagine sending a further signal that you want the numbers down... (1/2)
We could do with a fundamental restructuring of FE in this county. Clearly I don’t want there to be a collapse of institutions (that serves no-one) but we could do with moving away from the New Labour model of degrees for all.
All want degrees (or many do). It's aspirational, which is supposed to be good. People with degrees, including many in this board, saying other people shouldn't have them is a poor look.
But yes higher education does need restructuring. To be specific undergraduate education needs to be a lot, lot cheaper. Education factories in other words, efficiency two year degrees, longer semesters and more part time degrees. Anyone who starts talking about Oxbridge, world rankings etc is self serving
Perhaps “degrees for all” was a bad choice of words. I believe that we need to look at making sure all qualifications are high quality and that everyone has the chance to access them. Where I am not convinced, is that a university degree in the traditional academic sense is appropriate for all trades, professions and wants/needs of young people. We need to move away from elitist interpretations of universities needing to be the places to go to get on in life, and see that there is better careers advice and more flexible pathways for the future workforce.
I agree with everything you say but that doesn't address the affordability issue. The problem is we can't afford 50% of young people going to university at current costs and prices. Employability is fine. In general graduates can find jobs more easily than non graduates. The cost isn't fine.
So that gives us three choices I think:
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
3 seems obviously the right answer to me but that will need radical changes to universities. They need become Premier Inns (where the bed and shower are better anyway) and no longer pretend to be the Savoy.
I am taking about undergraduate education. Postgraduate is a different requirement entirely.
As I was saying...
Ex-ministers warn UK universities will go bust without higher fees or funding: Vice-chancellors suggest fee rise of £2,000 to £3,500 a year, but others say that is ‘politically impossible’
Vice-chancellors and former ministers are warning that the cash crisis facing universities is so serious that the next government will have to urgently raise tuition fees or increase funding to avoid bankruptcies within two years.
They said the state of university finances was more dire than revealed in last week’s report by the Office for Students, which forecast 40% of England’s universities would end this year in the red.
Vice-chancellors said that increases of between £2,000 to £3,500 a year for each student would be needed.
The UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight, and a major driver for innovation and growth. We are never going to improve productivity by reacting to everything with an attitude of managing down.
I suspect this Government's current university/student visa proposals kill two birds with one stone. Return higher education to the elite 5% and kick out the foreign.
The old Boris Johnson mantra of "f*** business" probably applies too.
Iranian defence analyst dude pointing out copters with high rankers can send out their exact location in case of a problem, unless they blow up or are suddenly destroyed. They flew into a mountain is my best guess.
Or blew up due to bad maintenance.
The copter in question looked both elderly and rather small. Poor maintenance has been something of an issue recently.
Can I utterly unpedantically point out that helicopter = helico as in helix, whirly and pter as in pterodactyl, wing. Copter is not a satisfactory abbreviation.
That's one of my favourite bits of etymology
Whenever I've seen or heard the word since i learnt it, I always split it into its original parts and think how helico-pter should sound
Spoiler: parents are not ditching their cars. A BBC Bristol journalist from BBC Bristol has spoken to a couple of left-wing parents in urban areas of what is now one of the UK's most left-wing cities who now cycle their kids to school.
It's entirely unrepresentative, it is very much exaggerated and it is absolutely very BBC. Met and preachy to the core.
I am a big supporter of the BBC - I think the country is trashing a huge soft influence asset by running it down...
But I have to say this is a fair cop Casino - DM or Express levels of journalism. I fear the journalist's/editor's biases got the better of them.
It’s noteworthy that there’s a BBC article that’s remotely biased in that direction given the torrent of Tory talking points the organisation is cowed into spewing on a daily basis.
There have always been weak articles like this on the site. Inevitable when you consider the volume they pump out daily. Though I’d note that at least a third of the parents at our primary school, possibly closer to half, don’t own a car. It’s perhaps of anthropological interest to those living outside big cities to understand the cultural norms and mores of the millions who do.
Yes. I think there's a more interesting story to be written about the inconvenience of bringing up a family without the use of a car that would still fit the topic.
To your point I'm guessing most young families are in cities because that's where the jobs are.
There was a great slightly provocative quote on the school run in the video about Waterbeach I posted yesterday:
"With the local schools team, we said what what do you need in terms of access - how much parking do you need for parents in the morning? They basically said we don't want any because whatever you do outside the front of a primary school it will be chaos.
If you provide 50 parking spaces they'll be filled and more. If you provide none it will all be filled and more. So we'd rather you didn't provide any. So that was actually quite encouraging and not really the answer we'd expected."
(Separate facility provided for staff, disabled access etc. Plus a local mobility hub within walking distance on paths through amenity space.)
My cynical side says that that response was from the developer: who would quite like that car parking space to cram yet more houses in.
Our school has a too-small car park; shared by it and the adjacent secondary. The approach is via a long road that leads from almost outside the village; most people have a long drive just to reach the access road.
There is lots of active travel to the school; a short path leads from the end of a residential road in the village to the main gate. At school times, this is crammed with people and bikes. Noticeably less so in wet weather, though, when the car park gets busier.
But: lots of people park, or drop kids off on, the residential road; it is a much shorter trip for many than negotiating the access road. The road is not designed for that sort of traffic load. I ca guarantee that this will also happen in Waterbeach; lack of provision of a car park will just lead to people using nearby residential roads.
Active travel is fine for people like me, where we live less than a ten minute walk away from the school, especially as I don't work. It may be very different if you need to drive to work immediately afterwards - in other words, the life many people lead.
I'd recommend watching the presentation - it is only 15 minutes. There is car park provision at the mobility hub nearby, which is provision for the area rather than just the school.
"Nearby roads" are tending to be replaced with open landscaped amenity space or walking / wheeling / cycling paths.
I haven't watched the whole thing yet, but I like the way that tactile paving is now deemed unnecessary (coz cyclists hate them). I wonder what the RNIB think of that?
This is one of my bugbears: if a path is to be shared use between cyclists and pedestrians, then cyclist should be restricted in speed relative to the pedestrians. Maybe not to walking speed; but no more than two or three times pedestrian speed. Instead, you get people going very fast. What they've created there is a racetrack for cyclists - and it will be used as such.
I am *very* cynical when it comes to the cycling lobby arguing for cycling infrastructure at the expense of pedestrians. Good infrastructure would involve compromises for all users.
Thoughts. There's a lot about the need to unlearn assumptions, and change cultural expectations. You see that in the hierarchy of road users in the updated Highway Code from 2022 - the pedestrian priority at side road entrances will remain difficult in some measure until general road culture changes, which will take years or perhaps 2 decades, especially when we have no routine continuing education required to maintain a driving license.
Or contraflow cycling on 20mph one way streets. Been done in Cambridge since the 1990s, and now I think (you may know better) on pretty much all one way streets. But try and do a single street in Mansfield, and all the Local Councillors will have a heart attack because it is "so dangerous". Or two way mobility tracks on Binley Road in Coventry and "people will never look both ways" (is it so difficult - Highway Code says it is a basic?and "it is dangerous when I reverse out of my drive into the busy road" (why the f*ck are you reversing *out* of your drive?)
Unlearning habits: One amusing thing that happened at Waterbeach (in the presentation) is that when they created a flat environment where pedestrians get priority, one of the first developers created and built another whole new level of pavements on top with kerbs even higher - not getting the basic philosophy that they were designed out. I'm interested how often tactile paving standards (which have been in place since the 1980s) are often simply not followed when it is installed.
Shared space is in debate. We are trained to make streets with kerbs, tactiles etc to make them readable by visually impaired. "Shared space" was a movement from ~2000-2005 which said "remove all of that and people will be safe because motor vehicle drivers will have do be considerate". That gave us spaces like Exhibition Road, which has failed because it treats shared space as fully including motor vehicles rather than allowing them in as "guests". It missed that that never works in practice because all drivers are human, and VI people / vulnerable road users can't trust their lives to that. Waterbeach is far more thorough, very much circumscribing spaces accessible by motor and changing priorities, but I'm not 100% convinced it will be successful. That's another one around cultural expectations.
Pedestrians vs cyclists. A development over maybe the last 2-3 years has been convergence around common needs, especially amongst disabled charities and organisations like Sustrans. The Cycle Design Vehicle required to be accommodated (and often not) by new cycling infra (1.2m wide by 2.8m long - that is, size plus a dynamic envelope aka wobble room) has almost identical needs to mobility aids.
Personally when lobbying or arguing I always take the PoV of a disabled pedestrian, because I am (or will be) one, I got radicalised on this stuff by not being able to wheel my mum to the GP as all the walkways had wheelchair blocking barriers, and it avoids a lot of spurious distractions, plus has more legal teeth.
There are certain small fringe organisations around - such as those feeding inflammatory videos about 'floating bus stops' to the Mail and the Telegraph - who *want* a cyclists-vs-disabled conflict, and say things like 'cycling organisation Sustrans using disabled people as a human shield'. On bus stop bypasses they ignore that banning them will force mobility aid users out into general traffic at every bus stop - so it's a balance to be struck with factors both sides, and they point blank refuse to acknowledge the other side of the equation. Mark Harper may try a wedge issue on this one before he is finished.
Speeds - my new e-cycle is interesting on that. The 3 levels of assist also reflect speed as well as power, so give me max assist speeds of ~10kph, ~17-18kph, and ~25kph on the flat. I find that 1 is for areas busy with pedestrians, 2 is for shared paths / rough surfaces, and 3 elsewhere.
Enough for now.
Near me, they put “floating bus stops” in. With a black asphalt surface and black curbstones.
After the inevitable happened, they painted white stripes on the curb stones.
Yep - it's in getting decent standards, following the standards and sweating the detail.
In London there has been a real issue for a number of years of Boroughs not following TFL standards, which have in general been good.
On that piccie, it's revealing all the yellow paintwork they had to put in the cycle track to stop ASB drivers abusing it. Something Edinburgh is still working on . There's a wonderful photo of a workteam replacing slabs on the footway smashed by delivery lorries, whilst behind them there is a 7.5 tonne lorry parked on the pavement, delivering.
Err… the double yellow line was there before the cycle lane/floating bus stop. As were the yellow markings on the curb.
The big problem is *lack* of adequate markings. Drivers who don’t know the area are visibly confused at junctions and sometimes only just avoid ending up in the cycle lane.
This is not helped by the idiots who put the cycle lane in changing their… minds?.. three times. Leaving three sets of somewhat faded and painted over markings to choose from.
I had no idea that curb stones could come in black - why would you want them to be?
That's interesting - so they pretty much modified the carriageway rather than reconstruct the whole corridor. It's interesting that they did not feel they could trust them enough to remove the yellow lines .
That will be budgets? Really expensive bits are when you start modifying foundations and underground features, as you start running into services. But grinding and repainting markings is not a big expense in the context of such a scheme, nor is getting it vaguely right first time - though often they need adjusting.
Where is it? What did it look like before?
The square ended island (which may be against a junction at the feet of the photographer?) looks like some of the things done on main roads through places like Peckham, where one complaint (from both user angles) is that some drivers turn their vehicles left into the end of the cycle track by mistake.
The kerb stones one is strange. They are usually a similar colour to the pavement and/or carriageway, and we have not had a history of needing to paint them back and white everywhere across the country.
One help would be for all cycle tracks to have their own surface colour wherever needed, but that would struggle to get adopted in the UK - we are too cheapskate.
On the question of floating bus stops, I'd note that the Hammersmith & Fulham one backs onto a road not a cycle path, and that might be why one is controversial and the other not. It can be easier for pedestrians to cross in the presence of cars than bikes. For a start, cars are easier to see. More subtly, that can work the other way. Car drivers are probably looking ahead. Cyclists, especially if going fast, might be looking mostly at the ground. Even if they've seen you, it is hard to make eye contact to confirm they've seen you.
The ones created on the Mile End Rd / Bow Rd section of the Cycle Superhighway 2 route in East London seem to work pretty well - one of the things they've done is to get buses to line up with the bus shelter before opening their doors.
That means that passengers can't simply exit the bus and take a couple of steps without looking before ending up in the cycle lane - instead, they first have to walk round the bus shelter which gives them a bit more time to gain situational awareness.
Of course, they were lucky in that they had loads of room to work with there - the inner part of the same route, along Aldgate / Whitechapel Rd is both narrower and busier, and as a result is far scarier.
I mean, that's sorta the issue, isn't it? The *pedestrians* have to walk around the bus shelter, coz cyclists have priority. How easy is that with a pram, or with limited visibility, or a dog, or with lots of people queuing, etc, etc?
It's not about pedestrians vs cyclists as the main question; don't fall for that one. That's a trope used by trolling lobbies and politicians wanting wedge issues. ASBO "cyclists" on pavements, of whom the majority of serious problems are likely ASBO motorcyclists with hacked ebikes or unregistered motorbikes such as Surrons, are a cultural and enforcement issue. The City of London are doing interesting stuff at present, including offering "responsible cycling" courses, as are sometimes transformative for lawbreaking motor vehicle drivers.
It's about equal access to the ability to travel. 40% of disabled adults do not have a driving license, compared to slightly more than half of that - 25% - for able-bodied adults. For many of that 40% it is not an option for medical reasons; I may in this category in 15-20 years if Diabetes damages my eyesight.
It's not acceptable that those peoples' autonomy is taken away; cycles (and e-cycles) as mobility aids are a part of that. The difference even on a manual cycle is that it is 6x more efficient than walking, which facilitates wider travel - it makes a huge difference to be able to get 10 miles from home rather than 1-2 miles.
I was advising someone with Fibromyalgia yesterday looking for a long (35 miles) off-road route around Derby to e-cycle today in the sun for half the day. It has to be entirely step free as she suffers serious pain from even pushing her cycle up one or two steps or a cycle groove, or any distance; "Cyclists Dismount" - NOPE. Many things we don't have around here; one thing we do have are former pit railways turned into rail trails. We have canal towpaths too, but many of them are barriered off.
One ask for the rumoured Transport Bill was for cycles - handcycles, tricycles, clip on e-cycles for wheelchairs and so on, to be recognised as mobility aids to bring them within the scope of eg motability. As remarked earlier, they are not cheap (a clip-on e-cycle is £2000 to £5000), and disabled people have a higher likelihood of being poorer.
Mobility lanes are also about mobility aids, and the possibility of using them easily and safely avoiding the dangers of being on the carriageway amongst the motor vehicles.
One of the most bizarre things you will see sometimes is clipboard-wielding Council Officers and others who think they are Jesus; they accost disabled people on cycles with legs that don't work properly, and essentially demand "Pick Up Your Mobility Aid and Walk". I have a friend who had that happen in St Pancras Station, when she was actually towing her wheelchair behind her Brompton which she was riding at walking pace. It talk 3 repetitions of "I can't walk; that's my wheelchair" before it sunk in.
"It's not about pedestrians vs cyclists as the main question; don't fall for that one."
It's my own view: all too often, then it the experience for pedestrians. And the cyclist 'lobby' are in denial about it. A pedestrian having to move out o the way because of some inconsiderate @sshat rider does not care if the rider was a 'serious' cyclist or an ASBO cyclist. And IME 'serious' cyclists - pepparami in lycra - are just as likely to be inconsiderate.
This is precisely the sort of attitude that pi**es me off with the cycle lobby. They can never be at fault; they're always the victim; no other road user matters. We saw this with the Huntingdon and the Regent's Park incidents, in different directions.
I recall some posters trying to tell me that the pavement in Huntingdon was a cyclepath...
More people are killed by mobility scooters. Cows. And lightning.
No one likes a deliveroo cyclist whizzing down a pavement, or a MAMIL doing 22mph through a quiet village. But what we've seen over the last week is people completely lose their heads over the issue.
It's not just 'deliveroo cyclists'. And I don't care if more people are killed by Leon's aliens; that doesn't excuse it. As we've seen; cyclist collisions with pedestrians are often unreported and are not investigated by police.
Cyclists are not above other road users. All road users need to muddle along; That is not the attitude that the cycle lobby give out.
I want cyclists to be safer. I want pedestrians to be safer. I want car drivers to be safer. That will only happen when everyone using roads takes responsibility for their actions, and respects the rights of others to use the road.
Sadly, in all three modes, there are people who think it is not 'the' road, but 'their' road.
I don't see why cyclists and motorists and pedestrians are always at each other's throats on here. It's really stupid when we can all just agree that motorcyclists are the scum of the earth.
I don't think that's the case TBH; it's pretty civilised with some differences of opinion.
If you want to see some conflict, have a look at the footy focused flag shagger autohoons on twitter. Or quite a lot of areas of nextdoor.co.uk.
But I think that they calm down a little if Joey Barton suddenly becomes £100k->£500k poorer, hopefully as a donation to charity; he doesn't seem to have much of a defence.
It's been over 10 years since Sally Bercow / Lord McAlpine, so they be due for a reminder.
Not long back from a pleasant social afternoon in metropolitan liberal London.
One of my acquaintances was berating me about politics - "I watch GB News", he said which was the first alarm bell as, rather like anyone posting on PB.com, anyone who watches GB News is by definition sad, mad or bad. "I don't trust any of the politicians" he said, "they're all liars" was the inevitable next point.
"So you've never told a lie?" I remarked. That slowed him down.
It seemed incredulous to me a reasonably intelligent man was only prepared to want to trust someone who never lied when most people lie occasionally (and some habitually). How can you run politics if you only want to vote for someone you think will never lie to you? Politics is if nothing else the art of telling convincing lies - the more convincing the better.
Is it somehow easier to choose to believe something even if it is demonstrably proved to be false? Is it somehow easier to believe and trust someone because you believe they are telling the truth even if it is demonstrably proved they aren't? The one conclusion from this experience is some people will believe and accept any nonsense put in front of them and if you challenge that truth and show beyond any reasonable doubt it's a lie you'll get no thanks for it.
The truth isn't important - what's important is getting people to believe it is the truth even when it isn't.
Incredulous does not mean incredible, and I have never lied *about a professional matter* (I have lied plenty in my spare time) and I would despise and distrust anyone who did. Are you claiming that you lie in professional contexts?
Also I just had a basically vegetarian dinner. Orrechiete pasta with bitter broccoli tops and chicory and chili and garlic and capers and breadcrumbs - supposedly there was anchovies in there but I didn’t detect them
Absolutely delish. Very bitter yet weirdly moreish. Great with a robust primitivo
I hate veggie food yet this was cracking. Also extremely basic - cucina povera. Italian cuisine at its simple best
Asparagus, lemon & pecorino linguine for us tonight. It happens to be veggie but most importantly it happens to be delicious. Italian cuisine has plenty of great vegetarian options.
(PS Anchovies are not a vegetable btw, so your 'veggie' meal was not veggie. You are very unlikely to detect anchovies cooked in a sauce as anchovies but they provide that 'weirdly moreish' flavour.)
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31 · 1h Student visas are already down nearly 30%, and I would say between 10 and 20 universities are going to get into deep trouble. Another 10 to 20 will follow rapidly. Imagine sending a further signal that you want the numbers down... (1/2)
We could do with a fundamental restructuring of FE in this county. Clearly I don’t want there to be a collapse of institutions (that serves no-one) but we could do with moving away from the New Labour model of degrees for all.
All want degrees (or many do). It's aspirational, which is supposed to be good. People with degrees, including many in this board, saying other people shouldn't have them is a poor look.
But yes higher education does need restructuring. To be specific undergraduate education needs to be a lot, lot cheaper. Education factories in other words, efficiency two year degrees, longer semesters and more part time degrees. Anyone who starts talking about Oxbridge, world rankings etc is self serving
Perhaps “degrees for all” was a bad choice of words. I believe that we need to look at making sure all qualifications are high quality and that everyone has the chance to access them. Where I am not convinced, is that a university degree in the traditional academic sense is appropriate for all trades, professions and wants/needs of young people. We need to move away from elitist interpretations of universities needing to be the places to go to get on in life, and see that there is better careers advice and more flexible pathways for the future workforce.
I agree with everything you say but that doesn't address the affordability issue. The problem is we can't afford 50% of young people going to university at current costs and prices. Employability is fine. In general graduates can find jobs more easily than non graduates. The cost isn't fine.
So that gives us three choices I think:
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
3 seems obviously the right answer to me but that will need radical changes to universities. They need become Premier Inns (where the bed and shower are better anyway) and no longer pretend to be the Savoy.
I am taking about undergraduate education. Postgraduate is a different requirement entirely.
As I was saying...
Ex-ministers warn UK universities will go bust without higher fees or funding: Vice-chancellors suggest fee rise of £2,000 to £3,500 a year, but others say that is ‘politically impossible’
Vice-chancellors and former ministers are warning that the cash crisis facing universities is so serious that the next government will have to urgently raise tuition fees or increase funding to avoid bankruptcies within two years.
They said the state of university finances was more dire than revealed in last week’s report by the Office for Students, which forecast 40% of England’s universities would end this year in the red.
Vice-chancellors said that increases of between £2,000 to £3,500 a year for each student would be needed.
The UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight, and a major driver for innovation and growth. We are never going to improve productivity by reacting to everything with an attitude of managing down.
For the reasons I set out above I don't think, at the undergraduate level, that the UK should pretend to have a "world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight".
It should aim to educate anyone who is qualified, and could benefit from it, to a decent standard and at an affordable cost. Something the sector is utterly failing to do and so it's heading towards bankruptcy.
Not long back from a pleasant social afternoon in metropolitan liberal London.
One of my acquaintances was berating me about politics - "I watch GB News", he said which was the first alarm bell as, rather like anyone posting on PB.com, anyone who watches GB News is by definition sad, mad or bad. "I don't trust any of the politicians" he said, "they're all liars" was the inevitable next point.
"So you've never told a lie?" I remarked. That slowed him down.
It seemed incredulous to me a reasonably intelligent man was only prepared to want to trust someone who never lied when most people lie occasionally (and some habitually). How can you run politics if you only want to vote for someone you think will never lie to you? Politics is if nothing else the art of telling convincing lies - the more convincing the better.
Is it somehow easier to choose to believe something even if it is demonstrably proved to be false? Is it somehow easier to believe and trust someone because you believe they are telling the truth even if it is demonstrably proved they aren't? The one conclusion from this experience is some people will believe and accept any nonsense put in front of them and if you challenge that truth and show beyond any reasonable doubt it's a lie you'll get no thanks for it.
The truth isn't important - what's important is getting people to believe it is the truth even when it isn't.
Incredulous does not mean incredible, and I have never lied *about a professional matter* (I have lied plenty in my spare time) and I would despise and distrust anyone who did. Are you claiming that you lie in professional contexts?
The modern confusion between the words “incredible” and “incredulous” is quite depressing because it is worse than standard linguistic evolution. It is basic stupidity
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31 · 1h Student visas are already down nearly 30%, and I would say between 10 and 20 universities are going to get into deep trouble. Another 10 to 20 will follow rapidly. Imagine sending a further signal that you want the numbers down... (1/2)
We could do with a fundamental restructuring of FE in this county. Clearly I don’t want there to be a collapse of institutions (that serves no-one) but we could do with moving away from the New Labour model of degrees for all.
All want degrees (or many do). It's aspirational, which is supposed to be good. People with degrees, including many in this board, saying other people shouldn't have them is a poor look.
But yes higher education does need restructuring. To be specific undergraduate education needs to be a lot, lot cheaper. Education factories in other words, efficiency two year degrees, longer semesters and more part time degrees. Anyone who starts talking about Oxbridge, world rankings etc is self serving
Perhaps “degrees for all” was a bad choice of words. I believe that we need to look at making sure all qualifications are high quality and that everyone has the chance to access them. Where I am not convinced, is that a university degree in the traditional academic sense is appropriate for all trades, professions and wants/needs of young people. We need to move away from elitist interpretations of universities needing to be the places to go to get on in life, and see that there is better careers advice and more flexible pathways for the future workforce.
I agree with everything you say but that doesn't address the affordability issue. The problem is we can't afford 50% of young people going to university at current costs and prices. Employability is fine. In general graduates can find jobs more easily than non graduates. The cost isn't fine.
So that gives us three choices I think:
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
3 seems obviously the right answer to me but that will need radical changes to universities. They need become Premier Inns (where the bed and shower are better anyway) and no longer pretend to be the Savoy.
I am taking about undergraduate education. Postgraduate is a different requirement entirely.
As I was saying...
Ex-ministers warn UK universities will go bust without higher fees or funding: Vice-chancellors suggest fee rise of £2,000 to £3,500 a year, but others say that is ‘politically impossible’
Vice-chancellors and former ministers are warning that the cash crisis facing universities is so serious that the next government will have to urgently raise tuition fees or increase funding to avoid bankruptcies within two years.
They said the state of university finances was more dire than revealed in last week’s report by the Office for Students, which forecast 40% of England’s universities would end this year in the red.
Vice-chancellors said that increases of between £2,000 to £3,500 a year for each student would be needed.
The UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight, and a major driver for innovation and growth. We are never going to improve productivity by reacting to everything with an attitude of managing down.
I suspect this Government's current university/student visa proposals kill two birds with one stone. Return higher education to the elite 5% and kick out the foreign.
I think, like most of the government's performative policies on immigration, the visa proposals won't have such a huge impact on their own. The economic crisis in China is partly to explain for the drop in overseas student numbers.
But they are going to hurt a higher education sector that, like much in the UK, is struggling after years of austerity followed by high inflation. Along the lines you suggest, yes, that's what conservatism in the UK stands for today: undermining long-standing and successful British institutions.
I like the intro music - which sounds like it should be a cut-away scene in an east-end gangster flick or b-unit scene from The Sweeney.
That's fascinating. Everyone in the audience is wearing a jacket and tie. A constant hubbub of conversation. You can't see it, but you suspect the room is absolutely saturated with cigarette smoke.
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31 · 1h Student visas are already down nearly 30%, and I would say between 10 and 20 universities are going to get into deep trouble. Another 10 to 20 will follow rapidly. Imagine sending a further signal that you want the numbers down... (1/2)
We could do with a fundamental restructuring of FE in this county. Clearly I don’t want there to be a collapse of institutions (that serves no-one) but we could do with moving away from the New Labour model of degrees for all.
All want degrees (or many do). It's aspirational, which is supposed to be good. People with degrees, including many in this board, saying other people shouldn't have them is a poor look.
But yes higher education does need restructuring. To be specific undergraduate education needs to be a lot, lot cheaper. Education factories in other words, efficiency two year degrees, longer semesters and more part time degrees. Anyone who starts talking about Oxbridge, world rankings etc is self serving
Perhaps “degrees for all” was a bad choice of words. I believe that we need to look at making sure all qualifications are high quality and that everyone has the chance to access them. Where I am not convinced, is that a university degree in the traditional academic sense is appropriate for all trades, professions and wants/needs of young people. We need to move away from elitist interpretations of universities needing to be the places to go to get on in life, and see that there is better careers advice and more flexible pathways for the future workforce.
I agree with everything you say but that doesn't address the affordability issue. The problem is we can't afford 50% of young people going to university at current costs and prices. Employability is fine. In general graduates can find jobs more easily than non graduates. The cost isn't fine.
So that gives us three choices I think:
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
3 seems obviously the right answer to me but that will need radical changes to universities. They need become Premier Inns (where the bed and shower are better anyway) and no longer pretend to be the Savoy.
I am taking about undergraduate education. Postgraduate is a different requirement entirely.
As I was saying...
Ex-ministers warn UK universities will go bust without higher fees or funding: Vice-chancellors suggest fee rise of £2,000 to £3,500 a year, but others say that is ‘politically impossible’
Vice-chancellors and former ministers are warning that the cash crisis facing universities is so serious that the next government will have to urgently raise tuition fees or increase funding to avoid bankruptcies within two years.
They said the state of university finances was more dire than revealed in last week’s report by the Office for Students, which forecast 40% of England’s universities would end this year in the red.
Vice-chancellors said that increases of between £2,000 to £3,500 a year for each student would be needed.
The UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight, and a major driver for innovation and growth. We are never going to improve productivity by reacting to everything with an attitude of managing down.
I suspect this Government's current university/student visa proposals kill two birds with one stone. Return higher education to the elite 5% and kick out the foreign.
I think, like most of the government's performative policies on immigration, the visa proposals won't have such a huge impact on their own. The economic crisis in China is partly to explain for the drop in overseas student numbers.
But they are going to hurt a higher education sector that, like much in the UK, is struggling after years of austerity followed by high inflation. Along the lines you suggest, yes, that's what conservatism in the UK stands for today: undermining long-standing and successful British institutions.
Not least of which is the Conservative and Unionist Party.
I like the intro music - which sounds like it should be a cut-away scene in an east-end gangster flick or b-unit scene from The Sweeney.
That's fascinating. Everyone in the audience is wearing a jacket and tie. A constant hubbub of conversation. You can't see it, but you suspect the room is absolutely saturated with cigarette smoke.
Also, aggregate scores in the earlier rounds?! I'd often wondered how snooker might differ if that's how it were played.
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31 · 1h Student visas are already down nearly 30%, and I would say between 10 and 20 universities are going to get into deep trouble. Another 10 to 20 will follow rapidly. Imagine sending a further signal that you want the numbers down... (1/2)
We could do with a fundamental restructuring of FE in this county. Clearly I don’t want there to be a collapse of institutions (that serves no-one) but we could do with moving away from the New Labour model of degrees for all.
All want degrees (or many do). It's aspirational, which is supposed to be good. People with degrees, including many in this board, saying other people shouldn't have them is a poor look.
But yes higher education does need restructuring. To be specific undergraduate education needs to be a lot, lot cheaper. Education factories in other words, efficiency two year degrees, longer semesters and more part time degrees. Anyone who starts talking about Oxbridge, world rankings etc is self serving
Perhaps “degrees for all” was a bad choice of words. I believe that we need to look at making sure all qualifications are high quality and that everyone has the chance to access them. Where I am not convinced, is that a university degree in the traditional academic sense is appropriate for all trades, professions and wants/needs of young people. We need to move away from elitist interpretations of universities needing to be the places to go to get on in life, and see that there is better careers advice and more flexible pathways for the future workforce.
I agree with everything you say but that doesn't address the affordability issue. The problem is we can't afford 50% of young people going to university at current costs and prices. Employability is fine. In general graduates can find jobs more easily than non graduates. The cost isn't fine.
So that gives us three choices I think:
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
3 seems obviously the right answer to me but that will need radical changes to universities. They need become Premier Inns (where the bed and shower are better anyway) and no longer pretend to be the Savoy.
I am taking about undergraduate education. Postgraduate is a different requirement entirely.
As I was saying...
Ex-ministers warn UK universities will go bust without higher fees or funding: Vice-chancellors suggest fee rise of £2,000 to £3,500 a year, but others say that is ‘politically impossible’
Vice-chancellors and former ministers are warning that the cash crisis facing universities is so serious that the next government will have to urgently raise tuition fees or increase funding to avoid bankruptcies within two years.
They said the state of university finances was more dire than revealed in last week’s report by the Office for Students, which forecast 40% of England’s universities would end this year in the red.
Vice-chancellors said that increases of between £2,000 to £3,500 a year for each student would be needed.
The UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight, and a major driver for innovation and growth. We are never going to improve productivity by reacting to everything with an attitude of managing down.
Don't worry - the Tories will eff it up before they leave office.
Not long back from a pleasant social afternoon in metropolitan liberal London.
One of my acquaintances was berating me about politics - "I watch GB News", he said which was the first alarm bell as, rather like anyone posting on PB.com, anyone who watches GB News is by definition sad, mad or bad. "I don't trust any of the politicians" he said, "they're all liars" was the inevitable next point.
"So you've never told a lie?" I remarked. That slowed him down.
It seemed incredulous to me a reasonably intelligent man was only prepared to want to trust someone who never lied when most people lie occasionally (and some habitually). How can you run politics if you only want to vote for someone you think will never lie to you? Politics is if nothing else the art of telling convincing lies - the more convincing the better.
Is it somehow easier to choose to believe something even if it is demonstrably proved to be false? Is it somehow easier to believe and trust someone because you believe they are telling the truth even if it is demonstrably proved they aren't? The one conclusion from this experience is some people will believe and accept any nonsense put in front of them and if you challenge that truth and show beyond any reasonable doubt it's a lie you'll get no thanks for it.
The truth isn't important - what's important is getting people to believe it is the truth even when it isn't.
Incredulous does not mean incredible, and I have never lied *about a professional matter* (I have lied plenty in my spare time) and I would despise and distrust anyone who did. Are you claiming that you lie in professional contexts?
Thanks for the response - how do we define the "professional context" in politics? It seems it can emcompass almost all aspects of human activity so we are basically saying a politician cannot lie about anything at all otherwise they are "despised" and "distrusted".
As to the second question, I lie and have been lied to as part of my work. I learned later the lie often told to me was to ensure knowledge of something that was going to happen was withheld until those who needed to know first were told. I had accidentally stumbled on a truth which couldn't be revealed at the time.
The distinction was therefore between a lie and being economical or incomplete with the truth.
It may be politicians are occasionally compelled to act in a similar way.
Not long back from a pleasant social afternoon in metropolitan liberal London.
One of my acquaintances was berating me about politics - "I watch GB News", he said which was the first alarm bell as, rather like anyone posting on PB.com, anyone who watches GB News is by definition sad, mad or bad. "I don't trust any of the politicians" he said, "they're all liars" was the inevitable next point.
"So you've never told a lie?" I remarked. That slowed him down.
It seemed incredulous to me a reasonably intelligent man was only prepared to want to trust someone who never lied when most people lie occasionally (and some habitually). How can you run politics if you only want to vote for someone you think will never lie to you? Politics is if nothing else the art of telling convincing lies - the more convincing the better.
Is it somehow easier to choose to believe something even if it is demonstrably proved to be false? Is it somehow easier to believe and trust someone because you believe they are telling the truth even if it is demonstrably proved they aren't? The one conclusion from this experience is some people will believe and accept any nonsense put in front of them and if you challenge that truth and show beyond any reasonable doubt it's a lie you'll get no thanks for it.
The truth isn't important - what's important is getting people to believe it is the truth even when it isn't.
Incredulous does not mean incredible, and I have never lied *about a professional matter* (I have lied plenty in my spare time) and I would despise and distrust anyone who did. Are you claiming that you lie in professional contexts?
The modern confusion between the words “incredible” and “incredulous” is quite depressing because it is worse than standard linguistic evolution. It is basic stupidity
But tryanders get away with talking stupid
Even professional writers don't seem to realise that trytoism saves you a letter, as well as being grammatically correct, and not stupid
Not long back from a pleasant social afternoon in metropolitan liberal London.
One of my acquaintances was berating me about politics - "I watch GB News", he said which was the first alarm bell as, rather like anyone posting on PB.com, anyone who watches GB News is by definition sad, mad or bad. "I don't trust any of the politicians" he said, "they're all liars" was the inevitable next point.
"So you've never told a lie?" I remarked. That slowed him down.
It seemed incredulous to me a reasonably intelligent man was only prepared to want to trust someone who never lied when most people lie occasionally (and some habitually). How can you run politics if you only want to vote for someone you think will never lie to you? Politics is if nothing else the art of telling convincing lies - the more convincing the better.
Is it somehow easier to choose to believe something even if it is demonstrably proved to be false? Is it somehow easier to believe and trust someone because you believe they are telling the truth even if it is demonstrably proved they aren't? The one conclusion from this experience is some people will believe and accept any nonsense put in front of them and if you challenge that truth and show beyond any reasonable doubt it's a lie you'll get no thanks for it.
The truth isn't important - what's important is getting people to believe it is the truth even when it isn't.
Incredulous does not mean incredible, and I have never lied *about a professional matter* (I have lied plenty in my spare time) and I would despise and distrust anyone who did. Are you claiming that you lie in professional contexts?
The modern confusion between the words “incredible” and “incredulous” is quite depressing because it is worse than standard linguistic evolution. It is basic stupidity
Don't get me started on 'enormity'. Even the current New York Review of Books has a glaring example (not to mention a 'just deserts' ... for dessert).
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31 · 1h Student visas are already down nearly 30%, and I would say between 10 and 20 universities are going to get into deep trouble. Another 10 to 20 will follow rapidly. Imagine sending a further signal that you want the numbers down... (1/2)
We could do with a fundamental restructuring of FE in this county. Clearly I don’t want there to be a collapse of institutions (that serves no-one) but we could do with moving away from the New Labour model of degrees for all.
All want degrees (or many do). It's aspirational, which is supposed to be good. People with degrees, including many in this board, saying other people shouldn't have them is a poor look.
But yes higher education does need restructuring. To be specific undergraduate education needs to be a lot, lot cheaper. Education factories in other words, efficiency two year degrees, longer semesters and more part time degrees. Anyone who starts talking about Oxbridge, world rankings etc is self serving
Perhaps “degrees for all” was a bad choice of words. I believe that we need to look at making sure all qualifications are high quality and that everyone has the chance to access them. Where I am not convinced, is that a university degree in the traditional academic sense is appropriate for all trades, professions and wants/needs of young people. We need to move away from elitist interpretations of universities needing to be the places to go to get on in life, and see that there is better careers advice and more flexible pathways for the future workforce.
I agree with everything you say but that doesn't address the affordability issue. The problem is we can't afford 50% of young people going to university at current costs and prices. Employability is fine. In general graduates can find jobs more easily than non graduates. The cost isn't fine.
So that gives us three choices I think:
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
3 seems obviously the right answer to me but that will need radical changes to universities. They need become Premier Inns (where the bed and shower are better anyway) and no longer pretend to be the Savoy.
I am taking about undergraduate education. Postgraduate is a different requirement entirely.
As I was saying...
Ex-ministers warn UK universities will go bust without higher fees or funding: Vice-chancellors suggest fee rise of £2,000 to £3,500 a year, but others say that is ‘politically impossible’
Vice-chancellors and former ministers are warning that the cash crisis facing universities is so serious that the next government will have to urgently raise tuition fees or increase funding to avoid bankruptcies within two years.
They said the state of university finances was more dire than revealed in last week’s report by the Office for Students, which forecast 40% of England’s universities would end this year in the red.
Vice-chancellors said that increases of between £2,000 to £3,500 a year for each student would be needed.
The UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight, and a major driver for innovation and growth. We are never going to improve productivity by reacting to everything with an attitude of managing down.
For the reasons I set out above I don't think, at the undergraduate level, that the UK should pretend to have a "world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight".
It should aim to educate anyone who is qualified, and could benefit from it, to a decent standard and at an affordable cost. Something the sector is utterly failing to do and so it's heading towards bankruptcy.
It's not pretending that the UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight. We do have a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight. That's true in terms of research and it's true in terms of our ability to attract fees from overseas students. UK degrees are highly valued.
The universities do not get to decide whether to take "anyone who is qualified". That is determined by government policy. It's the government that controls that, not the sector. University education in the UK is not unaffordable. The sector is heading towards bankruptcy because its income is very heavily determined by the government, and the government chooses to cut corners, as always.
I see no reason to think it wasn't an accident. Poor weather, mist and cloud; and remote, hilly terrain. Makes it a hard target for a missile attack, and very easy for accidentally running into the ground (controlled flight into terrain).
Another option would be bomb on board, but the wording from the Iranians ("hard landing") makes me feel that it simply ran into a mountain. In which case, all on bard will be dead.
Matera is quite quite magical at night. Never been anywhere like it. And I’ve been EVERYWHERE
OK I am going. I love inland Sicily and this sounds a match. Internet says check out the Sassi caves.
I love Sicily but - honestly? - i reckon Puglia and southern Basicliata possibly beats it. Or at least it is close. Expect lots of litter, graffiti, bleak countryside, stretches of hideous industry, often derelict. Ie - just like Sicily
And yet at its best Puglia is incredible. The Gargano, Lecce, Mont Sant Angelo. Polignano (touristy like Taormina), Otranto (ditto), and then you have Gallipoli and Taranto (oh my!), and now Gravino, Altamura and finally Matera which is like nowhere on earth. Stay overnight!
The food is generally world class. the wine is great. the people are super friendly. And often you get a sense of true discovery (which you don’t in Sicily). Eg Altamura. Not even mentioned in any of my guidebooks apart from the Neanderthal/focaccia references in passing, yet a jewel of a medieval city in its core
Fab
Let's hope your stalker SeanT doesn't start megaphoning it and ruin it for everyone.
Puglia has very definitely been “discovered”. Polignano and Otranto are overrun with tourists
however it’s not hard to find gems nearby that are entirely overlooked. Altamura and Gravina. Taranto because of its absurdly bad rep
Hopefully with my good work on the Gazette i can ruin everywhere
Yes we went to Puglia on holiday about eight years ago, it is definitely not terra incognita. Beautiful old towns, lovely food, awful driving. Hot as fuck.
Not long back from a pleasant social afternoon in metropolitan liberal London.
One of my acquaintances was berating me about politics - "I watch GB News", he said which was the first alarm bell as, rather like anyone posting on PB.com, anyone who watches GB News is by definition sad, mad or bad. "I don't trust any of the politicians" he said, "they're all liars" was the inevitable next point.
"So you've never told a lie?" I remarked. That slowed him down.
It seemed incredulous to me a reasonably intelligent man was only prepared to want to trust someone who never lied when most people lie occasionally (and some habitually). How can you run politics if you only want to vote for someone you think will never lie to you? Politics is if nothing else the art of telling convincing lies - the more convincing the better.
Is it somehow easier to choose to believe something even if it is demonstrably proved to be false? Is it somehow easier to believe and trust someone because you believe they are telling the truth even if it is demonstrably proved they aren't? The one conclusion from this experience is some people will believe and accept any nonsense put in front of them and if you challenge that truth and show beyond any reasonable doubt it's a lie you'll get no thanks for it.
The truth isn't important - what's important is getting people to believe it is the truth even when it isn't.
Incredulous does not mean incredible, and I have never lied *about a professional matter* (I have lied plenty in my spare time) and I would despise and distrust anyone who did. Are you claiming that you lie in professional contexts?
The modern confusion between the words “incredible” and “incredulous” is quite depressing because it is worse than standard linguistic evolution. It is basic stupidity
But tryanders get away with talking stupid
Even professional writers don't seem to realise that trytoism saves you a letter, as well as being grammatically correct, and not stupid
Not long back from a pleasant social afternoon in metropolitan liberal London.
One of my acquaintances was berating me about politics - "I watch GB News", he said which was the first alarm bell as, rather like anyone posting on PB.com, anyone who watches GB News is by definition sad, mad or bad. "I don't trust any of the politicians" he said, "they're all liars" was the inevitable next point.
"So you've never told a lie?" I remarked. That slowed him down.
It seemed incredulous to me a reasonably intelligent man was only prepared to want to trust someone who never lied when most people lie occasionally (and some habitually). How can you run politics if you only want to vote for someone you think will never lie to you? Politics is if nothing else the art of telling convincing lies - the more convincing the better.
Is it somehow easier to choose to believe something even if it is demonstrably proved to be false? Is it somehow easier to believe and trust someone because you believe they are telling the truth even if it is demonstrably proved they aren't? The one conclusion from this experience is some people will believe and accept any nonsense put in front of them and if you challenge that truth and show beyond any reasonable doubt it's a lie you'll get no thanks for it.
The truth isn't important - what's important is getting people to believe it is the truth even when it isn't.
Incredulous does not mean incredible, and I have never lied *about a professional matter* (I have lied plenty in my spare time) and I would despise and distrust anyone who did. Are you claiming that you lie in professional contexts?
The modern confusion between the words “incredible” and “incredulous” is quite depressing because it is worse than standard linguistic evolution. It is basic stupidity
No, it isn't stupidity. The word incredulous is defined as "not wanting or not able to believe something, and usually showing this" . My error was grammatical - "I was incredulous" would have been better than trying to use the passive.
An example would be "I'm incredulous you claim not to be @SeanT "
Also I just had a basically vegetarian dinner. Orrechiete pasta with bitter broccoli tops and chicory and chili and garlic and capers and breadcrumbs - supposedly there was anchovies in there but I didn’t detect them
Absolutely delish. Very bitter yet weirdly moreish. Great with a robust primitivo
I hate veggie food yet this was cracking. Also extremely basic - cucina povera. Italian cuisine at its simple best
Asparagus, lemon & pecorino linguine for us tonight. It happens to be veggie but most importantly it happens to be delicious. Italian cuisine has plenty of great vegetarian options.
(PS Anchovies are not a vegetable btw, so your 'veggie' meal was not veggie. You are very unlikely to detect anchovies cooked in a sauce as anchovies but they provide that 'weirdly moreish' flavour.)
Italy is probably the easiest place on the planet to eat out well (and reasonably) if you have vegetarians in your party .. and aren't vegetarian yourself ?
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31 · 1h Student visas are already down nearly 30%, and I would say between 10 and 20 universities are going to get into deep trouble. Another 10 to 20 will follow rapidly. Imagine sending a further signal that you want the numbers down... (1/2)
We could do with a fundamental restructuring of FE in this county. Clearly I don’t want there to be a collapse of institutions (that serves no-one) but we could do with moving away from the New Labour model of degrees for all.
All want degrees (or many do). It's aspirational, which is supposed to be good. People with degrees, including many in this board, saying other people shouldn't have them is a poor look.
But yes higher education does need restructuring. To be specific undergraduate education needs to be a lot, lot cheaper. Education factories in other words, efficiency two year degrees, longer semesters and more part time degrees. Anyone who starts talking about Oxbridge, world rankings etc is self serving
Perhaps “degrees for all” was a bad choice of words. I believe that we need to look at making sure all qualifications are high quality and that everyone has the chance to access them. Where I am not convinced, is that a university degree in the traditional academic sense is appropriate for all trades, professions and wants/needs of young people. We need to move away from elitist interpretations of universities needing to be the places to go to get on in life, and see that there is better careers advice and more flexible pathways for the future workforce.
I agree with everything you say but that doesn't address the affordability issue. The problem is we can't afford 50% of young people going to university at current costs and prices. Employability is fine. In general graduates can find jobs more easily than non graduates. The cost isn't fine.
So that gives us three choices I think:
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
3 seems obviously the right answer to me but that will need radical changes to universities. They need become Premier Inns (where the bed and shower are better anyway) and no longer pretend to be the Savoy.
I am taking about undergraduate education. Postgraduate is a different requirement entirely.
As I was saying...
Ex-ministers warn UK universities will go bust without higher fees or funding: Vice-chancellors suggest fee rise of £2,000 to £3,500 a year, but others say that is ‘politically impossible’
Vice-chancellors and former ministers are warning that the cash crisis facing universities is so serious that the next government will have to urgently raise tuition fees or increase funding to avoid bankruptcies within two years.
They said the state of university finances was more dire than revealed in last week’s report by the Office for Students, which forecast 40% of England’s universities would end this year in the red.
Vice-chancellors said that increases of between £2,000 to £3,500 a year for each student would be needed.
The UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight, and a major driver for innovation and growth. We are never going to improve productivity by reacting to everything with an attitude of managing down.
For the reasons I set out above I don't think, at the undergraduate level, that the UK should pretend to have a "world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight".
It should aim to educate anyone who is qualified, and could benefit from it, to a decent standard and at an affordable cost. Something the sector is utterly failing to do and so it's heading towards bankruptcy.
It's not pretending that the UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight. We do have a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight. That's true in terms of research and it's true in terms of our ability to attract fees from overseas students. UK degrees are highly valued.
The universities do not get to decide whether to take "anyone who is qualified". That is determined by government policy. It's the government that controls that, not the sector. University education in the UK is not unaffordable. The sector is heading towards bankruptcy because its income is very heavily determined by the government, and the government chooses to cut corners, as always.
Costs are higher than fees, when the price of going through university is generally regarded as too high already. I set out what I think are the options for a sustainable university sector
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
We have choices. I would choose (3). What is your choice? It could be something I missed.
Not long back from a pleasant social afternoon in metropolitan liberal London.
One of my acquaintances was berating me about politics - "I watch GB News", he said which was the first alarm bell as, rather like anyone posting on PB.com, anyone who watches GB News is by definition sad, mad or bad. "I don't trust any of the politicians" he said, "they're all liars" was the inevitable next point.
"So you've never told a lie?" I remarked. That slowed him down.
It seemed incredulous to me a reasonably intelligent man was only prepared to want to trust someone who never lied when most people lie occasionally (and some habitually). How can you run politics if you only want to vote for someone you think will never lie to you? Politics is if nothing else the art of telling convincing lies - the more convincing the better.
Is it somehow easier to choose to believe something even if it is demonstrably proved to be false? Is it somehow easier to believe and trust someone because you believe they are telling the truth even if it is demonstrably proved they aren't? The one conclusion from this experience is some people will believe and accept any nonsense put in front of them and if you challenge that truth and show beyond any reasonable doubt it's a lie you'll get no thanks for it.
The truth isn't important - what's important is getting people to believe it is the truth even when it isn't.
Incredulous does not mean incredible, and I have never lied *about a professional matter* (I have lied plenty in my spare time) and I would despise and distrust anyone who did. Are you claiming that you lie in professional contexts?
The modern confusion between the words “incredible” and “incredulous” is quite depressing because it is worse than standard linguistic evolution. It is basic stupidity
But tryanders get away with talking stupid
Even professional writers don't seem to realise that trytoism saves you a letter, as well as being grammatically correct, and not stupid
Not long back from a pleasant social afternoon in metropolitan liberal London.
One of my acquaintances was berating me about politics - "I watch GB News", he said which was the first alarm bell as, rather like anyone posting on PB.com, anyone who watches GB News is by definition sad, mad or bad. "I don't trust any of the politicians" he said, "they're all liars" was the inevitable next point.
"So you've never told a lie?" I remarked. That slowed him down.
It seemed incredulous to me a reasonably intelligent man was only prepared to want to trust someone who never lied when most people lie occasionally (and some habitually). How can you run politics if you only want to vote for someone you think will never lie to you? Politics is if nothing else the art of telling convincing lies - the more convincing the better.
Is it somehow easier to choose to believe something even if it is demonstrably proved to be false? Is it somehow easier to believe and trust someone because you believe they are telling the truth even if it is demonstrably proved they aren't? The one conclusion from this experience is some people will believe and accept any nonsense put in front of them and if you challenge that truth and show beyond any reasonable doubt it's a lie you'll get no thanks for it.
The truth isn't important - what's important is getting people to believe it is the truth even when it isn't.
Incredulous does not mean incredible, and I have never lied *about a professional matter* (I have lied plenty in my spare time) and I would despise and distrust anyone who did. Are you claiming that you lie in professional contexts?
The modern confusion between the words “incredible” and “incredulous” is quite depressing because it is worse than standard linguistic evolution. It is basic stupidity
No, it isn't stupidity. The word incredulous is defined as "not wanting or not able to believe something, and usually showing this" . My error was grammatical - "I was incredulous" would have been better than trying to use the passive.
An example would be "I'm incredulous you claim not to be @SeanT "
Not long back from a pleasant social afternoon in metropolitan liberal London.
One of my acquaintances was berating me about politics - "I watch GB News", he said which was the first alarm bell as, rather like anyone posting on PB.com, anyone who watches GB News is by definition sad, mad or bad. "I don't trust any of the politicians" he said, "they're all liars" was the inevitable next point.
"So you've never told a lie?" I remarked. That slowed him down.
It seemed incredulous to me a reasonably intelligent man was only prepared to want to trust someone who never lied when most people lie occasionally (and some habitually). How can you run politics if you only want to vote for someone you think will never lie to you? Politics is if nothing else the art of telling convincing lies - the more convincing the better.
Is it somehow easier to choose to believe something even if it is demonstrably proved to be false? Is it somehow easier to believe and trust someone because you believe they are telling the truth even if it is demonstrably proved they aren't? The one conclusion from this experience is some people will believe and accept any nonsense put in front of them and if you challenge that truth and show beyond any reasonable doubt it's a lie you'll get no thanks for it.
The truth isn't important - what's important is getting people to believe it is the truth even when it isn't.
Incredulous does not mean incredible, and I have never lied *about a professional matter* (I have lied plenty in my spare time) and I would despise and distrust anyone who did. Are you claiming that you lie in professional contexts?
The modern confusion between the words “incredible” and “incredulous” is quite depressing because it is worse than standard linguistic evolution. It is basic stupidity
No, it isn't stupidity. The word incredulous is defined as "not wanting or not able to believe something, and usually showing this" . My error was grammatical - "I was incredulous" would have been better than trying to use the passive.
An example would be "I'm incredulous you claim not to be @SeanT "
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31 · 1h Student visas are already down nearly 30%, and I would say between 10 and 20 universities are going to get into deep trouble. Another 10 to 20 will follow rapidly. Imagine sending a further signal that you want the numbers down... (1/2)
We could do with a fundamental restructuring of FE in this county. Clearly I don’t want there to be a collapse of institutions (that serves no-one) but we could do with moving away from the New Labour model of degrees for all.
All want degrees (or many do). It's aspirational, which is supposed to be good. People with degrees, including many in this board, saying other people shouldn't have them is a poor look.
But yes higher education does need restructuring. To be specific undergraduate education needs to be a lot, lot cheaper. Education factories in other words, efficiency two year degrees, longer semesters and more part time degrees. Anyone who starts talking about Oxbridge, world rankings etc is self serving
Perhaps “degrees for all” was a bad choice of words. I believe that we need to look at making sure all qualifications are high quality and that everyone has the chance to access them. Where I am not convinced, is that a university degree in the traditional academic sense is appropriate for all trades, professions and wants/needs of young people. We need to move away from elitist interpretations of universities needing to be the places to go to get on in life, and see that there is better careers advice and more flexible pathways for the future workforce.
I agree with everything you say but that doesn't address the affordability issue. The problem is we can't afford 50% of young people going to university at current costs and prices. Employability is fine. In general graduates can find jobs more easily than non graduates. The cost isn't fine.
So that gives us three choices I think:
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
3 seems obviously the right answer to me but that will need radical changes to universities. They need become Premier Inns (where the bed and shower are better anyway) and no longer pretend to be the Savoy.
I am taking about undergraduate education. Postgraduate is a different requirement entirely.
As I was saying...
Ex-ministers warn UK universities will go bust without higher fees or funding: Vice-chancellors suggest fee rise of £2,000 to £3,500 a year, but others say that is ‘politically impossible’
Vice-chancellors and former ministers are warning that the cash crisis facing universities is so serious that the next government will have to urgently raise tuition fees or increase funding to avoid bankruptcies within two years.
They said the state of university finances was more dire than revealed in last week’s report by the Office for Students, which forecast 40% of England’s universities would end this year in the red.
Vice-chancellors said that increases of between £2,000 to £3,500 a year for each student would be needed.
The UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight, and a major driver for innovation and growth. We are never going to improve productivity by reacting to everything with an attitude of managing down.
For the reasons I set out above I don't think, at the undergraduate level, that the UK should pretend to have a "world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight".
It should aim to educate anyone who is qualified, and could benefit from it, to a decent standard and at an affordable cost. Something the sector is utterly failing to do and so it's heading towards bankruptcy.
It's not pretending that the UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight. We do have a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight. That's true in terms of research and it's true in terms of our ability to attract fees from overseas students. UK degrees are highly valued.
The universities do not get to decide whether to take "anyone who is qualified". That is determined by government policy. It's the government that controls that, not the sector. University education in the UK is not unaffordable. The sector is heading towards bankruptcy because its income is very heavily determined by the government, and the government chooses to cut corners, as always.
Costs are higher than fees, when the price of going through university is generally regarded as too high already. I set out what I think are the options for a sustainable university sector
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
We have choices. I would choose (3). What is your choice? It could be something I missed.
I don't get your point 1.
Fees are funded by student loan scheme with large % never fully paying back over their lifetime.
If you take on £30K debt under the scheme, why not £50K?
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31 · 1h Student visas are already down nearly 30%, and I would say between 10 and 20 universities are going to get into deep trouble. Another 10 to 20 will follow rapidly. Imagine sending a further signal that you want the numbers down... (1/2)
We could do with a fundamental restructuring of FE in this county. Clearly I don’t want there to be a collapse of institutions (that serves no-one) but we could do with moving away from the New Labour model of degrees for all.
All want degrees (or many do). It's aspirational, which is supposed to be good. People with degrees, including many in this board, saying other people shouldn't have them is a poor look.
But yes higher education does need restructuring. To be specific undergraduate education needs to be a lot, lot cheaper. Education factories in other words, efficiency two year degrees, longer semesters and more part time degrees. Anyone who starts talking about Oxbridge, world rankings etc is self serving
Perhaps “degrees for all” was a bad choice of words. I believe that we need to look at making sure all qualifications are high quality and that everyone has the chance to access them. Where I am not convinced, is that a university degree in the traditional academic sense is appropriate for all trades, professions and wants/needs of young people. We need to move away from elitist interpretations of universities needing to be the places to go to get on in life, and see that there is better careers advice and more flexible pathways for the future workforce.
I agree with everything you say but that doesn't address the affordability issue. The problem is we can't afford 50% of young people going to university at current costs and prices. Employability is fine. In general graduates can find jobs more easily than non graduates. The cost isn't fine.
So that gives us three choices I think:
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
3 seems obviously the right answer to me but that will need radical changes to universities. They need become Premier Inns (where the bed and shower are better anyway) and no longer pretend to be the Savoy.
I am taking about undergraduate education. Postgraduate is a different requirement entirely.
As I was saying...
Ex-ministers warn UK universities will go bust without higher fees or funding: Vice-chancellors suggest fee rise of £2,000 to £3,500 a year, but others say that is ‘politically impossible’
Vice-chancellors and former ministers are warning that the cash crisis facing universities is so serious that the next government will have to urgently raise tuition fees or increase funding to avoid bankruptcies within two years.
They said the state of university finances was more dire than revealed in last week’s report by the Office for Students, which forecast 40% of England’s universities would end this year in the red.
Vice-chancellors said that increases of between £2,000 to £3,500 a year for each student would be needed.
The UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight, and a major driver for innovation and growth. We are never going to improve productivity by reacting to everything with an attitude of managing down.
For the reasons I set out above I don't think, at the undergraduate level, that the UK should pretend to have a "world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight".
It should aim to educate anyone who is qualified, and could benefit from it, to a decent standard and at an affordable cost. Something the sector is utterly failing to do and so it's heading towards bankruptcy.
It's not pretending that the UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight. We do have a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight. That's true in terms of research and it's true in terms of our ability to attract fees from overseas students. UK degrees are highly valued.
The universities do not get to decide whether to take "anyone who is qualified". That is determined by government policy. It's the government that controls that, not the sector. University education in the UK is not unaffordable. The sector is heading towards bankruptcy because its income is very heavily determined by the government, and the government chooses to cut corners, as always.
Costs are higher than fees, when the price of going through university is generally regarded as too high already. I set out what I think are the options for a sustainable university sector
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
We have choices. I would choose (3). What is your choice? It could be something I missed.
Question: does the £9k amount to more than just the cost of the course? i.e. is there a cross-subsidy of research, etc? £9k seems preposterously expensive for a few lectures a week and membership of a nice library. If so, the *right* option might be to charge students a fair fee and fund research from other sources e.g. the state.
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31 · 1h Student visas are already down nearly 30%, and I would say between 10 and 20 universities are going to get into deep trouble. Another 10 to 20 will follow rapidly. Imagine sending a further signal that you want the numbers down... (1/2)
We could do with a fundamental restructuring of FE in this county. Clearly I don’t want there to be a collapse of institutions (that serves no-one) but we could do with moving away from the New Labour model of degrees for all.
All want degrees (or many do). It's aspirational, which is supposed to be good. People with degrees, including many in this board, saying other people shouldn't have them is a poor look.
But yes higher education does need restructuring. To be specific undergraduate education needs to be a lot, lot cheaper. Education factories in other words, efficiency two year degrees, longer semesters and more part time degrees. Anyone who starts talking about Oxbridge, world rankings etc is self serving
Perhaps “degrees for all” was a bad choice of words. I believe that we need to look at making sure all qualifications are high quality and that everyone has the chance to access them. Where I am not convinced, is that a university degree in the traditional academic sense is appropriate for all trades, professions and wants/needs of young people. We need to move away from elitist interpretations of universities needing to be the places to go to get on in life, and see that there is better careers advice and more flexible pathways for the future workforce.
I agree with everything you say but that doesn't address the affordability issue. The problem is we can't afford 50% of young people going to university at current costs and prices. Employability is fine. In general graduates can find jobs more easily than non graduates. The cost isn't fine.
So that gives us three choices I think:
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
3 seems obviously the right answer to me but that will need radical changes to universities. They need become Premier Inns (where the bed and shower are better anyway) and no longer pretend to be the Savoy.
I am taking about undergraduate education. Postgraduate is a different requirement entirely.
As I was saying...
Ex-ministers warn UK universities will go bust without higher fees or funding: Vice-chancellors suggest fee rise of £2,000 to £3,500 a year, but others say that is ‘politically impossible’
Vice-chancellors and former ministers are warning that the cash crisis facing universities is so serious that the next government will have to urgently raise tuition fees or increase funding to avoid bankruptcies within two years.
They said the state of university finances was more dire than revealed in last week’s report by the Office for Students, which forecast 40% of England’s universities would end this year in the red.
Vice-chancellors said that increases of between £2,000 to £3,500 a year for each student would be needed.
The UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight, and a major driver for innovation and growth. We are never going to improve productivity by reacting to everything with an attitude of managing down.
For the reasons I set out above I don't think, at the undergraduate level, that the UK should pretend to have a "world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight".
It should aim to educate anyone who is qualified, and could benefit from it, to a decent standard and at an affordable cost. Something the sector is utterly failing to do and so it's heading towards bankruptcy.
It's not pretending that the UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight. We do have a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight. That's true in terms of research and it's true in terms of our ability to attract fees from overseas students. UK degrees are highly valued.
The universities do not get to decide whether to take "anyone who is qualified". That is determined by government policy. It's the government that controls that, not the sector. University education in the UK is not unaffordable. The sector is heading towards bankruptcy because its income is very heavily determined by the government, and the government chooses to cut corners, as always.
Costs are higher than fees, when the cost of going through university is generally regarded as too high already. I set out what I think are the options for a sustainable university sector
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
We have choices. I would choose (3). What is your choice? It could be something I missed.
I think you have a rather simplistic view of university funding, and a very all-or-nothing view of possible solutions. Undergraduate fees for home students are only loosely related to costs. What people pay is a figure set by politicians. Undergraduate fees for home students are only a part of a university's income. As mentioned, overseas student fee income currently subsidises undergraduate fee income.
A few years ago, the government-set undergraduate fee level was such that more than just the wealthy could afford to go to university. We've since had a period of high inflation (Ukraine, Truss), but the fee level has been unchanged. In real terms, fees are now cheaper for people. An increase in line with inflation would just be to restore the status quo. Your option (1) is scaremongering.
We need to consider the university sector in the round. Universities do more than just teach home undergraduates. They teach postgrads (necessary for a knowledge-based economy). They have overseas students (good for our balance of payments, brings money to local economies, increases British soft power). They do research (increases growth, enriches the nation's soul as well).
The UK needs to invest more. My choice is to support university research more; to not flip-flop back and forth on overseas student numbers (the current government promoted an increase, but is slamming on the brakes now the increase they wanted occurred); to reform the current over-regulated and broken modern apprenticeship system; to increase home student fees in line with inflation in the short term; and to reform student funding in the long term.
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31 · 1h Student visas are already down nearly 30%, and I would say between 10 and 20 universities are going to get into deep trouble. Another 10 to 20 will follow rapidly. Imagine sending a further signal that you want the numbers down... (1/2)
We could do with a fundamental restructuring of FE in this county. Clearly I don’t want there to be a collapse of institutions (that serves no-one) but we could do with moving away from the New Labour model of degrees for all.
All want degrees (or many do). It's aspirational, which is supposed to be good. People with degrees, including many in this board, saying other people shouldn't have them is a poor look.
But yes higher education does need restructuring. To be specific undergraduate education needs to be a lot, lot cheaper. Education factories in other words, efficiency two year degrees, longer semesters and more part time degrees. Anyone who starts talking about Oxbridge, world rankings etc is self serving
Perhaps “degrees for all” was a bad choice of words. I believe that we need to look at making sure all qualifications are high quality and that everyone has the chance to access them. Where I am not convinced, is that a university degree in the traditional academic sense is appropriate for all trades, professions and wants/needs of young people. We need to move away from elitist interpretations of universities needing to be the places to go to get on in life, and see that there is better careers advice and more flexible pathways for the future workforce.
I agree with everything you say but that doesn't address the affordability issue. The problem is we can't afford 50% of young people going to university at current costs and prices. Employability is fine. In general graduates can find jobs more easily than non graduates. The cost isn't fine.
So that gives us three choices I think:
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
3 seems obviously the right answer to me but that will need radical changes to universities. They need become Premier Inns (where the bed and shower are better anyway) and no longer pretend to be the Savoy.
I am taking about undergraduate education. Postgraduate is a different requirement entirely.
As I was saying...
Ex-ministers warn UK universities will go bust without higher fees or funding: Vice-chancellors suggest fee rise of £2,000 to £3,500 a year, but others say that is ‘politically impossible’
Vice-chancellors and former ministers are warning that the cash crisis facing universities is so serious that the next government will have to urgently raise tuition fees or increase funding to avoid bankruptcies within two years.
They said the state of university finances was more dire than revealed in last week’s report by the Office for Students, which forecast 40% of England’s universities would end this year in the red.
Vice-chancellors said that increases of between £2,000 to £3,500 a year for each student would be needed.
The UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight, and a major driver for innovation and growth. We are never going to improve productivity by reacting to everything with an attitude of managing down.
For the reasons I set out above I don't think, at the undergraduate level, that the UK should pretend to have a "world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight".
It should aim to educate anyone who is qualified, and could benefit from it, to a decent standard and at an affordable cost. Something the sector is utterly failing to do and so it's heading towards bankruptcy.
It's not pretending that the UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight. We do have a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight. That's true in terms of research and it's true in terms of our ability to attract fees from overseas students. UK degrees are highly valued.
The universities do not get to decide whether to take "anyone who is qualified". That is determined by government policy. It's the government that controls that, not the sector. University education in the UK is not unaffordable. The sector is heading towards bankruptcy because its income is very heavily determined by the government, and the government chooses to cut corners, as always.
Costs are higher than fees, when the price of going through university is generally regarded as too high already. I set out what I think are the options for a sustainable university sector
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
We have choices. I would choose (3). What is your choice? It could be something I missed.
I don't get your point 1.
Fees are funded by student loan scheme with large % never fully paying back over their lifetime.
If you take on £30K debt under the scheme, why not £50K?
I have no idea how solvent the student loan scheme is but the basic point remains. Universities are funded at the undergraduate level by a combination of government subsidies and student contributions. If you don't cover the deficit through general taxation (2) students will have to pay more (1).
Matera is quite quite magical at night. Never been anywhere like it. And I’ve been EVERYWHERE
OK I am going. I love inland Sicily and this sounds a match. Internet says check out the Sassi caves.
I love Sicily but - honestly? - i reckon Puglia and southern Basicliata possibly beats it. Or at least it is close. Expect lots of litter, graffiti, bleak countryside, stretches of hideous industry, often derelict. Ie - just like Sicily
And yet at its best Puglia is incredible. The Gargano, Lecce, Mont Sant Angelo. Polignano (touristy like Taormina), Otranto (ditto), and then you have Gallipoli and Taranto (oh my!), and now Gravino, Altamura and finally Matera which is like nowhere on earth. Stay overnight!
The food is generally world class. the wine is great. the people are super friendly. And often you get a sense of true discovery (which you don’t in Sicily). Eg Altamura. Not even mentioned in any of my guidebooks apart from the Neanderthal/focaccia references in passing, yet a jewel of a medieval city in its core
Fab
Let's hope your stalker SeanT doesn't start megaphoning it and ruin it for everyone.
Puglia has very definitely been “discovered”. Polignano and Otranto are overrun with tourists
however it’s not hard to find gems nearby that are entirely overlooked. Altamura and Gravina. Taranto because of its absurdly bad rep
Hopefully with my good work on the Gazette i can ruin everywhere
Yes we went to Puglia on holiday about eight years ago, it is definitely not terra incognita. Beautiful old towns, lovely food, awful driving. Hot as fuck.
Yeah the driving is insanely bad. They wander all over the lanes. I know I’ve scoffed at your fear of driving abroad but I can kinda empathise here
The key is to lean into it. To drive as languidly and carelessly as them - like dancing on a crowded dance floor - somehow you all instinctively avoid colliding
Nonetheless some people here are just basic twats. 180kph on the autostrada is not clever or brave. Nor is 30kph in a tiny fiat straddling both lanes
In terms of discovery coastal Adriatic puglia is definitely on the tourist radar. Up here in northern puglia and Basilicata? Nope. Empty. Brilliant
I see no reason to think it wasn't an accident. Poor weather, mist and cloud; and remote, hilly terrain. Makes it a hard target for a missile attack, and very easy for accidentally running into the ground (controlled flight into terrain).
Another option would be bomb on board, but the wording from the Iranians ("hard landing") makes me feel that it simply ran into a mountain. In which case, all on bard will be dead.
Clouds in mountainous regions often have crunchy centres.
The pilot stood in silence, staring out across the level greens. Bill Ward was dead, and vilified after his death when he could not defend himself. Small, stupid people said that he had come down from altitude to check up his position, and had hit a hill, like any pupil on his first cross-country. He had been furious when first he heard of that report; he was furious still. He had spoken his mind at D.R.D.’s meeting; he would speak his mind again, at any time, to anybody who would listen. That was not how Bill Ward had met his death.
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31 · 1h Student visas are already down nearly 30%, and I would say between 10 and 20 universities are going to get into deep trouble. Another 10 to 20 will follow rapidly. Imagine sending a further signal that you want the numbers down... (1/2)
We could do with a fundamental restructuring of FE in this county. Clearly I don’t want there to be a collapse of institutions (that serves no-one) but we could do with moving away from the New Labour model of degrees for all.
All want degrees (or many do). It's aspirational, which is supposed to be good. People with degrees, including many in this board, saying other people shouldn't have them is a poor look.
But yes higher education does need restructuring. To be specific undergraduate education needs to be a lot, lot cheaper. Education factories in other words, efficiency two year degrees, longer semesters and more part time degrees. Anyone who starts talking about Oxbridge, world rankings etc is self serving
Perhaps “degrees for all” was a bad choice of words. I believe that we need to look at making sure all qualifications are high quality and that everyone has the chance to access them. Where I am not convinced, is that a university degree in the traditional academic sense is appropriate for all trades, professions and wants/needs of young people. We need to move away from elitist interpretations of universities needing to be the places to go to get on in life, and see that there is better careers advice and more flexible pathways for the future workforce.
I agree with everything you say but that doesn't address the affordability issue. The problem is we can't afford 50% of young people going to university at current costs and prices. Employability is fine. In general graduates can find jobs more easily than non graduates. The cost isn't fine.
So that gives us three choices I think:
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
3 seems obviously the right answer to me but that will need radical changes to universities. They need become Premier Inns (where the bed and shower are better anyway) and no longer pretend to be the Savoy.
I am taking about undergraduate education. Postgraduate is a different requirement entirely.
As I was saying...
Ex-ministers warn UK universities will go bust without higher fees or funding: Vice-chancellors suggest fee rise of £2,000 to £3,500 a year, but others say that is ‘politically impossible’
Vice-chancellors and former ministers are warning that the cash crisis facing universities is so serious that the next government will have to urgently raise tuition fees or increase funding to avoid bankruptcies within two years.
They said the state of university finances was more dire than revealed in last week’s report by the Office for Students, which forecast 40% of England’s universities would end this year in the red.
Vice-chancellors said that increases of between £2,000 to £3,500 a year for each student would be needed.
The UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight, and a major driver for innovation and growth. We are never going to improve productivity by reacting to everything with an attitude of managing down.
For the reasons I set out above I don't think, at the undergraduate level, that the UK should pretend to have a "world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight".
It should aim to educate anyone who is qualified, and could benefit from it, to a decent standard and at an affordable cost. Something the sector is utterly failing to do and so it's heading towards bankruptcy.
It's not pretending that the UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight. We do have a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight. That's true in terms of research and it's true in terms of our ability to attract fees from overseas students. UK degrees are highly valued.
The universities do not get to decide whether to take "anyone who is qualified". That is determined by government policy. It's the government that controls that, not the sector. University education in the UK is not unaffordable. The sector is heading towards bankruptcy because its income is very heavily determined by the government, and the government chooses to cut corners, as always.
Costs are higher than fees, when the price of going through university is generally regarded as too high already. I set out what I think are the options for a sustainable university sector
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
We have choices. I would choose (3). What is your choice? It could be something I missed.
Question: does the £9k amount to more than just the cost of the course? i.e. is there a cross-subsidy of research, etc? £9k seems preposterously expensive for a few lectures a week and membership of a nice library. If so, the *right* option might be to charge students a fair fee and fund research from other sources e.g. the state.
Exactly. If universities are going to educate mass numbers of students at an affordable price with relatively little subsidy, they will have to get a lot more efficient.
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31 · 1h Student visas are already down nearly 30%, and I would say between 10 and 20 universities are going to get into deep trouble. Another 10 to 20 will follow rapidly. Imagine sending a further signal that you want the numbers down... (1/2)
We could do with a fundamental restructuring of FE in this county. Clearly I don’t want there to be a collapse of institutions (that serves no-one) but we could do with moving away from the New Labour model of degrees for all.
All want degrees (or many do). It's aspirational, which is supposed to be good. People with degrees, including many in this board, saying other people shouldn't have them is a poor look.
But yes higher education does need restructuring. To be specific undergraduate education needs to be a lot, lot cheaper. Education factories in other words, efficiency two year degrees, longer semesters and more part time degrees. Anyone who starts talking about Oxbridge, world rankings etc is self serving
Perhaps “degrees for all” was a bad choice of words. I believe that we need to look at making sure all qualifications are high quality and that everyone has the chance to access them. Where I am not convinced, is that a university degree in the traditional academic sense is appropriate for all trades, professions and wants/needs of young people. We need to move away from elitist interpretations of universities needing to be the places to go to get on in life, and see that there is better careers advice and more flexible pathways for the future workforce.
I agree with everything you say but that doesn't address the affordability issue. The problem is we can't afford 50% of young people going to university at current costs and prices. Employability is fine. In general graduates can find jobs more easily than non graduates. The cost isn't fine.
So that gives us three choices I think:
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
3 seems obviously the right answer to me but that will need radical changes to universities. They need become Premier Inns (where the bed and shower are better anyway) and no longer pretend to be the Savoy.
I am taking about undergraduate education. Postgraduate is a different requirement entirely.
As I was saying...
Ex-ministers warn UK universities will go bust without higher fees or funding: Vice-chancellors suggest fee rise of £2,000 to £3,500 a year, but others say that is ‘politically impossible’
Vice-chancellors and former ministers are warning that the cash crisis facing universities is so serious that the next government will have to urgently raise tuition fees or increase funding to avoid bankruptcies within two years.
They said the state of university finances was more dire than revealed in last week’s report by the Office for Students, which forecast 40% of England’s universities would end this year in the red.
Vice-chancellors said that increases of between £2,000 to £3,500 a year for each student would be needed.
The UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight, and a major driver for innovation and growth. We are never going to improve productivity by reacting to everything with an attitude of managing down.
For the reasons I set out above I don't think, at the undergraduate level, that the UK should pretend to have a "world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight".
It should aim to educate anyone who is qualified, and could benefit from it, to a decent standard and at an affordable cost. Something the sector is utterly failing to do and so it's heading towards bankruptcy.
It's not pretending that the UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight. We do have a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight. That's true in terms of research and it's true in terms of our ability to attract fees from overseas students. UK degrees are highly valued.
The universities do not get to decide whether to take "anyone who is qualified". That is determined by government policy. It's the government that controls that, not the sector. University education in the UK is not unaffordable. The sector is heading towards bankruptcy because its income is very heavily determined by the government, and the government chooses to cut corners, as always.
Costs are higher than fees, when the price of going through university is generally regarded as too high already. I set out what I think are the options for a sustainable university sector
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
We have choices. I would choose (3). What is your choice? It could be something I missed.
Question: does the £9k amount to more than just the cost of the course? i.e. is there a cross-subsidy of research, etc? £9k seems preposterously expensive for a few lectures a week and membership of a nice library. If so, the *right* option might be to charge students a fair fee and fund research from other sources e.g. the state.
Some courses are like that. A friend who did an art history PhD at Oxford described full overseas fees as the most expensive library card ever.
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31 · 1h Student visas are already down nearly 30%, and I would say between 10 and 20 universities are going to get into deep trouble. Another 10 to 20 will follow rapidly. Imagine sending a further signal that you want the numbers down... (1/2)
We could do with a fundamental restructuring of FE in this county. Clearly I don’t want there to be a collapse of institutions (that serves no-one) but we could do with moving away from the New Labour model of degrees for all.
All want degrees (or many do). It's aspirational, which is supposed to be good. People with degrees, including many in this board, saying other people shouldn't have them is a poor look.
But yes higher education does need restructuring. To be specific undergraduate education needs to be a lot, lot cheaper. Education factories in other words, efficiency two year degrees, longer semesters and more part time degrees. Anyone who starts talking about Oxbridge, world rankings etc is self serving
Perhaps “degrees for all” was a bad choice of words. I believe that we need to look at making sure all qualifications are high quality and that everyone has the chance to access them. Where I am not convinced, is that a university degree in the traditional academic sense is appropriate for all trades, professions and wants/needs of young people. We need to move away from elitist interpretations of universities needing to be the places to go to get on in life, and see that there is better careers advice and more flexible pathways for the future workforce.
I agree with everything you say but that doesn't address the affordability issue. The problem is we can't afford 50% of young people going to university at current costs and prices. Employability is fine. In general graduates can find jobs more easily than non graduates. The cost isn't fine.
So that gives us three choices I think:
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
3 seems obviously the right answer to me but that will need radical changes to universities. They need become Premier Inns (where the bed and shower are better anyway) and no longer pretend to be the Savoy.
I am taking about undergraduate education. Postgraduate is a different requirement entirely.
As I was saying...
Ex-ministers warn UK universities will go bust without higher fees or funding: Vice-chancellors suggest fee rise of £2,000 to £3,500 a year, but others say that is ‘politically impossible’
Vice-chancellors and former ministers are warning that the cash crisis facing universities is so serious that the next government will have to urgently raise tuition fees or increase funding to avoid bankruptcies within two years.
They said the state of university finances was more dire than revealed in last week’s report by the Office for Students, which forecast 40% of England’s universities would end this year in the red.
Vice-chancellors said that increases of between £2,000 to £3,500 a year for each student would be needed.
The UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight, and a major driver for innovation and growth. We are never going to improve productivity by reacting to everything with an attitude of managing down.
For the reasons I set out above I don't think, at the undergraduate level, that the UK should pretend to have a "world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight".
It should aim to educate anyone who is qualified, and could benefit from it, to a decent standard and at an affordable cost. Something the sector is utterly failing to do and so it's heading towards bankruptcy.
It's not pretending that the UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight. We do have a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight. That's true in terms of research and it's true in terms of our ability to attract fees from overseas students. UK degrees are highly valued.
The universities do not get to decide whether to take "anyone who is qualified". That is determined by government policy. It's the government that controls that, not the sector. University education in the UK is not unaffordable. The sector is heading towards bankruptcy because its income is very heavily determined by the government, and the government chooses to cut corners, as always.
Costs are higher than fees, when the price of going through university is generally regarded as too high already. I set out what I think are the options for a sustainable university sector
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
We have choices. I would choose (3). What is your choice? It could be something I missed.
Question: does the £9k amount to more than just the cost of the course? i.e. is there a cross-subsidy of research, etc? £9k seems preposterously expensive for a few lectures a week and membership of a nice library. If so, the *right* option might be to charge students a fair fee and fund research from other sources e.g. the state.
How much should a university course cost?
I guess one reference point is the cost of schools and FE- in the state sector, that's about £7500 a head, for private schools rather more.
You might be able to do a humanities degree cheaper than that (though I'd be a bit surprised even then), but the idea of doing science/engineering for that much is surely for the birds.
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31 · 1h Student visas are already down nearly 30%, and I would say between 10 and 20 universities are going to get into deep trouble. Another 10 to 20 will follow rapidly. Imagine sending a further signal that you want the numbers down... (1/2)
We could do with a fundamental restructuring of FE in this county. Clearly I don’t want there to be a collapse of institutions (that serves no-one) but we could do with moving away from the New Labour model of degrees for all.
All want degrees (or many do). It's aspirational, which is supposed to be good. People with degrees, including many in this board, saying other people shouldn't have them is a poor look.
But yes higher education does need restructuring. To be specific undergraduate education needs to be a lot, lot cheaper. Education factories in other words, efficiency two year degrees, longer semesters and more part time degrees. Anyone who starts talking about Oxbridge, world rankings etc is self serving
Perhaps “degrees for all” was a bad choice of words. I believe that we need to look at making sure all qualifications are high quality and that everyone has the chance to access them. Where I am not convinced, is that a university degree in the traditional academic sense is appropriate for all trades, professions and wants/needs of young people. We need to move away from elitist interpretations of universities needing to be the places to go to get on in life, and see that there is better careers advice and more flexible pathways for the future workforce.
I agree with everything you say but that doesn't address the affordability issue. The problem is we can't afford 50% of young people going to university at current costs and prices. Employability is fine. In general graduates can find jobs more easily than non graduates. The cost isn't fine.
So that gives us three choices I think:
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
3 seems obviously the right answer to me but that will need radical changes to universities. They need become Premier Inns (where the bed and shower are better anyway) and no longer pretend to be the Savoy.
I am taking about undergraduate education. Postgraduate is a different requirement entirely.
As I was saying...
Ex-ministers warn UK universities will go bust without higher fees or funding: Vice-chancellors suggest fee rise of £2,000 to £3,500 a year, but others say that is ‘politically impossible’
Vice-chancellors and former ministers are warning that the cash crisis facing universities is so serious that the next government will have to urgently raise tuition fees or increase funding to avoid bankruptcies within two years.
They said the state of university finances was more dire than revealed in last week’s report by the Office for Students, which forecast 40% of England’s universities would end this year in the red.
Vice-chancellors said that increases of between £2,000 to £3,500 a year for each student would be needed.
The UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight, and a major driver for innovation and growth. We are never going to improve productivity by reacting to everything with an attitude of managing down.
For the reasons I set out above I don't think, at the undergraduate level, that the UK should pretend to have a "world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight".
It should aim to educate anyone who is qualified, and could benefit from it, to a decent standard and at an affordable cost. Something the sector is utterly failing to do and so it's heading towards bankruptcy.
It's not pretending that the UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight. We do have a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight. That's true in terms of research and it's true in terms of our ability to attract fees from overseas students. UK degrees are highly valued.
The universities do not get to decide whether to take "anyone who is qualified". That is determined by government policy. It's the government that controls that, not the sector. University education in the UK is not unaffordable. The sector is heading towards bankruptcy because its income is very heavily determined by the government, and the government chooses to cut corners, as always.
Costs are higher than fees, when the price of going through university is generally regarded as too high already. I set out what I think are the options for a sustainable university sector
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
We have choices. I would choose (3). What is your choice? It could be something I missed.
Question: does the £9k amount to more than just the cost of the course? i.e. is there a cross-subsidy of research, etc? £9k seems preposterously expensive for a few lectures a week and membership of a nice library. If so, the *right* option might be to charge students a fair fee and fund research from other sources e.g. the state.
Universities currently lose money on the average home undergrad. Before the recent period in inflation, universities made a small margin on home undergrads that helped subsidise research, although the much bigger margins are in postgrad teaching and overseas students. However, the fee level has not changed, despite inflation, so now home undergrads lose money.
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31 · 1h Student visas are already down nearly 30%, and I would say between 10 and 20 universities are going to get into deep trouble. Another 10 to 20 will follow rapidly. Imagine sending a further signal that you want the numbers down... (1/2)
We could do with a fundamental restructuring of FE in this county. Clearly I don’t want there to be a collapse of institutions (that serves no-one) but we could do with moving away from the New Labour model of degrees for all.
All want degrees (or many do). It's aspirational, which is supposed to be good. People with degrees, including many in this board, saying other people shouldn't have them is a poor look.
But yes higher education does need restructuring. To be specific undergraduate education needs to be a lot, lot cheaper. Education factories in other words, efficiency two year degrees, longer semesters and more part time degrees. Anyone who starts talking about Oxbridge, world rankings etc is self serving
Perhaps “degrees for all” was a bad choice of words. I believe that we need to look at making sure all qualifications are high quality and that everyone has the chance to access them. Where I am not convinced, is that a university degree in the traditional academic sense is appropriate for all trades, professions and wants/needs of young people. We need to move away from elitist interpretations of universities needing to be the places to go to get on in life, and see that there is better careers advice and more flexible pathways for the future workforce.
I agree with everything you say but that doesn't address the affordability issue. The problem is we can't afford 50% of young people going to university at current costs and prices. Employability is fine. In general graduates can find jobs more easily than non graduates. The cost isn't fine.
So that gives us three choices I think:
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
3 seems obviously the right answer to me but that will need radical changes to universities. They need become Premier Inns (where the bed and shower are better anyway) and no longer pretend to be the Savoy.
I am taking about undergraduate education. Postgraduate is a different requirement entirely.
As I was saying...
Ex-ministers warn UK universities will go bust without higher fees or funding: Vice-chancellors suggest fee rise of £2,000 to £3,500 a year, but others say that is ‘politically impossible’
Vice-chancellors and former ministers are warning that the cash crisis facing universities is so serious that the next government will have to urgently raise tuition fees or increase funding to avoid bankruptcies within two years.
They said the state of university finances was more dire than revealed in last week’s report by the Office for Students, which forecast 40% of England’s universities would end this year in the red.
Vice-chancellors said that increases of between £2,000 to £3,500 a year for each student would be needed.
The UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight, and a major driver for innovation and growth. We are never going to improve productivity by reacting to everything with an attitude of managing down.
For the reasons I set out above I don't think, at the undergraduate level, that the UK should pretend to have a "world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight".
It should aim to educate anyone who is qualified, and could benefit from it, to a decent standard and at an affordable cost. Something the sector is utterly failing to do and so it's heading towards bankruptcy.
It's not pretending that the UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight. We do have a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight. That's true in terms of research and it's true in terms of our ability to attract fees from overseas students. UK degrees are highly valued.
The universities do not get to decide whether to take "anyone who is qualified". That is determined by government policy. It's the government that controls that, not the sector. University education in the UK is not unaffordable. The sector is heading towards bankruptcy because its income is very heavily determined by the government, and the government chooses to cut corners, as always.
Costs are higher than fees, when the price of going through university is generally regarded as too high already. I set out what I think are the options for a sustainable university sector
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
We have choices. I would choose (3). What is your choice? It could be something I missed.
I don't get your point 1.
Fees are funded by student loan scheme with large % never fully paying back over their lifetime.
If you take on £30K debt under the scheme, why not £50K?
I think you need to meet Mr Compound Interest. He is not your friend.
For anyone into cooking this was the dish I just had in Matera
Wonderful. Very bitter yet full of umami - you need a good strong red wine with it. Primitivo is perfetto
Best eaten on the terrace of a sassi-hotel in matera where you actually sleep in a cave continuously occupied by humans since 9,000BC but probably rather nice in Newent as well. Ok it’s not technically vegetarian (the anchovies!) but it’s as near to vegetarian as I ever want to get
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31 · 1h Student visas are already down nearly 30%, and I would say between 10 and 20 universities are going to get into deep trouble. Another 10 to 20 will follow rapidly. Imagine sending a further signal that you want the numbers down... (1/2)
We could do with a fundamental restructuring of FE in this county. Clearly I don’t want there to be a collapse of institutions (that serves no-one) but we could do with moving away from the New Labour model of degrees for all.
All want degrees (or many do). It's aspirational, which is supposed to be good. People with degrees, including many in this board, saying other people shouldn't have them is a poor look.
But yes higher education does need restructuring. To be specific undergraduate education needs to be a lot, lot cheaper. Education factories in other words, efficiency two year degrees, longer semesters and more part time degrees. Anyone who starts talking about Oxbridge, world rankings etc is self serving
Perhaps “degrees for all” was a bad choice of words. I believe that we need to look at making sure all qualifications are high quality and that everyone has the chance to access them. Where I am not convinced, is that a university degree in the traditional academic sense is appropriate for all trades, professions and wants/needs of young people. We need to move away from elitist interpretations of universities needing to be the places to go to get on in life, and see that there is better careers advice and more flexible pathways for the future workforce.
I agree with everything you say but that doesn't address the affordability issue. The problem is we can't afford 50% of young people going to university at current costs and prices. Employability is fine. In general graduates can find jobs more easily than non graduates. The cost isn't fine.
So that gives us three choices I think:
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
3 seems obviously the right answer to me but that will need radical changes to universities. They need become Premier Inns (where the bed and shower are better anyway) and no longer pretend to be the Savoy.
I am taking about undergraduate education. Postgraduate is a different requirement entirely.
As I was saying...
Ex-ministers warn UK universities will go bust without higher fees or funding: Vice-chancellors suggest fee rise of £2,000 to £3,500 a year, but others say that is ‘politically impossible’
Vice-chancellors and former ministers are warning that the cash crisis facing universities is so serious that the next government will have to urgently raise tuition fees or increase funding to avoid bankruptcies within two years.
They said the state of university finances was more dire than revealed in last week’s report by the Office for Students, which forecast 40% of England’s universities would end this year in the red.
Vice-chancellors said that increases of between £2,000 to £3,500 a year for each student would be needed.
The UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight, and a major driver for innovation and growth. We are never going to improve productivity by reacting to everything with an attitude of managing down.
For the reasons I set out above I don't think, at the undergraduate level, that the UK should pretend to have a "world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight".
It should aim to educate anyone who is qualified, and could benefit from it, to a decent standard and at an affordable cost. Something the sector is utterly failing to do and so it's heading towards bankruptcy.
It's not pretending that the UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight. We do have a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight. That's true in terms of research and it's true in terms of our ability to attract fees from overseas students. UK degrees are highly valued.
The universities do not get to decide whether to take "anyone who is qualified". That is determined by government policy. It's the government that controls that, not the sector. University education in the UK is not unaffordable. The sector is heading towards bankruptcy because its income is very heavily determined by the government, and the government chooses to cut corners, as always.
Costs are higher than fees, when the price of going through university is generally regarded as too high already. I set out what I think are the options for a sustainable university sector
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
We have choices. I would choose (3). What is your choice? It could be something I missed.
Question: does the £9k amount to more than just the cost of the course? i.e. is there a cross-subsidy of research, etc? £9k seems preposterously expensive for a few lectures a week and membership of a nice library. If so, the *right* option might be to charge students a fair fee and fund research from other sources e.g. the state.
How much should a university course cost?
I guess one reference point is the cost of schools and FE- in the state sector, that's about £7500 a head, for private schools rather more.
You might be able to do a humanities degree cheaper than that (though I'd be a bit surprised even then), but the idea of doing science/engineering for that much is surely for the birds.
Universities do about twenty weeks teaching a year while schools would do twice that. It's not necessarily the per year cost that could come down.
Matera is quite quite magical at night. Never been anywhere like it. And I’ve been EVERYWHERE
OK I am going. I love inland Sicily and this sounds a match. Internet says check out the Sassi caves.
I love Sicily but - honestly? - i reckon Puglia and southern Basicliata possibly beats it. Or at least it is close. Expect lots of litter, graffiti, bleak countryside, stretches of hideous industry, often derelict. Ie - just like Sicily
And yet at its best Puglia is incredible. The Gargano, Lecce, Mont Sant Angelo. Polignano (touristy like Taormina), Otranto (ditto), and then you have Gallipoli and Taranto (oh my!), and now Gravino, Altamura and finally Matera which is like nowhere on earth. Stay overnight!
The food is generally world class. the wine is great. the people are super friendly. And often you get a sense of true discovery (which you don’t in Sicily). Eg Altamura. Not even mentioned in any of my guidebooks apart from the Neanderthal/focaccia references in passing, yet a jewel of a medieval city in its core
Fab
Let's hope your stalker SeanT doesn't start megaphoning it and ruin it for everyone.
Puglia has very definitely been “discovered”. Polignano and Otranto are overrun with tourists
however it’s not hard to find gems nearby that are entirely overlooked. Altamura and Gravina. Taranto because of its absurdly bad rep
Hopefully with my good work on the Gazette i can ruin everywhere
Yes we went to Puglia on holiday about eight years ago, it is definitely not terra incognita. Beautiful old towns, lovely food, awful driving. Hot as fuck.
Yeah the driving is insanely bad. They wander all over the lanes. I know I’ve scoffed at your fear of driving abroad but I can kinda empathise here
The key is to lean into it. To drive as languidly and carelessly as them - like dancing on a crowded dance floor - somehow you all instinctively avoid colliding
Nonetheless some people here are just basic twats. 180kph on the autostrada is not clever or brave. Nor is 30kph in a tiny fiat straddling both lanes
In terms of discovery coastal Adriatic puglia is definitely on the tourist radar. Up here in northern puglia and Basilicata? Nope. Empty. Brilliant
I had a similar experience down there and I think Basilicata lacks the tourists for a weirdly psychological reason: it’s the instep, not the heel or boot. So it’s seen as in between.
I quite liked Puglia but didn’t see it in the best weather, found Calabria potentially pretty but despoiled by rubbish and mafia, and Basilicata better than both and completely off the track. My elderly parents are staying in Matera in a few months, in a cave hotel. Looks like it’s gentrified in the last few years but in a reasonable way.
Though in Basilicata I also had the strangest overnight stay, in montegiordano marina. Like a pebbly version of a Californian town like Monterey, but with extremely friendly locals who wanted to feed, water and regale us as if we were visitors from another planet.
Matera is quite quite magical at night. Never been anywhere like it. And I’ve been EVERYWHERE
OK I am going. I love inland Sicily and this sounds a match. Internet says check out the Sassi caves.
I love Sicily but - honestly? - i reckon Puglia and southern Basicliata possibly beats it. Or at least it is close. Expect lots of litter, graffiti, bleak countryside, stretches of hideous industry, often derelict. Ie - just like Sicily
And yet at its best Puglia is incredible. The Gargano, Lecce, Mont Sant Angelo. Polignano (touristy like Taormina), Otranto (ditto), and then you have Gallipoli and Taranto (oh my!), and now Gravino, Altamura and finally Matera which is like nowhere on earth. Stay overnight!
The food is generally world class. the wine is great. the people are super friendly. And often you get a sense of true discovery (which you don’t in Sicily). Eg Altamura. Not even mentioned in any of my guidebooks apart from the Neanderthal/focaccia references in passing, yet a jewel of a medieval city in its core
Fab
Let's hope your stalker SeanT doesn't start megaphoning it and ruin it for everyone.
Puglia has very definitely been “discovered”. Polignano and Otranto are overrun with tourists
however it’s not hard to find gems nearby that are entirely overlooked. Altamura and Gravina. Taranto because of its absurdly bad rep
Hopefully with my good work on the Gazette i can ruin everywhere
Yes we went to Puglia on holiday about eight years ago, it is definitely not terra incognita. Beautiful old towns, lovely food, awful driving. Hot as fuck.
Yeah the driving is insanely bad. They wander all over the lanes. I know I’ve scoffed at your fear of driving abroad but I can kinda empathise here
The key is to lean into it. To drive as languidly and carelessly as them - like dancing on a crowded dance floor - somehow you all instinctively avoid colliding
Nonetheless some people here are just basic twats. 180kph on the autostrada is not clever or brave. Nor is 30kph in a tiny fiat straddling both lanes
In terms of discovery coastal Adriatic puglia is definitely on the tourist radar. Up here in northern puglia and Basilicata? Nope. Empty. Brilliant
I had a similar experience down there and I think Basilicata lacks the tourists for a weirdly psychological reason: it’s the instep, not the heel or boot. So it’s seen as in between.
I quite liked Puglia but didn’t see it in the best weather, found Calabria potentially pretty but despoiled by rubbish and mafia, and Basilicata better than both and completely off the track. My elderly parents are staying in Matera in a few months, in a cave hotel. Looks like it’s gentrified in the last few years but in a reasonable way.
Matera is quite quite magical at night. Never been anywhere like it. And I’ve been EVERYWHERE
OK I am going. I love inland Sicily and this sounds a match. Internet says check out the Sassi caves.
I love Sicily but - honestly? - i reckon Puglia and southern Basicliata possibly beats it. Or at least it is close. Expect lots of litter, graffiti, bleak countryside, stretches of hideous industry, often derelict. Ie - just like Sicily
And yet at its best Puglia is incredible. The Gargano, Lecce, Mont Sant Angelo. Polignano (touristy like Taormina), Otranto (ditto), and then you have Gallipoli and Taranto (oh my!), and now Gravino, Altamura and finally Matera which is like nowhere on earth. Stay overnight!
The food is generally world class. the wine is great. the people are super friendly. And often you get a sense of true discovery (which you don’t in Sicily). Eg Altamura. Not even mentioned in any of my guidebooks apart from the Neanderthal/focaccia references in passing, yet a jewel of a medieval city in its core
Fab
Let's hope your stalker SeanT doesn't start megaphoning it and ruin it for everyone.
Puglia has very definitely been “discovered”. Polignano and Otranto are overrun with tourists
however it’s not hard to find gems nearby that are entirely overlooked. Altamura and Gravina. Taranto because of its absurdly bad rep
Hopefully with my good work on the Gazette i can ruin everywhere
Yes we went to Puglia on holiday about eight years ago, it is definitely not terra incognita. Beautiful old towns, lovely food, awful driving. Hot as fuck.
Yeah the driving is insanely bad. They wander all over the lanes. I know I’ve scoffed at your fear of driving abroad but I can kinda empathise here
The key is to lean into it. To drive as languidly and carelessly as them - like dancing on a crowded dance floor - somehow you all instinctively avoid colliding
Nonetheless some people here are just basic twats. 180kph on the autostrada is not clever or brave. Nor is 30kph in a tiny fiat straddling both lanes
In terms of discovery coastal Adriatic puglia is definitely on the tourist radar. Up here in northern puglia and Basilicata? Nope. Empty. Brilliant
Except the last one is a Vauxhall . I think. BBC Budgets.
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31 · 1h Student visas are already down nearly 30%, and I would say between 10 and 20 universities are going to get into deep trouble. Another 10 to 20 will follow rapidly. Imagine sending a further signal that you want the numbers down... (1/2)
We could do with a fundamental restructuring of FE in this county. Clearly I don’t want there to be a collapse of institutions (that serves no-one) but we could do with moving away from the New Labour model of degrees for all.
All want degrees (or many do). It's aspirational, which is supposed to be good. People with degrees, including many in this board, saying other people shouldn't have them is a poor look.
But yes higher education does need restructuring. To be specific undergraduate education needs to be a lot, lot cheaper. Education factories in other words, efficiency two year degrees, longer semesters and more part time degrees. Anyone who starts talking about Oxbridge, world rankings etc is self serving
Perhaps “degrees for all” was a bad choice of words. I believe that we need to look at making sure all qualifications are high quality and that everyone has the chance to access them. Where I am not convinced, is that a university degree in the traditional academic sense is appropriate for all trades, professions and wants/needs of young people. We need to move away from elitist interpretations of universities needing to be the places to go to get on in life, and see that there is better careers advice and more flexible pathways for the future workforce.
I agree with everything you say but that doesn't address the affordability issue. The problem is we can't afford 50% of young people going to university at current costs and prices. Employability is fine. In general graduates can find jobs more easily than non graduates. The cost isn't fine.
So that gives us three choices I think:
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
3 seems obviously the right answer to me but that will need radical changes to universities. They need become Premier Inns (where the bed and shower are better anyway) and no longer pretend to be the Savoy.
I am taking about undergraduate education. Postgraduate is a different requirement entirely.
As I was saying...
Ex-ministers warn UK universities will go bust without higher fees or funding: Vice-chancellors suggest fee rise of £2,000 to £3,500 a year, but others say that is ‘politically impossible’
Vice-chancellors and former ministers are warning that the cash crisis facing universities is so serious that the next government will have to urgently raise tuition fees or increase funding to avoid bankruptcies within two years.
They said the state of university finances was more dire than revealed in last week’s report by the Office for Students, which forecast 40% of England’s universities would end this year in the red.
Vice-chancellors said that increases of between £2,000 to £3,500 a year for each student would be needed.
The UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight, and a major driver for innovation and growth. We are never going to improve productivity by reacting to everything with an attitude of managing down.
For the reasons I set out above I don't think, at the undergraduate level, that the UK should pretend to have a "world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight".
It should aim to educate anyone who is qualified, and could benefit from it, to a decent standard and at an affordable cost. Something the sector is utterly failing to do and so it's heading towards bankruptcy.
It's not pretending that the UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight. We do have a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight. That's true in terms of research and it's true in terms of our ability to attract fees from overseas students. UK degrees are highly valued.
The universities do not get to decide whether to take "anyone who is qualified". That is determined by government policy. It's the government that controls that, not the sector. University education in the UK is not unaffordable. The sector is heading towards bankruptcy because its income is very heavily determined by the government, and the government chooses to cut corners, as always.
Costs are higher than fees, when the price of going through university is generally regarded as too high already. I set out what I think are the options for a sustainable university sector
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
We have choices. I would choose (3). What is your choice? It could be something I missed.
I don't get your point 1.
Fees are funded by student loan scheme with large % never fully paying back over their lifetime.
If you take on £30K debt under the scheme, why not £50K?
I have no idea how solvent the student loan scheme is but the basic point remains. Universities are funded at the undergraduate level by a combination of government subsidies and student contributions. If you don't cover the deficit through general taxation (2) students will have to pay more (1).
No, because universities have other sources of funding and other costs.* Also, that's unhelpfully simplistic: because the question is also which students? Home students or overseas students? Undergrad or postgrad? STEM or humanities? Students going to universities in big cities or in cheaper parts of the country?
We could encourage more overseas students to cover the deficit. We currently choose to subsidise some degrees, but not others. We could change the rules so as to allow certain subjects to charge different fees. We could raise undergrad fees to cut postgrad fees, or vice versa. Etc etc.
What I love about that puglian dish I just had is that they don’t use eggs in the pasta BECAUSE THEY COULDNT AFFORD THEM and they don’t use cheese as a topping BECAUSE THEY COULDNT AFFORD THAT EITHER - so they use toasted bread crumbs
And the result is a unique, healthy, exquisitely delicious dish full of nutrition and weirdly satisfying. Bacause it is so simple? Turnip tops?
You feel as you eat it that if you ate it every day you’d live to 119 years old. For sure
Whilst the Iranians search for their missing president , you have to say the political groupig that he comes from has a great name, the 'Combatant Clergy Association'
Come on C of E, if you want to get involved in political matters, get yourself a name like that.
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31 · 1h Student visas are already down nearly 30%, and I would say between 10 and 20 universities are going to get into deep trouble. Another 10 to 20 will follow rapidly. Imagine sending a further signal that you want the numbers down... (1/2)
We could do with a fundamental restructuring of FE in this county. Clearly I don’t want there to be a collapse of institutions (that serves no-one) but we could do with moving away from the New Labour model of degrees for all.
All want degrees (or many do). It's aspirational, which is supposed to be good. People with degrees, including many in this board, saying other people shouldn't have them is a poor look.
But yes higher education does need restructuring. To be specific undergraduate education needs to be a lot, lot cheaper. Education factories in other words, efficiency two year degrees, longer semesters and more part time degrees. Anyone who starts talking about Oxbridge, world rankings etc is self serving
Perhaps “degrees for all” was a bad choice of words. I believe that we need to look at making sure all qualifications are high quality and that everyone has the chance to access them. Where I am not convinced, is that a university degree in the traditional academic sense is appropriate for all trades, professions and wants/needs of young people. We need to move away from elitist interpretations of universities needing to be the places to go to get on in life, and see that there is better careers advice and more flexible pathways for the future workforce.
I agree with everything you say but that doesn't address the affordability issue. The problem is we can't afford 50% of young people going to university at current costs and prices. Employability is fine. In general graduates can find jobs more easily than non graduates. The cost isn't fine.
So that gives us three choices I think:
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
3 seems obviously the right answer to me but that will need radical changes to universities. They need become Premier Inns (where the bed and shower are better anyway) and no longer pretend to be the Savoy.
I am taking about undergraduate education. Postgraduate is a different requirement entirely.
As I was saying...
Ex-ministers warn UK universities will go bust without higher fees or funding: Vice-chancellors suggest fee rise of £2,000 to £3,500 a year, but others say that is ‘politically impossible’
Vice-chancellors and former ministers are warning that the cash crisis facing universities is so serious that the next government will have to urgently raise tuition fees or increase funding to avoid bankruptcies within two years.
They said the state of university finances was more dire than revealed in last week’s report by the Office for Students, which forecast 40% of England’s universities would end this year in the red.
Vice-chancellors said that increases of between £2,000 to £3,500 a year for each student would be needed.
The UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight, and a major driver for innovation and growth. We are never going to improve productivity by reacting to everything with an attitude of managing down.
For the reasons I set out above I don't think, at the undergraduate level, that the UK should pretend to have a "world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight".
It should aim to educate anyone who is qualified, and could benefit from it, to a decent standard and at an affordable cost. Something the sector is utterly failing to do and so it's heading towards bankruptcy.
It's not pretending that the UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight. We do have a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight. That's true in terms of research and it's true in terms of our ability to attract fees from overseas students. UK degrees are highly valued.
The universities do not get to decide whether to take "anyone who is qualified". That is determined by government policy. It's the government that controls that, not the sector. University education in the UK is not unaffordable. The sector is heading towards bankruptcy because its income is very heavily determined by the government, and the government chooses to cut corners, as always.
Costs are higher than fees, when the price of going through university is generally regarded as too high already. I set out what I think are the options for a sustainable university sector
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
We have choices. I would choose (3). What is your choice? It could be something I missed.
Question: does the £9k amount to more than just the cost of the course? i.e. is there a cross-subsidy of research, etc? £9k seems preposterously expensive for a few lectures a week and membership of a nice library. If so, the *right* option might be to charge students a fair fee and fund research from other sources e.g. the state.
Exactly. If universities are going to educate mass numbers of students at an affordable price with relatively little subsidy, they will have to get a lot more efficient.
Universities are efficient. Conservatives, in particular, always go on about mythical efficiency savings, as if we haven't spent decades becoming efficient in the face of unrealistic expectations set of the sector by governments scared of spending.
Whilst the Iranians search for their missing president , you have to say the political groupig that he comes from has a great name, the 'Combatant Clergy Association'
Come on C of E, if you want to get involved in political matters, get yourself a name like that.
Have you watched the 3rd episode of Dr Who, "Boom"? It will answer that.
Whilst the Iranians search for their missing president , you have to say the political groupig that he comes from has a great name, the 'Combatant Clergy Association'
Come on C of E, if you want to get involved in political matters, get yourself a name like that.
In the good old days, when the CofE wasn’t a bunch of fannies, we had warrior bishops. We should bring them back, each regiment with their bishop with a crook that’s also a sword stick.
Matera is quite quite magical at night. Never been anywhere like it. And I’ve been EVERYWHERE
OK I am going. I love inland Sicily and this sounds a match. Internet says check out the Sassi caves.
I love Sicily but - honestly? - i reckon Puglia and southern Basicliata possibly beats it. Or at least it is close. Expect lots of litter, graffiti, bleak countryside, stretches of hideous industry, often derelict. Ie - just like Sicily
And yet at its best Puglia is incredible. The Gargano, Lecce, Mont Sant Angelo. Polignano (touristy like Taormina), Otranto (ditto), and then you have Gallipoli and Taranto (oh my!), and now Gravino, Altamura and finally Matera which is like nowhere on earth. Stay overnight!
The food is generally world class. the wine is great. the people are super friendly. And often you get a sense of true discovery (which you don’t in Sicily). Eg Altamura. Not even mentioned in any of my guidebooks apart from the Neanderthal/focaccia references in passing, yet a jewel of a medieval city in its core
Fab
Let's hope your stalker SeanT doesn't start megaphoning it and ruin it for everyone.
Puglia has very definitely been “discovered”. Polignano and Otranto are overrun with tourists
however it’s not hard to find gems nearby that are entirely overlooked. Altamura and Gravina. Taranto because of its absurdly bad rep
Hopefully with my good work on the Gazette i can ruin everywhere
Yes we went to Puglia on holiday about eight years ago, it is definitely not terra incognita. Beautiful old towns, lovely food, awful driving. Hot as fuck.
Yeah the driving is insanely bad. They wander all over the lanes. I know I’ve scoffed at your fear of driving abroad but I can kinda empathise here
The key is to lean into it. To drive as languidly and carelessly as them - like dancing on a crowded dance floor - somehow you all instinctively avoid colliding
Nonetheless some people here are just basic twats. 180kph on the autostrada is not clever or brave. Nor is 30kph in a tiny fiat straddling both lanes
In terms of discovery coastal Adriatic puglia is definitely on the tourist radar. Up here in northern puglia and Basilicata? Nope. Empty. Brilliant
I had a similar experience down there and I think Basilicata lacks the tourists for a weirdly psychological reason: it’s the instep, not the heel or boot. So it’s seen as in between.
I quite liked Puglia but didn’t see it in the best weather, found Calabria potentially pretty but despoiled by rubbish and mafia, and Basilicata better than both and completely off the track. My elderly parents are staying in Matera in a few months, in a cave hotel. Looks like it’s gentrified in the last few years but in a reasonable way.
Matera is world class. Seriously. Amazebombs
I took an overnight ferry once, many moons ago, from Yugoslavia as was to Bari.
Can't remember anything about Bari but the ferry was lovely - a totally laid back saunter across the Adriatic in balmy late September weather. I was skint so slept on the floor rather than a cabin.
Whilst the Iranians search for their missing president , you have to say the political groupig that he comes from has a great name, the 'Combatant Clergy Association'
Come on C of E, if you want to get involved in political matters, get yourself a name like that.
In the good old days, when the CofE wasn’t a bunch of fannies, we had warrior bishops. We should bring them back, each regiment with their bishop with a crook that’s also a sword stick.
CofE needs to develop its own “radical clerics” that you worry might lead your children into departing for holy war.
Whilst the Iranians search for their missing president , you have to say the political groupig that he comes from has a great name, the 'Combatant Clergy Association'
Come on C of E, if you want to get involved in political matters, get yourself a name like that.
In the good old days, when the CofE wasn’t a bunch of fannies, we had warrior bishops. We should bring them back, each regiment with their bishop with a crook that’s also a sword stick.
I dunno, they can only move diagonally, which seems like a bit of a drawback in modern warfare.
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31 · 1h Student visas are already down nearly 30%, and I would say between 10 and 20 universities are going to get into deep trouble. Another 10 to 20 will follow rapidly. Imagine sending a further signal that you want the numbers down... (1/2)
We could do with a fundamental restructuring of FE in this county. Clearly I don’t want there to be a collapse of institutions (that serves no-one) but we could do with moving away from the New Labour model of degrees for all.
All want degrees (or many do). It's aspirational, which is supposed to be good. People with degrees, including many in this board, saying other people shouldn't have them is a poor look.
But yes higher education does need restructuring. To be specific undergraduate education needs to be a lot, lot cheaper. Education factories in other words, efficiency two year degrees, longer semesters and more part time degrees. Anyone who starts talking about Oxbridge, world rankings etc is self serving
Perhaps “degrees for all” was a bad choice of words. I believe that we need to look at making sure all qualifications are high quality and that everyone has the chance to access them. Where I am not convinced, is that a university degree in the traditional academic sense is appropriate for all trades, professions and wants/needs of young people. We need to move away from elitist interpretations of universities needing to be the places to go to get on in life, and see that there is better careers advice and more flexible pathways for the future workforce.
I agree with everything you say but that doesn't address the affordability issue. The problem is we can't afford 50% of young people going to university at current costs and prices. Employability is fine. In general graduates can find jobs more easily than non graduates. The cost isn't fine.
So that gives us three choices I think:
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
3 seems obviously the right answer to me but that will need radical changes to universities. They need become Premier Inns (where the bed and shower are better anyway) and no longer pretend to be the Savoy.
I am taking about undergraduate education. Postgraduate is a different requirement entirely.
As I was saying...
Ex-ministers warn UK universities will go bust without higher fees or funding: Vice-chancellors suggest fee rise of £2,000 to £3,500 a year, but others say that is ‘politically impossible’
Vice-chancellors and former ministers are warning that the cash crisis facing universities is so serious that the next government will have to urgently raise tuition fees or increase funding to avoid bankruptcies within two years.
They said the state of university finances was more dire than revealed in last week’s report by the Office for Students, which forecast 40% of England’s universities would end this year in the red.
Vice-chancellors said that increases of between £2,000 to £3,500 a year for each student would be needed.
The UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight, and a major driver for innovation and growth. We are never going to improve productivity by reacting to everything with an attitude of managing down.
For the reasons I set out above I don't think, at the undergraduate level, that the UK should pretend to have a "world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight".
It should aim to educate anyone who is qualified, and could benefit from it, to a decent standard and at an affordable cost. Something the sector is utterly failing to do and so it's heading towards bankruptcy.
It's not pretending that the UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight. We do have a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight. That's true in terms of research and it's true in terms of our ability to attract fees from overseas students. UK degrees are highly valued.
The universities do not get to decide whether to take "anyone who is qualified". That is determined by government policy. It's the government that controls that, not the sector. University education in the UK is not unaffordable. The sector is heading towards bankruptcy because its income is very heavily determined by the government, and the government chooses to cut corners, as always.
Costs are higher than fees, when the price of going through university is generally regarded as too high already. I set out what I think are the options for a sustainable university sector
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
We have choices. I would choose (3). What is your choice? It could be something I missed.
Question: does the £9k amount to more than just the cost of the course? i.e. is there a cross-subsidy of research, etc? £9k seems preposterously expensive for a few lectures a week and membership of a nice library. If so, the *right* option might be to charge students a fair fee and fund research from other sources e.g. the state.
How much should a university course cost?
I guess one reference point is the cost of schools and FE- in the state sector, that's about £7500 a head, for private schools rather more.
You might be able to do a humanities degree cheaper than that (though I'd be a bit surprised even then), but the idea of doing science/engineering for that much is surely for the birds.
I'd argue that the average state sector senior school student is receiving about 10 times the active education that a university student is getting. Plus being looked after in loco parentis. 30 to 1 or better teaching, 5+ hours a day, by people who actually care about them as people. Plus an absolute stack of work which doesn't assess itself.
Compared against this, universities look bloody cheeky asking for more than about £2k a year.
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31 · 1h Student visas are already down nearly 30%, and I would say between 10 and 20 universities are going to get into deep trouble. Another 10 to 20 will follow rapidly. Imagine sending a further signal that you want the numbers down... (1/2)
We could do with a fundamental restructuring of FE in this county. Clearly I don’t want there to be a collapse of institutions (that serves no-one) but we could do with moving away from the New Labour model of degrees for all.
All want degrees (or many do). It's aspirational, which is supposed to be good. People with degrees, including many in this board, saying other people shouldn't have them is a poor look.
But yes higher education does need restructuring. To be specific undergraduate education needs to be a lot, lot cheaper. Education factories in other words, efficiency two year degrees, longer semesters and more part time degrees. Anyone who starts talking about Oxbridge, world rankings etc is self serving
Perhaps “degrees for all” was a bad choice of words. I believe that we need to look at making sure all qualifications are high quality and that everyone has the chance to access them. Where I am not convinced, is that a university degree in the traditional academic sense is appropriate for all trades, professions and wants/needs of young people. We need to move away from elitist interpretations of universities needing to be the places to go to get on in life, and see that there is better careers advice and more flexible pathways for the future workforce.
I agree with everything you say but that doesn't address the affordability issue. The problem is we can't afford 50% of young people going to university at current costs and prices. Employability is fine. In general graduates can find jobs more easily than non graduates. The cost isn't fine.
So that gives us three choices I think:
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
3 seems obviously the right answer to me but that will need radical changes to universities. They need become Premier Inns (where the bed and shower are better anyway) and no longer pretend to be the Savoy.
I am taking about undergraduate education. Postgraduate is a different requirement entirely.
As I was saying...
Ex-ministers warn UK universities will go bust without higher fees or funding: Vice-chancellors suggest fee rise of £2,000 to £3,500 a year, but others say that is ‘politically impossible’
Vice-chancellors and former ministers are warning that the cash crisis facing universities is so serious that the next government will have to urgently raise tuition fees or increase funding to avoid bankruptcies within two years.
They said the state of university finances was more dire than revealed in last week’s report by the Office for Students, which forecast 40% of England’s universities would end this year in the red.
Vice-chancellors said that increases of between £2,000 to £3,500 a year for each student would be needed.
The UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight, and a major driver for innovation and growth. We are never going to improve productivity by reacting to everything with an attitude of managing down.
For the reasons I set out above I don't think, at the undergraduate level, that the UK should pretend to have a "world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight".
It should aim to educate anyone who is qualified, and could benefit from it, to a decent standard and at an affordable cost. Something the sector is utterly failing to do and so it's heading towards bankruptcy.
It's not pretending that the UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight. We do have a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight. That's true in terms of research and it's true in terms of our ability to attract fees from overseas students. UK degrees are highly valued.
The universities do not get to decide whether to take "anyone who is qualified". That is determined by government policy. It's the government that controls that, not the sector. University education in the UK is not unaffordable. The sector is heading towards bankruptcy because its income is very heavily determined by the government, and the government chooses to cut corners, as always.
Costs are higher than fees, when the cost of going through university is generally regarded as too high already. I set out what I think are the options for a sustainable university sector
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
We have choices. I would choose (3). What is your choice? It could be something I missed.
I think you have a rather simplistic view of university funding, and a very all-or-nothing view of possible solutions. Undergraduate fees for home students are only loosely related to costs. What people pay is a figure set by politicians. Undergraduate fees for home students are only a part of a university's income. As mentioned, overseas student fee income currently subsidises undergraduate fee income.
A few years ago, the government-set undergraduate fee level was such that more than just the wealthy could afford to go to university. We've since had a period of high inflation (Ukraine, Truss), but the fee level has been unchanged. In real terms, fees are now cheaper for people. An increase in line with inflation would just be to restore the status quo. Your option (1) is scaremongering.
We need to consider the university sector in the round. Universities do more than just teach home undergraduates. They teach postgrads (necessary for a knowledge-based economy). They have overseas students (good for our balance of payments, brings money to local economies, increases British soft power). They do research (increases growth, enriches the nation's soul as well).
The UK needs to invest more. My choice is to support university research more; to not flip-flop back and forth on overseas student numbers (the current government promoted an increase, but is slamming on the brakes now the increase they wanted occurred); to reform the current over-regulated and broken modern apprenticeship system; to increase home student fees in line with inflation in the short term; and to reform student funding in the long term.
Thanks. Essentially I think you are going for the more government funding option but leave undergraduate teaching as it is. FWIW I would be in favour of more, and more direct, funding for postgraduate research.
Matera is quite quite magical at night. Never been anywhere like it. And I’ve been EVERYWHERE
OK I am going. I love inland Sicily and this sounds a match. Internet says check out the Sassi caves.
I love Sicily but - honestly? - i reckon Puglia and southern Basicliata possibly beats it. Or at least it is close. Expect lots of litter, graffiti, bleak countryside, stretches of hideous industry, often derelict. Ie - just like Sicily
And yet at its best Puglia is incredible. The Gargano, Lecce, Mont Sant Angelo. Polignano (touristy like Taormina), Otranto (ditto), and then you have Gallipoli and Taranto (oh my!), and now Gravino, Altamura and finally Matera which is like nowhere on earth. Stay overnight!
The food is generally world class. the wine is great. the people are super friendly. And often you get a sense of true discovery (which you don’t in Sicily). Eg Altamura. Not even mentioned in any of my guidebooks apart from the Neanderthal/focaccia references in passing, yet a jewel of a medieval city in its core
Fab
Let's hope your stalker SeanT doesn't start megaphoning it and ruin it for everyone.
Puglia has very definitely been “discovered”. Polignano and Otranto are overrun with tourists
however it’s not hard to find gems nearby that are entirely overlooked. Altamura and Gravina. Taranto because of its absurdly bad rep
Hopefully with my good work on the Gazette i can ruin everywhere
Yes we went to Puglia on holiday about eight years ago, it is definitely not terra incognita. Beautiful old towns, lovely food, awful driving. Hot as fuck.
Yeah the driving is insanely bad. They wander all over the lanes. I know I’ve scoffed at your fear of driving abroad but I can kinda empathise here
The key is to lean into it. To drive as languidly and carelessly as them - like dancing on a crowded dance floor - somehow you all instinctively avoid colliding
Nonetheless some people here are just basic twats. 180kph on the autostrada is not clever or brave. Nor is 30kph in a tiny fiat straddling both lanes
In terms of discovery coastal Adriatic puglia is definitely on the tourist radar. Up here in northern puglia and Basilicata? Nope. Empty. Brilliant
I had a similar experience down there and I think Basilicata lacks the tourists for a weirdly psychological reason: it’s the instep, not the heel or boot. So it’s seen as in between.
I quite liked Puglia but didn’t see it in the best weather, found Calabria potentially pretty but despoiled by rubbish and mafia, and Basilicata better than both and completely off the track. My elderly parents are staying in Matera in a few months, in a cave hotel. Looks like it’s gentrified in the last few years but in a reasonable way.
Matera is world class. Seriously. Amazebombs
I took an overnight ferry once, many moons ago, from Yugoslavia as was to Bari.
Can't remember anything about Bari but the ferry was lovely - a totally laid back saunter across the Adriatic in balmy late September weather. I was skint so slept on the floor rather than a cabin.
Good times.
Has anyone done the depart and go where serendipity takes you trip? It’s something I dream of: wet grey morning in London, cross the platform and take the train going out instead of in, passport and a few grand in hand, and head off on an unplanned adventure.
Bari and Brindisi are two of the ferry ports you end up at on that sort of trip. You generally either go South to Tarifa and across to Morocco, or South East via Italy to Greece then Egypt, like Michael Palin, or the land route to Istanbul and beyond.
It’s to my great regret that I’ve not done the serendipitous departure yet. The best two books for this are Laurie Lee’s When I walked out one Midsummer Morning, and Patrick Leigh Fermor’s A Time of Gifts.
Whilst the Iranians search for their missing president , you have to say the political groupig that he comes from has a great name, the 'Combatant Clergy Association'
Come on C of E, if you want to get involved in political matters, get yourself a name like that.
In the good old days, when the CofE wasn’t a bunch of fannies, we had warrior bishops. We should bring them back, each regiment with their bishop with a crook that’s also a sword stick.
I dunno, they can only move diagonally, which seems like a bit of a drawback in modern warfare.
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31 · 1h Student visas are already down nearly 30%, and I would say between 10 and 20 universities are going to get into deep trouble. Another 10 to 20 will follow rapidly. Imagine sending a further signal that you want the numbers down... (1/2)
We could do with a fundamental restructuring of FE in this county. Clearly I don’t want there to be a collapse of institutions (that serves no-one) but we could do with moving away from the New Labour model of degrees for all.
All want degrees (or many do). It's aspirational, which is supposed to be good. People with degrees, including many in this board, saying other people shouldn't have them is a poor look.
But yes higher education does need restructuring. To be specific undergraduate education needs to be a lot, lot cheaper. Education factories in other words, efficiency two year degrees, longer semesters and more part time degrees. Anyone who starts talking about Oxbridge, world rankings etc is self serving
Perhaps “degrees for all” was a bad choice of words. I believe that we need to look at making sure all qualifications are high quality and that everyone has the chance to access them. Where I am not convinced, is that a university degree in the traditional academic sense is appropriate for all trades, professions and wants/needs of young people. We need to move away from elitist interpretations of universities needing to be the places to go to get on in life, and see that there is better careers advice and more flexible pathways for the future workforce.
I agree with everything you say but that doesn't address the affordability issue. The problem is we can't afford 50% of young people going to university at current costs and prices. Employability is fine. In general graduates can find jobs more easily than non graduates. The cost isn't fine.
So that gives us three choices I think:
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
3 seems obviously the right answer to me but that will need radical changes to universities. They need become Premier Inns (where the bed and shower are better anyway) and no longer pretend to be the Savoy.
I am taking about undergraduate education. Postgraduate is a different requirement entirely.
As I was saying...
Ex-ministers warn UK universities will go bust without higher fees or funding: Vice-chancellors suggest fee rise of £2,000 to £3,500 a year, but others say that is ‘politically impossible’
Vice-chancellors and former ministers are warning that the cash crisis facing universities is so serious that the next government will have to urgently raise tuition fees or increase funding to avoid bankruptcies within two years.
They said the state of university finances was more dire than revealed in last week’s report by the Office for Students, which forecast 40% of England’s universities would end this year in the red.
Vice-chancellors said that increases of between £2,000 to £3,500 a year for each student would be needed.
The UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight, and a major driver for innovation and growth. We are never going to improve productivity by reacting to everything with an attitude of managing down.
For the reasons I set out above I don't think, at the undergraduate level, that the UK should pretend to have a "world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight".
It should aim to educate anyone who is qualified, and could benefit from it, to a decent standard and at an affordable cost. Something the sector is utterly failing to do and so it's heading towards bankruptcy.
It's not pretending that the UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight. We do have a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight. That's true in terms of research and it's true in terms of our ability to attract fees from overseas students. UK degrees are highly valued.
The universities do not get to decide whether to take "anyone who is qualified". That is determined by government policy. It's the government that controls that, not the sector. University education in the UK is not unaffordable. The sector is heading towards bankruptcy because its income is very heavily determined by the government, and the government chooses to cut corners, as always.
Costs are higher than fees, when the price of going through university is generally regarded as too high already. I set out what I think are the options for a sustainable university sector
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
We have choices. I would choose (3). What is your choice? It could be something I missed.
Question: does the £9k amount to more than just the cost of the course? i.e. is there a cross-subsidy of research, etc? £9k seems preposterously expensive for a few lectures a week and membership of a nice library. If so, the *right* option might be to charge students a fair fee and fund research from other sources e.g. the state.
How much should a university course cost?
I guess one reference point is the cost of schools and FE- in the state sector, that's about £7500 a head, for private schools rather more.
You might be able to do a humanities degree cheaper than that (though I'd be a bit surprised even then), but the idea of doing science/engineering for that much is surely for the birds.
I'd argue that the average state sector senior school student is receiving about 10 times the active education that a university student is getting. Plus being looked after in loco parentis. 30 to 1 or better teaching, 5+ hours a day, by people who actually care about them as people. Plus an absolute stack of work which doesn't assess itself.
Compared against this, universities look bloody cheeky asking for more than about £2k a year.
While that's certainly true for - say - history. I'm not sure it's accurate for subjects with heavy lab work.
Whilst the Iranians search for their missing president , you have to say the political groupig that he comes from has a great name, the 'Combatant Clergy Association'
Come on C of E, if you want to get involved in political matters, get yourself a name like that.
In the good old days, when the CofE wasn’t a bunch of fannies, we had warrior bishops. We should bring them back, each regiment with their bishop with a crook that’s also a sword stick.
That was before the CofE had even been founded, at that time the Roman Catholic church was still the national church and they were Catholic bishops. The closest the C of E now gets is Padres to the military
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31 · 1h Student visas are already down nearly 30%, and I would say between 10 and 20 universities are going to get into deep trouble. Another 10 to 20 will follow rapidly. Imagine sending a further signal that you want the numbers down... (1/2)
We could do with a fundamental restructuring of FE in this county. Clearly I don’t want there to be a collapse of institutions (that serves no-one) but we could do with moving away from the New Labour model of degrees for all.
All want degrees (or many do). It's aspirational, which is supposed to be good. People with degrees, including many in this board, saying other people shouldn't have them is a poor look.
But yes higher education does need restructuring. To be specific undergraduate education needs to be a lot, lot cheaper. Education factories in other words, efficiency two year degrees, longer semesters and more part time degrees. Anyone who starts talking about Oxbridge, world rankings etc is self serving
Perhaps “degrees for all” was a bad choice of words. I believe that we need to look at making sure all qualifications are high quality and that everyone has the chance to access them. Where I am not convinced, is that a university degree in the traditional academic sense is appropriate for all trades, professions and wants/needs of young people. We need to move away from elitist interpretations of universities needing to be the places to go to get on in life, and see that there is better careers advice and more flexible pathways for the future workforce.
I agree with everything you say but that doesn't address the affordability issue. The problem is we can't afford 50% of young people going to university at current costs and prices. Employability is fine. In general graduates can find jobs more easily than non graduates. The cost isn't fine.
So that gives us three choices I think:
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
3 seems obviously the right answer to me but that will need radical changes to universities. They need become Premier Inns (where the bed and shower are better anyway) and no longer pretend to be the Savoy.
I am taking about undergraduate education. Postgraduate is a different requirement entirely.
As I was saying...
Ex-ministers warn UK universities will go bust without higher fees or funding: Vice-chancellors suggest fee rise of £2,000 to £3,500 a year, but others say that is ‘politically impossible’
Vice-chancellors and former ministers are warning that the cash crisis facing universities is so serious that the next government will have to urgently raise tuition fees or increase funding to avoid bankruptcies within two years.
They said the state of university finances was more dire than revealed in last week’s report by the Office for Students, which forecast 40% of England’s universities would end this year in the red.
Vice-chancellors said that increases of between £2,000 to £3,500 a year for each student would be needed.
The UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight, and a major driver for innovation and growth. We are never going to improve productivity by reacting to everything with an attitude of managing down.
For the reasons I set out above I don't think, at the undergraduate level, that the UK should pretend to have a "world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight".
It should aim to educate anyone who is qualified, and could benefit from it, to a decent standard and at an affordable cost. Something the sector is utterly failing to do and so it's heading towards bankruptcy.
It's not pretending that the UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight. We do have a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight. That's true in terms of research and it's true in terms of our ability to attract fees from overseas students. UK degrees are highly valued.
The universities do not get to decide whether to take "anyone who is qualified". That is determined by government policy. It's the government that controls that, not the sector. University education in the UK is not unaffordable. The sector is heading towards bankruptcy because its income is very heavily determined by the government, and the government chooses to cut corners, as always.
Costs are higher than fees, when the price of going through university is generally regarded as too high already. I set out what I think are the options for a sustainable university sector
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
We have choices. I would choose (3). What is your choice? It could be something I missed.
Question: does the £9k amount to more than just the cost of the course? i.e. is there a cross-subsidy of research, etc? £9k seems preposterously expensive for a few lectures a week and membership of a nice library. If so, the *right* option might be to charge students a fair fee and fund research from other sources e.g. the state.
Exactly. If universities are going to educate mass numbers of students at an affordable price with relatively little subsidy, they will have to get a lot more efficient.
That sounds like they're going to need a lot more meetings organised in order to organise the meetings about this. Possibly even hire a consultant to organise the meetings about organising the meetings. Maybe a meeting facilitator or two as well.
Whilst the Iranians search for their missing president , you have to say the political groupig that he comes from has a great name, the 'Combatant Clergy Association'
Come on C of E, if you want to get involved in political matters, get yourself a name like that.
In the good old days, when the CofE wasn’t a bunch of fannies, we had warrior bishops. We should bring them back, each regiment with their bishop with a crook that’s also a sword stick.
I dunno, they can only move diagonally, which seems like a bit of a drawback in modern warfare.
Matera is quite quite magical at night. Never been anywhere like it. And I’ve been EVERYWHERE
OK I am going. I love inland Sicily and this sounds a match. Internet says check out the Sassi caves.
I love Sicily but - honestly? - i reckon Puglia and southern Basicliata possibly beats it. Or at least it is close. Expect lots of litter, graffiti, bleak countryside, stretches of hideous industry, often derelict. Ie - just like Sicily
And yet at its best Puglia is incredible. The Gargano, Lecce, Mont Sant Angelo. Polignano (touristy like Taormina), Otranto (ditto), and then you have Gallipoli and Taranto (oh my!), and now Gravino, Altamura and finally Matera which is like nowhere on earth. Stay overnight!
The food is generally world class. the wine is great. the people are super friendly. And often you get a sense of true discovery (which you don’t in Sicily). Eg Altamura. Not even mentioned in any of my guidebooks apart from the Neanderthal/focaccia references in passing, yet a jewel of a medieval city in its core
Fab
Let's hope your stalker SeanT doesn't start megaphoning it and ruin it for everyone.
Puglia has very definitely been “discovered”. Polignano and Otranto are overrun with tourists
however it’s not hard to find gems nearby that are entirely overlooked. Altamura and Gravina. Taranto because of its absurdly bad rep
Hopefully with my good work on the Gazette i can ruin everywhere
Yes we went to Puglia on holiday about eight years ago, it is definitely not terra incognita. Beautiful old towns, lovely food, awful driving. Hot as fuck.
Yeah the driving is insanely bad. They wander all over the lanes. I know I’ve scoffed at your fear of driving abroad but I can kinda empathise here
The key is to lean into it. To drive as languidly and carelessly as them - like dancing on a crowded dance floor - somehow you all instinctively avoid colliding
Nonetheless some people here are just basic twats. 180kph on the autostrada is not clever or brave. Nor is 30kph in a tiny fiat straddling both lanes
In terms of discovery coastal Adriatic puglia is definitely on the tourist radar. Up here in northern puglia and Basilicata? Nope. Empty. Brilliant
I had a similar experience down there and I think Basilicata lacks the tourists for a weirdly psychological reason: it’s the instep, not the heel or boot. So it’s seen as in between.
I quite liked Puglia but didn’t see it in the best weather, found Calabria potentially pretty but despoiled by rubbish and mafia, and Basilicata better than both and completely off the track. My elderly parents are staying in Matera in a few months, in a cave hotel. Looks like it’s gentrified in the last few years but in a reasonable way.
Though in Basilicata I also had the strangest overnight stay, in montegiordano marina. Like a pebbly version of a Californian town like Monterey, but with extremely friendly locals who wanted to feed, water and regale us as if we were visitors from another planet.
The Monterey aquarium used to be a fantastic day out with kids. Probably too busy these days.
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31 · 1h Student visas are already down nearly 30%, and I would say between 10 and 20 universities are going to get into deep trouble. Another 10 to 20 will follow rapidly. Imagine sending a further signal that you want the numbers down... (1/2)
We could do with a fundamental restructuring of FE in this county. Clearly I don’t want there to be a collapse of institutions (that serves no-one) but we could do with moving away from the New Labour model of degrees for all.
All want degrees (or many do). It's aspirational, which is supposed to be good. People with degrees, including many in this board, saying other people shouldn't have them is a poor look.
But yes higher education does need restructuring. To be specific undergraduate education needs to be a lot, lot cheaper. Education factories in other words, efficiency two year degrees, longer semesters and more part time degrees. Anyone who starts talking about Oxbridge, world rankings etc is self serving
Perhaps “degrees for all” was a bad choice of words. I believe that we need to look at making sure all qualifications are high quality and that everyone has the chance to access them. Where I am not convinced, is that a university degree in the traditional academic sense is appropriate for all trades, professions and wants/needs of young people. We need to move away from elitist interpretations of universities needing to be the places to go to get on in life, and see that there is better careers advice and more flexible pathways for the future workforce.
I agree with everything you say but that doesn't address the affordability issue. The problem is we can't afford 50% of young people going to university at current costs and prices. Employability is fine. In general graduates can find jobs more easily than non graduates. The cost isn't fine.
So that gives us three choices I think:
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
3 seems obviously the right answer to me but that will need radical changes to universities. They need become Premier Inns (where the bed and shower are better anyway) and no longer pretend to be the Savoy.
I am taking about undergraduate education. Postgraduate is a different requirement entirely.
As I was saying...
Ex-ministers warn UK universities will go bust without higher fees or funding: Vice-chancellors suggest fee rise of £2,000 to £3,500 a year, but others say that is ‘politically impossible’
Vice-chancellors and former ministers are warning that the cash crisis facing universities is so serious that the next government will have to urgently raise tuition fees or increase funding to avoid bankruptcies within two years.
They said the state of university finances was more dire than revealed in last week’s report by the Office for Students, which forecast 40% of England’s universities would end this year in the red.
Vice-chancellors said that increases of between £2,000 to £3,500 a year for each student would be needed.
The UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight, and a major driver for innovation and growth. We are never going to improve productivity by reacting to everything with an attitude of managing down.
For the reasons I set out above I don't think, at the undergraduate level, that the UK should pretend to have a "world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight".
It should aim to educate anyone who is qualified, and could benefit from it, to a decent standard and at an affordable cost. Something the sector is utterly failing to do and so it's heading towards bankruptcy.
It's not pretending that the UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight. We do have a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight. That's true in terms of research and it's true in terms of our ability to attract fees from overseas students. UK degrees are highly valued.
The universities do not get to decide whether to take "anyone who is qualified". That is determined by government policy. It's the government that controls that, not the sector. University education in the UK is not unaffordable. The sector is heading towards bankruptcy because its income is very heavily determined by the government, and the government chooses to cut corners, as always.
Costs are higher than fees, when the price of going through university is generally regarded as too high already. I set out what I think are the options for a sustainable university sector
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
We have choices. I would choose (3). What is your choice? It could be something I missed.
Question: does the £9k amount to more than just the cost of the course? i.e. is there a cross-subsidy of research, etc? £9k seems preposterously expensive for a few lectures a week and membership of a nice library. If so, the *right* option might be to charge students a fair fee and fund research from other sources e.g. the state.
How much should a university course cost?
I guess one reference point is the cost of schools and FE- in the state sector, that's about £7500 a head, for private schools rather more.
You might be able to do a humanities degree cheaper than that (though I'd be a bit surprised even then), but the idea of doing science/engineering for that much is surely for the birds.
I'd argue that the average state sector senior school student is receiving about 10 times the active education that a university student is getting. Plus being looked after in loco parentis. 30 to 1 or better teaching, 5+ hours a day, by people who actually care about them as people. Plus an absolute stack of work which doesn't assess itself.
Compared against this, universities look bloody cheeky asking for more than about £2k a year.
While that's certainly true for - say - history. I'm not sure it's accurate for subjects with heavy lab work.
In STEM-world, things are looking quite peachy just now. But as non-STEM has collapsed in foreign student income, STEM is being royally f*cked in any case. We'll see what happens "in due course" when the Migration Advisory Committee’s findings are published I guess. My assumption is 'sweet fa'.
Whilst the Iranians search for their missing president , you have to say the political groupig that he comes from has a great name, the 'Combatant Clergy Association'
Come on C of E, if you want to get involved in political matters, get yourself a name like that.
The UK, like Iran, has clerics sitting in Parliament.
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31 · 1h Student visas are already down nearly 30%, and I would say between 10 and 20 universities are going to get into deep trouble. Another 10 to 20 will follow rapidly. Imagine sending a further signal that you want the numbers down... (1/2)
We could do with a fundamental restructuring of FE in this county. Clearly I don’t want there to be a collapse of institutions (that serves no-one) but we could do with moving away from the New Labour model of degrees for all.
All want degrees (or many do). It's aspirational, which is supposed to be good. People with degrees, including many in this board, saying other people shouldn't have them is a poor look.
But yes higher education does need restructuring. To be specific undergraduate education needs to be a lot, lot cheaper. Education factories in other words, efficiency two year degrees, longer semesters and more part time degrees. Anyone who starts talking about Oxbridge, world rankings etc is self serving
Perhaps “degrees for all” was a bad choice of words. I believe that we need to look at making sure all qualifications are high quality and that everyone has the chance to access them. Where I am not convinced, is that a university degree in the traditional academic sense is appropriate for all trades, professions and wants/needs of young people. We need to move away from elitist interpretations of universities needing to be the places to go to get on in life, and see that there is better careers advice and more flexible pathways for the future workforce.
I agree with everything you say but that doesn't address the affordability issue. The problem is we can't afford 50% of young people going to university at current costs and prices. Employability is fine. In general graduates can find jobs more easily than non graduates. The cost isn't fine.
So that gives us three choices I think:
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
3 seems obviously the right answer to me but that will need radical changes to universities. They need become Premier Inns (where the bed and shower are better anyway) and no longer pretend to be the Savoy.
I am taking about undergraduate education. Postgraduate is a different requirement entirely.
As I was saying...
Ex-ministers warn UK universities will go bust without higher fees or funding: Vice-chancellors suggest fee rise of £2,000 to £3,500 a year, but others say that is ‘politically impossible’
Vice-chancellors and former ministers are warning that the cash crisis facing universities is so serious that the next government will have to urgently raise tuition fees or increase funding to avoid bankruptcies within two years.
They said the state of university finances was more dire than revealed in last week’s report by the Office for Students, which forecast 40% of England’s universities would end this year in the red.
Vice-chancellors said that increases of between £2,000 to £3,500 a year for each student would be needed.
The UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight, and a major driver for innovation and growth. We are never going to improve productivity by reacting to everything with an attitude of managing down.
For the reasons I set out above I don't think, at the undergraduate level, that the UK should pretend to have a "world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight".
It should aim to educate anyone who is qualified, and could benefit from it, to a decent standard and at an affordable cost. Something the sector is utterly failing to do and so it's heading towards bankruptcy.
It's not pretending that the UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight. We do have a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight. That's true in terms of research and it's true in terms of our ability to attract fees from overseas students. UK degrees are highly valued.
The universities do not get to decide whether to take "anyone who is qualified". That is determined by government policy. It's the government that controls that, not the sector. University education in the UK is not unaffordable. The sector is heading towards bankruptcy because its income is very heavily determined by the government, and the government chooses to cut corners, as always.
Costs are higher than fees, when the price of going through university is generally regarded as too high already. I set out what I think are the options for a sustainable university sector
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
We have choices. I would choose (3). What is your choice? It could be something I missed.
Question: does the £9k amount to more than just the cost of the course? i.e. is there a cross-subsidy of research, etc? £9k seems preposterously expensive for a few lectures a week and membership of a nice library. If so, the *right* option might be to charge students a fair fee and fund research from other sources e.g. the state.
Exactly. If universities are going to educate mass numbers of students at an affordable price with relatively little subsidy, they will have to get a lot more efficient.
That sounds like they're going to need a lot more meetings organised in order to organise the meetings about this. Possibly even hire a consultant to organise the meetings about organising the meetings. Maybe a meeting facilitator or two as well.
Just to add - I am in no way jaded or bitter.
I could do some Bitterness Consultancy for you - £36,564.28 per hour. Plus VAT.
Matera is quite quite magical at night. Never been anywhere like it. And I’ve been EVERYWHERE
OK I am going. I love inland Sicily and this sounds a match. Internet says check out the Sassi caves.
I love Sicily but - honestly? - i reckon Puglia and southern Basicliata possibly beats it. Or at least it is close. Expect lots of litter, graffiti, bleak countryside, stretches of hideous industry, often derelict. Ie - just like Sicily
And yet at its best Puglia is incredible. The Gargano, Lecce, Mont Sant Angelo. Polignano (touristy like Taormina), Otranto (ditto), and then you have Gallipoli and Taranto (oh my!), and now Gravino, Altamura and finally Matera which is like nowhere on earth. Stay overnight!
The food is generally world class. the wine is great. the people are super friendly. And often you get a sense of true discovery (which you don’t in Sicily). Eg Altamura. Not even mentioned in any of my guidebooks apart from the Neanderthal/focaccia references in passing, yet a jewel of a medieval city in its core
Fab
Let's hope your stalker SeanT doesn't start megaphoning it and ruin it for everyone.
Puglia has very definitely been “discovered”. Polignano and Otranto are overrun with tourists
however it’s not hard to find gems nearby that are entirely overlooked. Altamura and Gravina. Taranto because of its absurdly bad rep
Hopefully with my good work on the Gazette i can ruin everywhere
Yes we went to Puglia on holiday about eight years ago, it is definitely not terra incognita. Beautiful old towns, lovely food, awful driving. Hot as fuck.
Yeah the driving is insanely bad. They wander all over the lanes. I know I’ve scoffed at your fear of driving abroad but I can kinda empathise here
The key is to lean into it. To drive as languidly and carelessly as them - like dancing on a crowded dance floor - somehow you all instinctively avoid colliding
Nonetheless some people here are just basic twats. 180kph on the autostrada is not clever or brave. Nor is 30kph in a tiny fiat straddling both lanes
In terms of discovery coastal Adriatic puglia is definitely on the tourist radar. Up here in northern puglia and Basilicata? Nope. Empty. Brilliant
I had a similar experience down there and I think Basilicata lacks the tourists for a weirdly psychological reason: it’s the instep, not the heel or boot. So it’s seen as in between.
I quite liked Puglia but didn’t see it in the best weather, found Calabria potentially pretty but despoiled by rubbish and mafia, and Basilicata better than both and completely off the track. My elderly parents are staying in Matera in a few months, in a cave hotel. Looks like it’s gentrified in the last few years but in a reasonable way.
Matera is world class. Seriously. Amazebombs
I took an overnight ferry once, many moons ago, from Yugoslavia as was to Bari.
Can't remember anything about Bari but the ferry was lovely - a totally laid back saunter across the Adriatic in balmy late September weather. I was skint so slept on the floor rather than a cabin.
Good times.
Has anyone done the depart and go where serendipity takes you trip? It’s something I dream of: wet grey morning in London, cross the platform and take the train going out instead of in, passport and a few grand in hand, and head off on an unplanned adventure.
Bari and Brindisi are two of the ferry ports you end up at on that sort of trip. You generally either go South to Tarifa and across to Morocco, or South East via Italy to Greece then Egypt, like Michael Palin, or the land route to Istanbul and beyond.
It’s to my great regret that I’ve not done the serendipitous departure yet. The best two books for this are Laurie Lee’s When I walked out one Midsummer Morning, and Patrick Leigh Fermor’s A Time of Gifts.
I basically did that for 4 months in spring/summer 2022. I had two gazette commissions - Epirus, Natchez trace, but I strung them together and ended up in superb places - the Caucasus of Armenia, inland Montenegro, wild Georgia, mad parts of Tennessee. Some days I would wake up and look at the weather and think “shit its rainy here where is it sunny” then fly out that day - eg Tbilisi to Yerevan simply on the basis of the weather and my mood on that day
I loved it
One day I want to do it for 6 months. Before I’m too old. I FIERCELY recommend it as a way of discovering the world - and yourself
Matera is quite quite magical at night. Never been anywhere like it. And I’ve been EVERYWHERE
OK I am going. I love inland Sicily and this sounds a match. Internet says check out the Sassi caves.
I love Sicily but - honestly? - i reckon Puglia and southern Basicliata possibly beats it. Or at least it is close. Expect lots of litter, graffiti, bleak countryside, stretches of hideous industry, often derelict. Ie - just like Sicily
And yet at its best Puglia is incredible. The Gargano, Lecce, Mont Sant Angelo. Polignano (touristy like Taormina), Otranto (ditto), and then you have Gallipoli and Taranto (oh my!), and now Gravino, Altamura and finally Matera which is like nowhere on earth. Stay overnight!
The food is generally world class. the wine is great. the people are super friendly. And often you get a sense of true discovery (which you don’t in Sicily). Eg Altamura. Not even mentioned in any of my guidebooks apart from the Neanderthal/focaccia references in passing, yet a jewel of a medieval city in its core
Fab
Let's hope your stalker SeanT doesn't start megaphoning it and ruin it for everyone.
Puglia has very definitely been “discovered”. Polignano and Otranto are overrun with tourists
however it’s not hard to find gems nearby that are entirely overlooked. Altamura and Gravina. Taranto because of its absurdly bad rep
Hopefully with my good work on the Gazette i can ruin everywhere
Yes we went to Puglia on holiday about eight years ago, it is definitely not terra incognita. Beautiful old towns, lovely food, awful driving. Hot as fuck.
Yeah the driving is insanely bad. They wander all over the lanes. I know I’ve scoffed at your fear of driving abroad but I can kinda empathise here
The key is to lean into it. To drive as languidly and carelessly as them - like dancing on a crowded dance floor - somehow you all instinctively avoid colliding
Nonetheless some people here are just basic twats. 180kph on the autostrada is not clever or brave. Nor is 30kph in a tiny fiat straddling both lanes
In terms of discovery coastal Adriatic puglia is definitely on the tourist radar. Up here in northern puglia and Basilicata? Nope. Empty. Brilliant
I had a similar experience down there and I think Basilicata lacks the tourists for a weirdly psychological reason: it’s the instep, not the heel or boot. So it’s seen as in between.
I quite liked Puglia but didn’t see it in the best weather, found Calabria potentially pretty but despoiled by rubbish and mafia, and Basilicata better than both and completely off the track. My elderly parents are staying in Matera in a few months, in a cave hotel. Looks like it’s gentrified in the last few years but in a reasonable way.
Matera is world class. Seriously. Amazebombs
I took an overnight ferry once, many moons ago, from Yugoslavia as was to Bari.
Can't remember anything about Bari but the ferry was lovely - a totally laid back saunter across the Adriatic in balmy late September weather. I was skint so slept on the floor rather than a cabin.
Good times.
Has anyone done the depart and go where serendipity takes you trip? It’s something I dream of: wet grey morning in London, cross the platform and take the train going out instead of in, passport and a few grand in hand, and head off on an unplanned adventure.
Bari and Brindisi are two of the ferry ports you end up at on that sort of trip. You generally either go South to Tarifa and across to Morocco, or South East via Italy to Greece then Egypt, like Michael Palin, or the land route to Istanbul and beyond.
It’s to my great regret that I’ve not done the serendipitous departure yet. The best two books for this are Laurie Lee’s When I walked out one Midsummer Morning, and Patrick Leigh Fermor’s A Time of Gifts.
I basically did that for 4 months in spring/summer 2022. I had two gazette commissions - Epirus, Natchez trace, but I strung them together and ended up in superb places - the Caucasus of Armenia, inland Montenegro, wild Georgia, mad parts of Tennessee. Some days I would wake up and look at the weather and think “shit its rainy here where is it sunny” then fly out that day - eg Tbilisi to Yerevan simply on the basis of the weather and my mood on that day
I loved it
One day I want to do it for 6 months. Before I’m too old. I FIERCELY recommend it as a way of discovering the world - and yourself
This was how inter-railing was back in my day.
Wake up. Look at map of europe and check weather and general personal mood.
I distinctly remember abandoning a rain-sodden Germany one September and fleeing to Nice.
Nothing planned in advance. Get up, pack up the tent and then...
Matera is quite quite magical at night. Never been anywhere like it. And I’ve been EVERYWHERE
OK I am going. I love inland Sicily and this sounds a match. Internet says check out the Sassi caves.
I love Sicily but - honestly? - i reckon Puglia and southern Basicliata possibly beats it. Or at least it is close. Expect lots of litter, graffiti, bleak countryside, stretches of hideous industry, often derelict. Ie - just like Sicily
And yet at its best Puglia is incredible. The Gargano, Lecce, Mont Sant Angelo. Polignano (touristy like Taormina), Otranto (ditto), and then you have Gallipoli and Taranto (oh my!), and now Gravino, Altamura and finally Matera which is like nowhere on earth. Stay overnight!
The food is generally world class. the wine is great. the people are super friendly. And often you get a sense of true discovery (which you don’t in Sicily). Eg Altamura. Not even mentioned in any of my guidebooks apart from the Neanderthal/focaccia references in passing, yet a jewel of a medieval city in its core
Fab
Let's hope your stalker SeanT doesn't start megaphoning it and ruin it for everyone.
Puglia has very definitely been “discovered”. Polignano and Otranto are overrun with tourists
however it’s not hard to find gems nearby that are entirely overlooked. Altamura and Gravina. Taranto because of its absurdly bad rep
Hopefully with my good work on the Gazette i can ruin everywhere
Yes we went to Puglia on holiday about eight years ago, it is definitely not terra incognita. Beautiful old towns, lovely food, awful driving. Hot as fuck.
Yeah the driving is insanely bad. They wander all over the lanes. I know I’ve scoffed at your fear of driving abroad but I can kinda empathise here
The key is to lean into it. To drive as languidly and carelessly as them - like dancing on a crowded dance floor - somehow you all instinctively avoid colliding
Nonetheless some people here are just basic twats. 180kph on the autostrada is not clever or brave. Nor is 30kph in a tiny fiat straddling both lanes
In terms of discovery coastal Adriatic puglia is definitely on the tourist radar. Up here in northern puglia and Basilicata? Nope. Empty. Brilliant
I had a similar experience down there and I think Basilicata lacks the tourists for a weirdly psychological reason: it’s the instep, not the heel or boot. So it’s seen as in between.
I quite liked Puglia but didn’t see it in the best weather, found Calabria potentially pretty but despoiled by rubbish and mafia, and Basilicata better than both and completely off the track. My elderly parents are staying in Matera in a few months, in a cave hotel. Looks like it’s gentrified in the last few years but in a reasonable way.
Matera is world class. Seriously. Amazebombs
I took an overnight ferry once, many moons ago, from Yugoslavia as was to Bari.
Can't remember anything about Bari but the ferry was lovely - a totally laid back saunter across the Adriatic in balmy late September weather. I was skint so slept on the floor rather than a cabin.
Good times.
Has anyone done the depart and go where serendipity takes you trip? It’s something I dream of: wet grey morning in London, cross the platform and take the train going out instead of in, passport and a few grand in hand, and head off on an unplanned adventure.
Bari and Brindisi are two of the ferry ports you end up at on that sort of trip. You generally either go South to Tarifa and across to Morocco, or South East via Italy to Greece then Egypt, like Michael Palin, or the land route to Istanbul and beyond.
It’s to my great regret that I’ve not done the serendipitous departure yet. The best two books for this are Laurie Lee’s When I walked out one Midsummer Morning, and Patrick Leigh Fermor’s A Time of Gifts.
Sounds like a fun idea, especially if you do it without any technology with you.
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31 · 1h Student visas are already down nearly 30%, and I would say between 10 and 20 universities are going to get into deep trouble. Another 10 to 20 will follow rapidly. Imagine sending a further signal that you want the numbers down... (1/2)
We could do with a fundamental restructuring of FE in this county. Clearly I don’t want there to be a collapse of institutions (that serves no-one) but we could do with moving away from the New Labour model of degrees for all.
All want degrees (or many do). It's aspirational, which is supposed to be good. People with degrees, including many in this board, saying other people shouldn't have them is a poor look.
But yes higher education does need restructuring. To be specific undergraduate education needs to be a lot, lot cheaper. Education factories in other words, efficiency two year degrees, longer semesters and more part time degrees. Anyone who starts talking about Oxbridge, world rankings etc is self serving
Perhaps “degrees for all” was a bad choice of words. I believe that we need to look at making sure all qualifications are high quality and that everyone has the chance to access them. Where I am not convinced, is that a university degree in the traditional academic sense is appropriate for all trades, professions and wants/needs of young people. We need to move away from elitist interpretations of universities needing to be the places to go to get on in life, and see that there is better careers advice and more flexible pathways for the future workforce.
I agree with everything you say but that doesn't address the affordability issue. The problem is we can't afford 50% of young people going to university at current costs and prices. Employability is fine. In general graduates can find jobs more easily than non graduates. The cost isn't fine.
So that gives us three choices I think:
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
3 seems obviously the right answer to me but that will need radical changes to universities. They need become Premier Inns (where the bed and shower are better anyway) and no longer pretend to be the Savoy.
I am taking about undergraduate education. Postgraduate is a different requirement entirely.
As I was saying...
Ex-ministers warn UK universities will go bust without higher fees or funding: Vice-chancellors suggest fee rise of £2,000 to £3,500 a year, but others say that is ‘politically impossible’
Vice-chancellors and former ministers are warning that the cash crisis facing universities is so serious that the next government will have to urgently raise tuition fees or increase funding to avoid bankruptcies within two years.
They said the state of university finances was more dire than revealed in last week’s report by the Office for Students, which forecast 40% of England’s universities would end this year in the red.
Vice-chancellors said that increases of between £2,000 to £3,500 a year for each student would be needed.
The UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight, and a major driver for innovation and growth. We are never going to improve productivity by reacting to everything with an attitude of managing down.
For the reasons I set out above I don't think, at the undergraduate level, that the UK should pretend to have a "world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight".
It should aim to educate anyone who is qualified, and could benefit from it, to a decent standard and at an affordable cost. Something the sector is utterly failing to do and so it's heading towards bankruptcy.
It's not pretending that the UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight. We do have a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight. That's true in terms of research and it's true in terms of our ability to attract fees from overseas students. UK degrees are highly valued.
The universities do not get to decide whether to take "anyone who is qualified". That is determined by government policy. It's the government that controls that, not the sector. University education in the UK is not unaffordable. The sector is heading towards bankruptcy because its income is very heavily determined by the government, and the government chooses to cut corners, as always.
Costs are higher than fees, when the price of going through university is generally regarded as too high already. I set out what I think are the options for a sustainable university sector
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
We have choices. I would choose (3). What is your choice? It could be something I missed.
Question: does the £9k amount to more than just the cost of the course? i.e. is there a cross-subsidy of research, etc? £9k seems preposterously expensive for a few lectures a week and membership of a nice library. If so, the *right* option might be to charge students a fair fee and fund research from other sources e.g. the state.
Exactly. If universities are going to educate mass numbers of students at an affordable price with relatively little subsidy, they will have to get a lot more efficient.
That sounds like they're going to need a lot more meetings organised in order to organise the meetings about this. Possibly even hire a consultant to organise the meetings about organising the meetings. Maybe a meeting facilitator or two as well.
Just to add - I am in no way jaded or bitter.
"for a few lectures a week"
My course had lectures or labs from 10am until 5 every day apart from the days when it went on until 6 (and wed afternoon "sports" day (which was used to catch up with assignments and not for sport). And this was in the 1980s.
Matera is quite quite magical at night. Never been anywhere like it. And I’ve been EVERYWHERE
OK I am going. I love inland Sicily and this sounds a match. Internet says check out the Sassi caves.
I love Sicily but - honestly? - i reckon Puglia and southern Basicliata possibly beats it. Or at least it is close. Expect lots of litter, graffiti, bleak countryside, stretches of hideous industry, often derelict. Ie - just like Sicily
And yet at its best Puglia is incredible. The Gargano, Lecce, Mont Sant Angelo. Polignano (touristy like Taormina), Otranto (ditto), and then you have Gallipoli and Taranto (oh my!), and now Gravino, Altamura and finally Matera which is like nowhere on earth. Stay overnight!
The food is generally world class. the wine is great. the people are super friendly. And often you get a sense of true discovery (which you don’t in Sicily). Eg Altamura. Not even mentioned in any of my guidebooks apart from the Neanderthal/focaccia references in passing, yet a jewel of a medieval city in its core
Fab
Let's hope your stalker SeanT doesn't start megaphoning it and ruin it for everyone.
Puglia has very definitely been “discovered”. Polignano and Otranto are overrun with tourists
however it’s not hard to find gems nearby that are entirely overlooked. Altamura and Gravina. Taranto because of its absurdly bad rep
Hopefully with my good work on the Gazette i can ruin everywhere
Yes we went to Puglia on holiday about eight years ago, it is definitely not terra incognita. Beautiful old towns, lovely food, awful driving. Hot as fuck.
Yeah the driving is insanely bad. They wander all over the lanes. I know I’ve scoffed at your fear of driving abroad but I can kinda empathise here
The key is to lean into it. To drive as languidly and carelessly as them - like dancing on a crowded dance floor - somehow you all instinctively avoid colliding
Nonetheless some people here are just basic twats. 180kph on the autostrada is not clever or brave. Nor is 30kph in a tiny fiat straddling both lanes
In terms of discovery coastal Adriatic puglia is definitely on the tourist radar. Up here in northern puglia and Basilicata? Nope. Empty. Brilliant
I had a similar experience down there and I think Basilicata lacks the tourists for a weirdly psychological reason: it’s the instep, not the heel or boot. So it’s seen as in between.
I quite liked Puglia but didn’t see it in the best weather, found Calabria potentially pretty but despoiled by rubbish and mafia, and Basilicata better than both and completely off the track. My elderly parents are staying in Matera in a few months, in a cave hotel. Looks like it’s gentrified in the last few years but in a reasonable way.
Matera is world class. Seriously. Amazebombs
I took an overnight ferry once, many moons ago, from Yugoslavia as was to Bari.
Can't remember anything about Bari but the ferry was lovely - a totally laid back saunter across the Adriatic in balmy late September weather. I was skint so slept on the floor rather than a cabin.
Good times.
Has anyone done the depart and go where serendipity takes you trip? It’s something I dream of: wet grey morning in London, cross the platform and take the train going out instead of in, passport and a few grand in hand, and head off on an unplanned adventure.
Bari and Brindisi are two of the ferry ports you end up at on that sort of trip. You generally either go South to Tarifa and across to Morocco, or South East via Italy to Greece then Egypt, like Michael Palin, or the land route to Istanbul and beyond.
It’s to my great regret that I’ve not done the serendipitous departure yet. The best two books for this are Laurie Lee’s When I walked out one Midsummer Morning, and Patrick Leigh Fermor’s A Time of Gifts.
I basically did that for 4 months in spring/summer 2022. I had two gazette commissions - Epirus, Natchez trace, but I strung them together and ended up in superb places - the Caucasus of Armenia, inland Montenegro, wild Georgia, mad parts of Tennessee. Some days I would wake up and look at the weather and think “shit its rainy here where is it sunny” then fly out that day - eg Tbilisi to Yerevan simply on the basis of the weather and my mood on that day
I loved it
One day I want to do it for 6 months. Before I’m too old. I FIERCELY recommend it as a way of discovering the world - and yourself
This was how inter-railing was back in my day.
Wake up. Look at map of europe and check weather and general personal mood.
I distinctly remember abandoning a rain-sodden Germany one September and fleeing to Nice.
Nothing planned in advance. Get up, pack up the tent and then...
You had a tent? What's the point of Interrailing if you don't sleep on trains?
Did that when I was 14. Got to the European train station each night (if I was sober enough) and selected which of the available destinations I'd like to wake up in. Two changes of clothes. Major safeguarding breach. Happy days.
It appears the Iranians are having some trouble finding their president's helicopter
What do you think's really going on? A simple accident is most likely I assume.
Probably that, its mountain territory, weather reportedly wasn't great and the Iranians dont have the greatest servicing, not a good combination. Turkiye has sent a recon UAV with useful search tech perhaps indicating that Iran hasnt got the best gear to carry out SAR, particularly where its reported weather conditions are not conducive, and that they still cant find the helicopter many hours afters its been lost.
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31 · 1h Student visas are already down nearly 30%, and I would say between 10 and 20 universities are going to get into deep trouble. Another 10 to 20 will follow rapidly. Imagine sending a further signal that you want the numbers down... (1/2)
We could do with a fundamental restructuring of FE in this county. Clearly I don’t want there to be a collapse of institutions (that serves no-one) but we could do with moving away from the New Labour model of degrees for all.
All want degrees (or many do). It's aspirational, which is supposed to be good. People with degrees, including many in this board, saying other people shouldn't have them is a poor look.
But yes higher education does need restructuring. To be specific undergraduate education needs to be a lot, lot cheaper. Education factories in other words, efficiency two year degrees, longer semesters and more part time degrees. Anyone who starts talking about Oxbridge, world rankings etc is self serving
Perhaps “degrees for all” was a bad choice of words. I believe that we need to look at making sure all qualifications are high quality and that everyone has the chance to access them. Where I am not convinced, is that a university degree in the traditional academic sense is appropriate for all trades, professions and wants/needs of young people. We need to move away from elitist interpretations of universities needing to be the places to go to get on in life, and see that there is better careers advice and more flexible pathways for the future workforce.
I agree with everything you say but that doesn't address the affordability issue. The problem is we can't afford 50% of young people going to university at current costs and prices. Employability is fine. In general graduates can find jobs more easily than non graduates. The cost isn't fine.
So that gives us three choices I think:
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
3 seems obviously the right answer to me but that will need radical changes to universities. They need become Premier Inns (where the bed and shower are better anyway) and no longer pretend to be the Savoy.
I am taking about undergraduate education. Postgraduate is a different requirement entirely.
As I was saying...
Ex-ministers warn UK universities will go bust without higher fees or funding: Vice-chancellors suggest fee rise of £2,000 to £3,500 a year, but others say that is ‘politically impossible’
Vice-chancellors and former ministers are warning that the cash crisis facing universities is so serious that the next government will have to urgently raise tuition fees or increase funding to avoid bankruptcies within two years.
They said the state of university finances was more dire than revealed in last week’s report by the Office for Students, which forecast 40% of England’s universities would end this year in the red.
Vice-chancellors said that increases of between £2,000 to £3,500 a year for each student would be needed.
The UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight, and a major driver for innovation and growth. We are never going to improve productivity by reacting to everything with an attitude of managing down.
For the reasons I set out above I don't think, at the undergraduate level, that the UK should pretend to have a "world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight".
It should aim to educate anyone who is qualified, and could benefit from it, to a decent standard and at an affordable cost. Something the sector is utterly failing to do and so it's heading towards bankruptcy.
It's not pretending that the UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight. We do have a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight. That's true in terms of research and it's true in terms of our ability to attract fees from overseas students. UK degrees are highly valued.
The universities do not get to decide whether to take "anyone who is qualified". That is determined by government policy. It's the government that controls that, not the sector. University education in the UK is not unaffordable. The sector is heading towards bankruptcy because its income is very heavily determined by the government, and the government chooses to cut corners, as always.
Costs are higher than fees, when the price of going through university is generally regarded as too high already. I set out what I think are the options for a sustainable university sector
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
We have choices. I would choose (3). What is your choice? It could be something I missed.
Question: does the £9k amount to more than just the cost of the course? i.e. is there a cross-subsidy of research, etc? £9k seems preposterously expensive for a few lectures a week and membership of a nice library. If so, the *right* option might be to charge students a fair fee and fund research from other sources e.g. the state.
Universities currently lose money on the average home undergrad. Before the recent period in inflation, universities made a small margin on home undergrads that helped subsidise research, although the much bigger margins are in postgrad teaching and overseas students. However, the fee level has not changed, despite inflation, so now home undergrads lose money.
So, summarising a few of the early bits ás I understand them.
At 2016/17 prices, the full costs to the universities of providing degrees per student per year (I presume some elements are funded out with tuition fees):
- Around £8800 for write on paper degrees - Around 15-30% more for degrees with consumables budgets (STEM, but also art, design, archaeology etc. etc.) - Double for medicine
The split is in somewhat technical accountancy categories but for the paper based subjects is something like:
30% staff costs and overheads 20% buildings and running costs 30% central student facing costs (libraries, IT including teaching IT, admissions, welfare, students unions, but afaict additional bursaries are the main cost. A lot dictated by statute) 20% central university running and "sustainability adjustment".
Even if it is includes a myriad of things, those central costs do seem a chunky percentage.
"Middle East and Africa | Turmoil from a helicopter crash The death of Iran’s president would spark a high-stakes power struggle Amid a regional war, a fight at home between the clerics and military looms"
This could get very interesting - as in the Chinese curse .
The president was a man responsible for brutal repression at home, and fomenting war and conflict abroad. For his role in the death committee during the 1988 prosecution of political prisoners alone, he deserves to have toasty feet in Hell.
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31 · 1h Student visas are already down nearly 30%, and I would say between 10 and 20 universities are going to get into deep trouble. Another 10 to 20 will follow rapidly. Imagine sending a further signal that you want the numbers down... (1/2)
We could do with a fundamental restructuring of FE in this county. Clearly I don’t want there to be a collapse of institutions (that serves no-one) but we could do with moving away from the New Labour model of degrees for all.
All want degrees (or many do). It's aspirational, which is supposed to be good. People with degrees, including many in this board, saying other people shouldn't have them is a poor look.
But yes higher education does need restructuring. To be specific undergraduate education needs to be a lot, lot cheaper. Education factories in other words, efficiency two year degrees, longer semesters and more part time degrees. Anyone who starts talking about Oxbridge, world rankings etc is self serving
Perhaps “degrees for all” was a bad choice of words. I believe that we need to look at making sure all qualifications are high quality and that everyone has the chance to access them. Where I am not convinced, is that a university degree in the traditional academic sense is appropriate for all trades, professions and wants/needs of young people. We need to move away from elitist interpretations of universities needing to be the places to go to get on in life, and see that there is better careers advice and more flexible pathways for the future workforce.
I agree with everything you say but that doesn't address the affordability issue. The problem is we can't afford 50% of young people going to university at current costs and prices. Employability is fine. In general graduates can find jobs more easily than non graduates. The cost isn't fine.
So that gives us three choices I think:
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
3 seems obviously the right answer to me but that will need radical changes to universities. They need become Premier Inns (where the bed and shower are better anyway) and no longer pretend to be the Savoy.
I am taking about undergraduate education. Postgraduate is a different requirement entirely.
As I was saying...
Ex-ministers warn UK universities will go bust without higher fees or funding: Vice-chancellors suggest fee rise of £2,000 to £3,500 a year, but others say that is ‘politically impossible’
Vice-chancellors and former ministers are warning that the cash crisis facing universities is so serious that the next government will have to urgently raise tuition fees or increase funding to avoid bankruptcies within two years.
They said the state of university finances was more dire than revealed in last week’s report by the Office for Students, which forecast 40% of England’s universities would end this year in the red.
Vice-chancellors said that increases of between £2,000 to £3,500 a year for each student would be needed.
The UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight, and a major driver for innovation and growth. We are never going to improve productivity by reacting to everything with an attitude of managing down.
For the reasons I set out above I don't think, at the undergraduate level, that the UK should pretend to have a "world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight".
It should aim to educate anyone who is qualified, and could benefit from it, to a decent standard and at an affordable cost. Something the sector is utterly failing to do and so it's heading towards bankruptcy.
It's not pretending that the UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight. We do have a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight. That's true in terms of research and it's true in terms of our ability to attract fees from overseas students. UK degrees are highly valued.
The universities do not get to decide whether to take "anyone who is qualified". That is determined by government policy. It's the government that controls that, not the sector. University education in the UK is not unaffordable. The sector is heading towards bankruptcy because its income is very heavily determined by the government, and the government chooses to cut corners, as always.
Costs are higher than fees, when the price of going through university is generally regarded as too high already. I set out what I think are the options for a sustainable university sector
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
We have choices. I would choose (3). What is your choice? It could be something I missed.
Question: does the £9k amount to more than just the cost of the course? i.e. is there a cross-subsidy of research, etc? £9k seems preposterously expensive for a few lectures a week and membership of a nice library. If so, the *right* option might be to charge students a fair fee and fund research from other sources e.g. the state.
Universities currently lose money on the average home undergrad. Before the recent period in inflation, universities made a small margin on home undergrads that helped subsidise research, although the much bigger margins are in postgrad teaching and overseas students. However, the fee level has not changed, despite inflation, so now home undergrads lose money.
So, summarising a few of the early bits ás I understand them.
At 2016/17 prices, the full costs to the universities of providing degrees per student per year (I presume some elements are funded out with tuition fees):
- Around £8800 for write on paper degrees - Around 15-30% more for degrees with consumables budgets (STEM, but also art, design, archaeology etc. etc.) - Double for medicine
The split is in somewhat technical accountancy categories but for the paper based subjects is something like:
30% staff costs and overheads 20% buildings and running costs 30% central student facing costs (libraries, IT including teaching IT, admissions, welfare, students unions, but afaict additional bursaries are the main cost. A lot dictated by statute) 20% central university running and "sustainability adjustment".
Even if it is includes a myriad of things, those central costs do seem a chunky percentage.
The financial situation is apparently even worse than previously reported.
This could get very interesting - as in the Chinese curse .
The president was a man responsible for brutal repression at home, and fomenting war and conflict abroad. For his role in the death committee during the 1988 prosecution of political prisoners alone, he deserves to have toasty feet in Hell.
Comments
And yet at its best Puglia is incredible. The Gargano, Lecce, Mont Sant Angelo. Polignano (touristy like Taormina), Otranto (ditto), and then you have Gallipoli and Taranto (oh my!), and now Gravino, Altamura and finally Matera which is like nowhere on earth. Stay overnight!
The food is generally world class. the wine is great. the people are super friendly. And often you get a sense of true discovery (which you don’t in Sicily). Eg Altamura. Not even mentioned in any of my guidebooks apart from the Neanderthal/focaccia references in passing, yet a jewel of a medieval city in its core
Fab
Ex-ministers warn UK universities will go bust without higher fees or funding: Vice-chancellors suggest fee rise of £2,000 to £3,500 a year, but others say that is ‘politically impossible’
Vice-chancellors and former ministers are warning that the cash crisis facing universities is so serious that the next government will have to urgently raise tuition fees or increase funding to avoid bankruptcies within two years.
They said the state of university finances was more dire than revealed in last week’s report by the Office for Students, which forecast 40% of England’s universities would end this year in the red.
Vice-chancellors said that increases of between £2,000 to £3,500 a year for each student would be needed.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/article/2024/may/19/ex-ministers-warn-uk-universities-will-go-bust-without-higher-fees-or-funding
Could the sector be managed down?
however it’s not hard to find gems nearby that are entirely overlooked. Altamura and Gravina. Taranto because of its absurdly bad rep
Hopefully with my good work on the Gazette i can ruin everywhere
🌞 Be Positive 🌞 Be Brilliant 🌞 Be Part Of It 🌞
I trust it's not too political
I always try to be positive and brilliant
And whatever 'it' is, I sure as he'll hope I'm part of it
Not long back from a pleasant social afternoon in metropolitan liberal London.
One of my acquaintances was berating me about politics - "I watch GB News", he said which was the first alarm bell as, rather like anyone posting on PB.com, anyone who watches GB News is by definition sad, mad or bad. "I don't trust any of the politicians" he said, "they're all liars" was the inevitable next point.
"So you've never told a lie?" I remarked. That slowed him down.
It seemed incredulous to me a reasonably intelligent man was only prepared to want to trust someone who never lied when most people lie occasionally (and some habitually). How can you run politics if you only want to vote for someone you think will never lie to you? Politics is if nothing else the art of telling convincing lies - the more convincing the better.
Is it somehow easier to choose to believe something even if it is demonstrably proved to be false? Is it somehow easier to believe and trust someone because you believe they are telling the truth even if it is demonstrably proved they aren't? The one conclusion from this experience is some people will believe and accept any nonsense put in front of them and if you challenge that truth and show beyond any reasonable doubt it's a lie you'll get no thanks for it.
The truth isn't important - what's important is getting people to believe it is the truth even when it isn't.
The old Boris Johnson mantra of "f*** business" probably applies too.
Whenever I've seen or heard the word since i learnt it, I always split it into its original parts and think how helico-pter should sound
If you want to see some conflict, have a look at the footy focused flag shagger autohoons on twitter. Or quite a lot of areas of nextdoor.co.uk.
But I think that they calm down a little if Joey Barton suddenly becomes £100k->£500k poorer, hopefully as a donation to charity; he doesn't seem to have much of a defence.
It's been over 10 years since Sally Bercow / Lord McAlpine, so they be due for a reminder.
Watch it.
Are you number 3, or number 7 ?
(Netflix)
(PS Anchovies are not a vegetable btw, so your 'veggie' meal was not veggie. You are very unlikely to detect anchovies cooked in a sauce as anchovies but they provide that 'weirdly moreish' flavour.)
It should aim to educate anyone who is qualified, and could benefit from it, to a decent standard and at an affordable cost. Something the sector is utterly failing to do and so it's heading towards bankruptcy.
But they are going to hurt a higher education sector that, like much in the UK, is struggling after years of austerity followed by high inflation. Along the lines you suggest, yes, that's what conservatism in the UK stands for today: undermining long-standing and successful British institutions.
Everyone in the audience is wearing a jacket and tie. A constant hubbub of conversation. You can't see it, but you suspect the room is absolutely saturated with cigarette smoke.
As to the second question, I lie and have been lied to as part of my work. I learned later the lie often told to me was to ensure knowledge of something that was going to happen was withheld until those who needed to know first were told. I had accidentally stumbled on a truth which couldn't be revealed at the time.
The distinction was therefore between a lie and being economical or incomplete with the truth.
It may be politicians are occasionally compelled to act in a similar way.
Even professional writers don't seem to realise that trytoism saves you a letter, as well as being grammatically correct, and not stupid
Also, 'try to' sounds proper and convincing
'Try and' shows lazy thinking
Attempt and convince me otherwise
The universities do not get to decide whether to take "anyone who is qualified". That is determined by government policy. It's the government that controls that, not the sector. University education in the UK is not unaffordable. The sector is heading towards bankruptcy because its income is very heavily determined by the government, and the government chooses to cut corners, as always.
An example would be "I'm incredulous you claim not to be @SeanT "
Certainly in Europe.
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them
2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these
3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
We have choices. I would choose (3). What is your choice? It could be something I missed.
Fees are funded by student loan scheme with large % never fully paying back over their lifetime.
If you take on £30K debt under the scheme, why not £50K?
If so, the *right* option might be to charge students a fair fee and fund research from other sources e.g. the state.
A few years ago, the government-set undergraduate fee level was such that more than just the wealthy could afford to go to university. We've since had a period of high inflation (Ukraine, Truss), but the fee level has been unchanged. In real terms, fees are now cheaper for people. An increase in line with inflation would just be to restore the status quo. Your option (1) is scaremongering.
We need to consider the university sector in the round. Universities do more than just teach home undergraduates. They teach postgrads (necessary for a knowledge-based economy). They have overseas students (good for our balance of payments, brings money to local economies, increases British soft power). They do research (increases growth, enriches the nation's soul as well).
The UK needs to invest more. My choice is to support university research more; to not flip-flop back and forth on overseas student numbers (the current government promoted an increase, but is slamming on the brakes now the increase they wanted occurred); to reform the current over-regulated and broken modern apprenticeship system; to increase home student fees in line with inflation in the short term; and to reform student funding in the long term.
The key is to lean into it. To drive as languidly and carelessly as them - like dancing on a crowded dance floor - somehow you all instinctively avoid colliding
Nonetheless some people here are just basic twats. 180kph on the autostrada is not clever or brave. Nor is 30kph in a tiny fiat straddling both lanes
In terms of discovery coastal Adriatic puglia is definitely on the tourist radar. Up here in northern puglia and Basilicata? Nope. Empty. Brilliant
The pilot stood in silence, staring out across the level greens. Bill Ward was dead, and vilified after his death when he could not defend himself. Small, stupid people said that he had come down from altitude to check up his position, and had hit a hill, like any pupil on his first cross-country. He had been furious when first he heard of that report; he was furious still. He had spoken his mind at D.R.D.’s meeting; he would speak his mind again, at any time, to anybody who would listen. That was not how Bill Ward had met his death.
A lot of sciences aren’t.
I guess one reference point is the cost of schools and FE- in the state sector, that's about £7500 a head, for private schools rather more.
You might be able to do a humanities degree cheaper than that (though I'd be a bit surprised even then), but the idea of doing science/engineering for that much is surely for the birds.
That's all on average. That does depend a lot on the course and on the university. Some courses are much cheaper to teach than others. Medicine is much more expensive than philosophy. The government does top up fees for some courses because of that. Where do all the costs come from? This govt report from a few years back itemises it: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5f356650e90e0732e4bd8c79/Understanding_costs_of_undergraduate_provision_in_higher_education.pdf
Wonderful. Very bitter yet full of umami - you need a good strong red wine with it. Primitivo is perfetto
Best eaten on the terrace of a sassi-hotel in matera where you actually sleep in a cave continuously occupied by humans since 9,000BC but probably rather nice in Newent as well. Ok it’s not technically vegetarian (the anchovies!) but it’s as near to vegetarian as I ever want to get
https://www.seriouseats.com/orecchiette-con-le-cime-di-rapa
I quite liked Puglia but didn’t see it in the best weather, found Calabria potentially pretty but despoiled by rubbish and mafia, and Basilicata better than both and completely off the track. My elderly parents are staying in Matera in a few months, in a cave hotel. Looks like it’s gentrified in the last few years but in a reasonable way.
Though in Basilicata I also had the strangest overnight stay, in montegiordano marina. Like a pebbly version of a Californian town like Monterey, but with extremely friendly locals who wanted to feed, water and regale us as if we were visitors from another planet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNPTlT8HXjk
The real thing. 1979. 2 minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fXV6KzhBbM
We could encourage more overseas students to cover the deficit. We currently choose to subsidise some degrees, but not others. We could change the rules so as to allow certain subjects to charge different fees. We could raise undergrad fees to cut postgrad fees, or vice versa. Etc etc.
* All tuition fees combined make up about 50% of universities' income: see https://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/what-we-do/policy-and-research/publications/higher-education-facts-and-figures-2021 About 60% of that, so about 30% of the total, is from UK students. UK undergrads will be a proportion of that.
And the result is a unique, healthy, exquisitely delicious dish full of nutrition and weirdly satisfying. Bacause it is so simple? Turnip tops?
You feel as you eat it that if you ate it every day you’d live to 119 years old. For sure
Come on C of E, if you want to get involved in political matters, get yourself a name like that.
Can't remember anything about Bari but the ferry was lovely - a totally laid back saunter across the Adriatic in balmy late September weather. I was skint so slept on the floor rather than a cabin.
Good times.
Compared against this, universities look bloody cheeky asking for more than about £2k a year.
Bari and Brindisi are two of the ferry ports you end up at on that sort of trip. You generally either go South to Tarifa and across to Morocco, or South East via Italy to Greece then Egypt, like Michael Palin, or the land route to Istanbul and beyond.
It’s to my great regret that I’ve not done the serendipitous departure yet. The best two books for this are Laurie Lee’s When I walked out one Midsummer Morning, and Patrick Leigh Fermor’s A Time of Gifts.
Just to add - I am in no way jaded or bitter.
I loved it
One day I want to do it for 6 months. Before I’m too old. I FIERCELY recommend it as a way of discovering the world - and yourself
Wake up. Look at map of europe and check weather and general personal mood.
I distinctly remember abandoning a rain-sodden Germany one September and fleeing to Nice.
Nothing planned in advance. Get up, pack up the tent and then...
My course had lectures or labs from 10am until 5 every day apart from the days when it went on until 6 (and wed afternoon "sports" day (which was used to catch up with assignments and not for sport). And this was in the 1980s.
What's the point of Interrailing if you don't sleep on trains?
Major safeguarding breach.
Happy days.
At this stage, its not looking good.
At 2016/17 prices, the full costs to the universities of providing degrees per student per year (I presume some elements are funded out with tuition fees):
- Around £8800 for write on paper degrees
- Around 15-30% more for degrees with consumables budgets (STEM, but also art, design, archaeology etc. etc.)
- Double for medicine
The split is in somewhat technical accountancy categories but for the paper based subjects is something like:
30% staff costs and overheads
20% buildings and running costs
30% central student facing costs (libraries, IT including teaching IT, admissions, welfare, students unions, but afaict additional bursaries are the main cost. A lot dictated by statute)
20% central university running and "sustainability adjustment".
Even if it is includes a myriad of things, those central costs do seem a chunky percentage.
The death of Iran’s president would spark a high-stakes power struggle
Amid a regional war, a fight at home between the clerics and military looms"
https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2024/05/19/the-death-of-irans-president-would-spark-a-high-stakes-power-struggle
Reuters has also reported that the helicopter was "completely burned" in the crash, citing an Iranian official."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-middle-east-69035051
https://x.com/skynews/status/1792413529330348235?s=61
F1: I blame the commentator claiming there was a '100% chance' of a safety car for the lack of crashing.
Presumably the vice president will assume the top (well, second to top) job?
The president was a man responsible for brutal repression at home, and fomenting war and conflict abroad. For his role in the death committee during the 1988 prosecution of political prisoners alone, he deserves to have toasty feet in Hell.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_executions_of_Iranian_political_prisoners
Do not mourn him; do not eulogise him.; but hope Iran can find a better way forwards.
Ex-ministers warn UK universities will go bust without higher fees or funding
https://www.theguardian.com/education/article/2024/may/19/ex-ministers-warn-uk-universities-will-go-bust-without-higher-fees-or-funding
Creates a bit of a succession crisis for Iran.