I have tried to think of circumstances where I might vote Reform. Possibly to defeat the SNP? But that makes the choice between Charybdis and Scylla look a pleasant one.
I don't think I could. See also a Tory party led by Jenrick.
You've voted for that moral dustbin Johnson and the vast array of talent that is the Scottish Tories so you should be pretty battle hardened by now. Just close your eyes and think of England.
I voted Con in 2019 because the dubious Johnson was preferable to the even dubiouser Corbyn. I'd probably vote for Reform if it kept an equivalent far left Labour out (Rayner?). Starmer, despite his ineptitude and his succession of deals which seem to prioritise everyone else over Britain, isn't yet in that league. I suppose at constituency level I'd vote Ref if it kept the Greens out, or, in the hypothetical event I happened to be living in Scotland, the SNP.
Regrettably, our political system almost forces you to vote against the party you like least, rather than for the party you like most.
Well, yes and it becomes a negative democracy if you like. I would be the opposite of you - in a forced choice between Labour and Reform, it would be Labour for me but the forced choice is false because we don't have a proportional system which allocates seats based on total number of votes.
That's not an argument for or against PR - simply a statement of fact.
We have 650 individual contests and in many of them the option isn't Labour vs Reform - it isn't in East Ham for example where Reform are irrelevant so the "choice" becomes Labour or not Labour. I've always chosen "not Labour" but the size of the Labour vote in turn makes that irrelevant.
A lot will depend on perceptions closer to the time.
O/T today is a good example of the inherent physical differences between men and women when it comes to sport (no, not the Swiss women’s national football team being beaten by Lucerne’s under 15 boys 7-1).
Faith Kipyegon will today attempt to become the first woman to run a mile under 4 minutes. To do this she will be aided by specialist kit including an aerodynamic skin suit, specialist energy returning lightweight spikes and specialist pace runners arranged to disrupt the airflow for her. She will attempt this on a modern track which returns energy after a lifetime of the best scientific conditioning of fitness and nutrition.
71 years ago Roger Banister did it with none of the above assistance after starting the day at work as a medical student then catching the train up to Oxford mid morning and running at 6pm.
A friend of mine, sadly no longer with us, always used to imagine telling Bannister, as he was collapsing over the finishing line, that fifty years later people would be running sub 4 min miles every race and RB replying “Fuck off, no one will ever do it again”
The mile record of 3:43.13 hasn't been broken since 7th July 1999.
O/T today is a good example of the inherent physical differences between men and women when it comes to sport (no, not the Swiss women’s national football team being beaten by Lucerne’s under 15 boys 7-1).
Faith Kipyegon will today attempt to become the first woman to run a mile under 4 minutes. To do this she will be aided by specialist kit including an aerodynamic skin suit, specialist energy returning lightweight spikes and specialist pace runners arranged to disrupt the airflow for her. She will attempt this on a modern track which returns energy after a lifetime of the best scientific conditioning of fitness and nutrition.
71 years ago Roger Banister did it with none of the above assistance after starting the day at work as a medical student then catching the train up to Oxford mid morning and running at 6pm.
A friend of mine, sadly no longer with us, always used to imagine telling Bannister, as he was collapsing over the finishing line, that fifty years later people would be running sub 4 min miles every race and RB replying “Fuck off, no one will ever do it again”
The mile record of 3:43.13 hasn't been broken since 7th July 1999.
Ukraine are now using drones armed with nets to take down Russian drones.
The current period is like the Cambrian explosion. Every idea is being tried out in a riot of rapid evolution.
Even if we didn't want to support Ukraine's fight, a sensible way of spending our military budget would be to give cash to the Ukrainians to try stuff out and then noting down the answers.
A number of countries do that quite extensively.
On drones, the Dutch have a programme to provide 600k (600,000) drones - which is a lot, even by Ukr standards. The UK has similar, but numbers are not as easy to come by. The Dutch one:
O/T today is a good example of the inherent physical differences between men and women when it comes to sport (no, not the Swiss women’s national football team being beaten by Lucerne’s under 15 boys 7-1).
Faith Kipyegon will today attempt to become the first woman to run a mile under 4 minutes. To do this she will be aided by specialist kit including an aerodynamic skin suit, specialist energy returning lightweight spikes and specialist pace runners arranged to disrupt the airflow for her. She will attempt this on a modern track which returns energy after a lifetime of the best scientific conditioning of fitness and nutrition.
71 years ago Roger Banister did it with none of the above assistance after starting the day at work as a medical student then catching the train up to Oxford mid morning and running at 6pm.
And 40 Capstan full strength a day. Ok, maybe not that many but he liked a fag and a pint in the days before Woke ruined sport.
Doug Walters, a fine Australian batsman of the 70s/80s, was so addicted to his fags that on occasion he lost his wicket deliberately (allegedly) in desperation for a smoke. Happy days.
O/T today is a good example of the inherent physical differences between men and women when it comes to sport (no, not the Swiss women’s national football team being beaten by Lucerne’s under 15 boys 7-1).
Faith Kipyegon will today attempt to become the first woman to run a mile under 4 minutes. To do this she will be aided by specialist kit including an aerodynamic skin suit, specialist energy returning lightweight spikes and specialist pace runners arranged to disrupt the airflow for her. She will attempt this on a modern track which returns energy after a lifetime of the best scientific conditioning of fitness and nutrition.
71 years ago Roger Banister did it with none of the above assistance after starting the day at work as a medical student then catching the train up to Oxford mid morning and running at 6pm.
A friend of mine, sadly no longer with us, always used to imagine telling Bannister, as he was collapsing over the finishing line, that fifty years later people would be running sub 4 min miles every race and RB replying “Fuck off, no one will ever do it again”
The mile record of 3:43.13 hasn't been broken since 7th July 1999.
You may be right about drugs, and also stalled advancement in tracks and clothing, but in this particular case, it is more likely that no-one has run a mile since 1999. It is not a competition event so unless there's an attempt at the record, there's no reason to.
I have tried to think of circumstances where I might vote Reform. Possibly to defeat the SNP? But that makes the choice between Charybdis and Scylla look a pleasant one.
I don't think I could. See also a Tory party led by Jenrick.
You've voted for that moral dustbin Johnson and the vast array of talent that is the Scottish Tories so you should be pretty battle hardened by now. Just close your eyes and think of England.
I voted Con in 2019 because the dubious Johnson was preferable to the even dubiouser Corbyn. I'd probably vote for Reform if it kept an equivalent far left Labour out (Rayner?). Starmer, despite his ineptitude and his succession of deals which seem to prioritise everyone else over Britain, isn't yet in that league. I suppose at constituency level I'd vote Ref if it kept the Greens out, or, in the hypothetical event I happened to be living in Scotland, the SNP.
Regrettably, our political system almost forces you to vote against the party you like least, rather than for the party you like most.
O/T today is a good example of the inherent physical differences between men and women when it comes to sport (no, not the Swiss women’s national football team being beaten by Lucerne’s under 15 boys 7-1).
Faith Kipyegon will today attempt to become the first woman to run a mile under 4 minutes. To do this she will be aided by specialist kit including an aerodynamic skin suit, specialist energy returning lightweight spikes and specialist pace runners arranged to disrupt the airflow for her. She will attempt this on a modern track which returns energy after a lifetime of the best scientific conditioning of fitness and nutrition.
71 years ago Roger Banister did it with none of the above assistance after starting the day at work as a medical student then catching the train up to Oxford mid morning and running at 6pm.
A friend of mine, sadly no longer with us, always used to imagine telling Bannister, as he was collapsing over the finishing line, that fifty years later people would be running sub 4 min miles every race and RB replying “Fuck off, no one will ever do it again”
The mile record of 3:43.13 hasn't been broken since 7th July 1999.
You may be right about drugs, and also stalled advancement in tracks and clothing, but in this particular case, it is more likely that no-one has run a mile since 1999. It is not a competition event so unless there's an attempt at the record, there's no reason to.
Although the 1500m became the standardised event, I am pretty sure they used to run it on a number of occasions every year after that. But you are right that it wasn't the focus for anybody in middle distance, in the way the Marathon is still THE event for long distance running.
O/T today is a good example of the inherent physical differences between men and women when it comes to sport (no, not the Swiss women’s national football team being beaten by Lucerne’s under 15 boys 7-1).
Faith Kipyegon will today attempt to become the first woman to run a mile under 4 minutes. To do this she will be aided by specialist kit including an aerodynamic skin suit, specialist energy returning lightweight spikes and specialist pace runners arranged to disrupt the airflow for her. She will attempt this on a modern track which returns energy after a lifetime of the best scientific conditioning of fitness and nutrition.
71 years ago Roger Banister did it with none of the above assistance after starting the day at work as a medical student then catching the train up to Oxford mid morning and running at 6pm.
And 40 Capstan full strength a day. Ok, maybe not that many but he liked a fag and a pint in the days before Woke ruined sport.
I posted this last month. Smoking is good for you. Here is Tommy Hampson describing the day he won gold in the 800 metres at the Los Angeles Olympics: Had lunch of boiled fish, dry toast and a cup of tea. Then I had a cigarette and chatted over technical details with teammates. World record too.
I gather that while our footballers like a drop of ale, several European players' vice is smoking.
I believe Lester Piggott, whatever his own sins, had a diet of coffee, cigars and the Sporting Life.
Also chocolate, and ice cream, but in small, measured amounts.
O/T today is a good example of the inherent physical differences between men and women when it comes to sport (no, not the Swiss women’s national football team being beaten by Lucerne’s under 15 boys 7-1).
Faith Kipyegon will today attempt to become the first woman to run a mile under 4 minutes. To do this she will be aided by specialist kit including an aerodynamic skin suit, specialist energy returning lightweight spikes and specialist pace runners arranged to disrupt the airflow for her. She will attempt this on a modern track which returns energy after a lifetime of the best scientific conditioning of fitness and nutrition.
71 years ago Roger Banister did it with none of the above assistance after starting the day at work as a medical student then catching the train up to Oxford mid morning and running at 6pm.
And 40 Capstan full strength a day. Ok, maybe not that many but he liked a fag and a pint in the days before Woke ruined sport.
Doug Walters, a fine Australian batsman of the 70s/80s, was so addicted to his fags that on occasion he lost his wicket deliberately (allegedly) in desperation for a smoke. Happy days.
I wonder if fags were ever taken out at drinks breaks.
I can easily believe that some of the drinks taken out were alcoholic.
My understanding is that even some very highly ranked universities are under serious financial strain. There is also an issue with funding for PhD, which without those, you don't get post-docs, and the ultimately, you don't get the next generation of academic staff.
O/T today is a good example of the inherent physical differences between men and women when it comes to sport (no, not the Swiss women’s national football team being beaten by Lucerne’s under 15 boys 7-1).
Faith Kipyegon will today attempt to become the first woman to run a mile under 4 minutes. To do this she will be aided by specialist kit including an aerodynamic skin suit, specialist energy returning lightweight spikes and specialist pace runners arranged to disrupt the airflow for her. She will attempt this on a modern track which returns energy after a lifetime of the best scientific conditioning of fitness and nutrition.
71 years ago Roger Banister did it with none of the above assistance after starting the day at work as a medical student then catching the train up to Oxford mid morning and running at 6pm.
And 40 Capstan full strength a day. Ok, maybe not that many but he liked a fag and a pint in the days before Woke ruined sport.
Doug Walters, a fine Australian batsman of the 70s/80s, was so addicted to his fags that on occasion he lost his wicket deliberately (allegedly) in desperation for a smoke. Happy days.
He was also famous for never practicing. One day whilst waiting to bat he astonished his colleagues by standing up and announcing 'I'm going to get my eye in'. They assumed a net, but instead he sauntered over to the dart board.
I believe John McEnroe also never trained or practiced.
Is there anyone who doesn't think the government should give them more money?
My main concern would be that so far the government has been happy to dish extra money to certain sectors but never with any reform / modernisation. I could see the same happening with universities where it disappears into another black hole.
Also, I think as long as I have posted on here, I have made the observation, that our university system is far too binary. At 18, you either go, and you live away from home and do full time, or do you don't go and you get a job. Yes, there is a very small proportion who do part-time in association with their job and / or live a home, but they are the minority. This isn't true in other European countries.
Although I am not full Leon, AI AI AI, no need for a degree, but the world is changing rapidly and we do need to have a rethink about this.
O/T today is a good example of the inherent physical differences between men and women when it comes to sport (no, not the Swiss women’s national football team being beaten by Lucerne’s under 15 boys 7-1).
Faith Kipyegon will today attempt to become the first woman to run a mile under 4 minutes. To do this she will be aided by specialist kit including an aerodynamic skin suit, specialist energy returning lightweight spikes and specialist pace runners arranged to disrupt the airflow for her. She will attempt this on a modern track which returns energy after a lifetime of the best scientific conditioning of fitness and nutrition.
71 years ago Roger Banister did it with none of the above assistance after starting the day at work as a medical student then catching the train up to Oxford mid morning and running at 6pm.
A friend of mine, sadly no longer with us, always used to imagine telling Bannister, as he was collapsing over the finishing line, that fifty years later people would be running sub 4 min miles every race and RB replying “Fuck off, no one will ever do it again”
The mile record of 3:43.13 hasn't been broken since 7th July 1999.
You may be right about drugs, and also stalled advancement in tracks and clothing, but in this particular case, it is more likely that no-one has run a mile since 1999. It is not a competition event so unless there's an attempt at the record, there's no reason to.
I can answer that - it still is in some circles eg Emsley Carr Mile.
And it is back in the 2026 Commonwealth Games. That smells a little like a Boris intervention.
Is part of the issue that thee are so many universities now? I realise that isn't all of course, but if there are more unis there are more PhDs and post-docs, all of which need funding.
Real terms spending on health related benefits for people of working age: - £36bn in 2019-20 - £52bn in 2024-25 - Without reform £66bn in 2029-30 - with cuts £61bn in 2029-30.
O/T today is a good example of the inherent physical differences between men and women when it comes to sport (no, not the Swiss women’s national football team being beaten by Lucerne’s under 15 boys 7-1).
Faith Kipyegon will today attempt to become the first woman to run a mile under 4 minutes. To do this she will be aided by specialist kit including an aerodynamic skin suit, specialist energy returning lightweight spikes and specialist pace runners arranged to disrupt the airflow for her. She will attempt this on a modern track which returns energy after a lifetime of the best scientific conditioning of fitness and nutrition.
71 years ago Roger Banister did it with none of the above assistance after starting the day at work as a medical student then catching the train up to Oxford mid morning and running at 6pm.
And 40 Capstan full strength a day. Ok, maybe not that many but he liked a fag and a pint in the days before Woke ruined sport.
I posted this last month. Smoking is good for you. Here is Tommy Hampson describing the day he won gold in the 800 metres at the Los Angeles Olympics: Had lunch of boiled fish, dry toast and a cup of tea. Then I had a cigarette and chatted over technical details with teammates. World record too.
I gather that while our footballers like a drop of ale, several European players' vice is smoking.
I believe Lester Piggott, whatever his own sins, had a diet of coffee, cigars and the Sporting Life.
Also chocolate, and ice cream, but in small, measured amounts.
Nutrition in sport has come on a bit since then. Jockeys smoked to suppress their appetite to keep their weight down. After a race they might have a cup of tea and slice of fruit cake.
Athletes eat fast food. Fish and chips for Alf Tupper; McDonald's chicken nuggets for Usain Bolt.
Footballers would eat steak before a big game (although more recently it was all pasta and grilled chicken days).
O/T today is a good example of the inherent physical differences between men and women when it comes to sport (no, not the Swiss women’s national football team being beaten by Lucerne’s under 15 boys 7-1).
Faith Kipyegon will today attempt to become the first woman to run a mile under 4 minutes. To do this she will be aided by specialist kit including an aerodynamic skin suit, specialist energy returning lightweight spikes and specialist pace runners arranged to disrupt the airflow for her. She will attempt this on a modern track which returns energy after a lifetime of the best scientific conditioning of fitness and nutrition.
71 years ago Roger Banister did it with none of the above assistance after starting the day at work as a medical student then catching the train up to Oxford mid morning and running at 6pm.
And 40 Capstan full strength a day. Ok, maybe not that many but he liked a fag and a pint in the days before Woke ruined sport.
Doug Walters, a fine Australian batsman of the 70s/80s, was so addicted to his fags that on occasion he lost his wicket deliberately (allegedly) in desperation for a smoke. Happy days.
I wonder if fags were ever taken out at drinks breaks.
I can easily believe that some of the drinks taken out were alcoholic.
It was certainly common place for fielders on the boundaries to be offered a refreshing glass of beer on hot days, and nobody worried if they imbibed. Jonathan Agnew once accepted some amber liquid from a spectator whilst fielding in the deep in Australia, but it wasn't lager.
O/T today is a good example of the inherent physical differences between men and women when it comes to sport (no, not the Swiss women’s national football team being beaten by Lucerne’s under 15 boys 7-1).
Faith Kipyegon will today attempt to become the first woman to run a mile under 4 minutes. To do this she will be aided by specialist kit including an aerodynamic skin suit, specialist energy returning lightweight spikes and specialist pace runners arranged to disrupt the airflow for her. She will attempt this on a modern track which returns energy after a lifetime of the best scientific conditioning of fitness and nutrition.
71 years ago Roger Banister did it with none of the above assistance after starting the day at work as a medical student then catching the train up to Oxford mid morning and running at 6pm.
And 40 Capstan full strength a day. Ok, maybe not that many but he liked a fag and a pint in the days before Woke ruined sport.
Doug Walters, a fine Australian batsman of the 70s/80s, was so addicted to his fags that on occasion he lost his wicket deliberately (allegedly) in desperation for a smoke. Happy days.
I wonder if fags were ever taken out at drinks breaks.
I can easily believe that some of the drinks taken out were alcoholic.
In my (low-grade) club cricket days a pint of beer and a packet of fags were perched behind the stumps at the bowler's end. There was a strict rule that they could only be partaken of between overs.
I have tried to think of circumstances where I might vote Reform. Possibly to defeat the SNP? But that makes the choice between Charybdis and Scylla look a pleasant one.
I don't think I could. See also a Tory party led by Jenrick.
You've voted for that moral dustbin Johnson and the vast array of talent that is the Scottish Tories so you should be pretty battle hardened by now. Just close your eyes and think of England.
I voted Con in 2019 because the dubious Johnson was preferable to the even dubiouser Corbyn. I'd probably vote for Reform if it kept an equivalent far left Labour out (Rayner?). Starmer, despite his ineptitude and his succession of deals which seem to prioritise everyone else over Britain, isn't yet in that league. I suppose at constituency level I'd vote Ref if it kept the Greens out, or, in the hypothetical event I happened to be living in Scotland, the SNP.
Regrettably, our political system almost forces you to vote against the party you like least, rather than for the party you like most.
Would this make a difference to you: 1) voting Reform in the likelihood of bringing in a Reform majority government or 2) voting Reform in the likelihood that they would not get majority but a Reform/Conservation coalition would be the end point?
Is part of the issue that thee are so many universities now? I realise that isn't all of course, but if there are more unis there are more PhDs and post-docs, all of which need funding.
Controversial.....
One of the issues is yes too many universities and also the change from having a higher education sector of unis, polys, HE colleges, many non-universities they trained people, they did a great job of it, but as you say they weren't then also trying to fund PhDs and Post-Docs (and there is a load of extra admin staff when you start to want to run proper research programmes).
My understanding is that even some very highly ranked universities are under serious financial strain. There is also an issue with funding for PhD, which without those, you don't get post-docs, and the ultimately, you don't get the next generation of academic staff.
And the first departments to close are expensive laboratory-based sciences like chemistry. It was the same cost-based bean-counting in the 1950s that meant technical schools were never built alongside grammars and secondary moderns. All those workshops!
Is there anyone who doesn't think the government should give them more money?
Why ?
A lot of this is down to a fall in demand for courses. Giving them more money won’t change that.
Is it? Universities lose money on every home student they teach, because the government caps the fees at below-cost. For a while, the plan was to shimmy round that by bringing in lots of foreign students paying shedloads. For various reasons (including, but not restricted to, fear of numbers of people coming to the UK) that model has blown up.
Suspect that puts universities in the same basket as a lot of other institutions. Yes they need more funding, yes that probably has to come from the taxpayer, no people won't be happy if the University of Theirtown closes down...
... but God forbid that taxes go up to pay for it.
Ukraine Defence Dept on the current UK drone initiative (June 24):
Ukraine and the United Kingdom are launching a new joint drone production initiative. This agreement was reached by President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Prime Minister Keir Starmer.
As part of the initiative, during the first three years of this mega-project, the UK side will finance the procurement of a wide range of Ukrainian drones that will be manufactured in the United Kingdom.
This will enable British defense companies to rapidly design and produce state-of-the-art drones on a large scale.
While the war continues, all production will be directed to meet the needs of the Defense Forces. After the war ends, the UK and Ukraine will share the produced drones between themselves.
Real terms spending on health related benefits for people of working age: - £36bn in 2019-20 - £52bn in 2024-25 - Without reform £66bn in 2029-30 - with cuts £61bn in 2029-30.
My understanding is that even some very highly ranked universities are under serious financial strain. There is also an issue with funding for PhD, which without those, you don't get post-docs, and the ultimately, you don't get the next generation of academic staff.
They shouldn't have become so reliant on foreign students.
My understanding is that even some very highly ranked universities are under serious financial strain. There is also an issue with funding for PhD, which without those, you don't get post-docs, and the ultimately, you don't get the next generation of academic staff.
And the first departments to close are expensive laboratory-based sciences like chemistry. It was the same cost-based bean-counting in the 1950s that meant technical schools were never built alongside grammars and secondary moderns. All those workshops!
Our AI / tech / knowledge economy growth focused government recently cut the extra funding pot that was given to universities to run what are deemed high cost subjects e.g. Chemistry, Medicine, etc. Its crazy, we should be doing the opposite, more money into these subjects.
In addition to my bug bear about the unique super computer getting cut, another area not getting enough funding is GPU clusters. Universities will always struggle to compete with these mega tech companies and I don't think they can, but all STEM subjects now need access to GPUs, because ML is such a powerful approach to estimating complex functions from data. Its not just Computer Science with their LLMs, Maths / Physics / Chemistry / Biology / Engineering, they all want to leverage these ML approaches.
Real terms spending on health related benefits for people of working age: - £36bn in 2019-20 - £52bn in 2024-25 - Without reform £66bn in 2029-30 - with cuts £61bn in 2029-30.
We're told that there are backlogs for everything in this country and that it takes years to get anything approved.
Doesn't seem to apply when it comes to getting signed on the sick though.
LBC had some right callers yesterday. Jake on £50k getting enhanced PIP for his private therapy sessions was a corker. Surely the whole PIP for people who work needs to be very restricted - for instance if you're blind you might have to get taxis to and from work every day. That would be a valid reason for in work PIP to my mind, not anxiety related stuff which ~ 1/6th of the population suffers from
I've made sure I've laid in enough salt for the YouGov MRP this morning though they did the LD seat number right last year. Perhaps they have it right now...
East Ham would end up 42% Labour, 15% Green, 14% Reform, 10% Conservative and 10% Other. I'm a long way from convinced by that given current trends.
MRPs missed the locally based Independents last time and could well do so again as that vote is concentrated in perhaps 30 seats.
Ref picking up 18% in West Ham and 24% in Barking.
My understanding is that even some very highly ranked universities are under serious financial strain. There is also an issue with funding for PhD, which without those, you don't get post-docs, and the ultimately, you don't get the next generation of academic staff.
They shouldn't have become so reliant on foreign students.
Well fees were capped at below inflation rates, so they became more and more addicted to the foreign student money.
In my experience, universities are also often particularly poorly run. Academics are often bad managers / bad at deciding on purchasing and there is lots of inefficiency/wastage. And universities have these layers of paper pushers to try and oversee every decision they make. Also, students have become way more demanding, now they pay £9k a year, they want their value for money, so universities have to provide lots more services such as mental health support, counselling, more people to answer queries about every part of their experience, so additional layers of non-academic staffing has been hired.
Is there anyone who doesn't think the government should give them more money?
Why ?
A lot of this is down to a fall in demand for courses. Giving them more money won’t change that.
Is it? Universities lose money on every home student they teach, because the government caps the fees at below-cost. For a while, the plan was to shimmy round that by bringing in lots of foreign students paying shedloads. For various reasons (including, but not restricted to, fear of numbers of people coming to the UK) that model has blown up.
Suspect that puts universities in the same basket as a lot of other institutions. Yes they need more funding, yes that probably has to come from the taxpayer, no people won't be happy if the University of Theirtown closes down...
... but God forbid that taxes go up to pay for it.
Do they?
Thinking back to my own University days there were about 200 students in the lecture hall. Each student is paying close to £10000 in fees per annum.
That cohort then is paying between them £2mn in fees, even if they're all home students.
If the universities aren't able to make money on that, then maybe their costs are too high, rather than fees too low.
Real terms spending on health related benefits for people of working age: - £36bn in 2019-20 - £52bn in 2024-25 - Without reform £66bn in 2029-30 - with cuts £61bn in 2029-30.
We're told that there are backlogs for everything in this country and that it takes years to get anything approved.
Doesn't seem to apply when it comes to getting signed on the sick though.
LBC had some right callers yesterday. Jake on £50k getting enhanced PIP for his private therapy sessions was a corker. Surely the whole PIP for people who work needs to be very restricted - for instance if you're blind you might have to get taxis to and from work every day. That would be a valid reason for in work PIP to my mind, not anxiety related stuff...
When was the programme? I'd be interested to listen.
Aren't we constantly informed by PBers who know, that £50k in London is poverty pay?
I'm going to my private physio tomorrow for a reassessment on an inflexible shoulder joint; he carefully read me out his price list since "it has gone up since COVID". One hour is just under £100.
Is there anyone who doesn't think the government should give them more money?
Why ?
A lot of this is down to a fall in demand for courses. Giving them more money won’t change that.
Is it? Universities lose money on every home student they teach, because the government caps the fees at below-cost. For a while, the plan was to shimmy round that by bringing in lots of foreign students paying shedloads. For various reasons (including, but not restricted to, fear of numbers of people coming to the UK) that model has blown up.
Suspect that puts universities in the same basket as a lot of other institutions. Yes they need more funding, yes that probably has to come from the taxpayer, no people won't be happy if the University of Theirtown closes down...
... but God forbid that taxes go up to pay for it.
Do they?
Thinking back to my own University days there were about 200 students in the lecture hall. Each student is paying close to £8000 in fees per annum.
That cohort then is paying between them £1.6mn in fees, even if they're all home students.
If the universities aren't able to make money on that, then maybe their costs are too high, rather than fees too low.
Some subjects they absolutely don't get close to covering the cost. Basically, most STEM subjects are net losers for the uni, in particular things like Chemistry they absolutely take a bath on because you need a load of staffed labs, with expensive chemicals, etc etc etc.
Also, students are way more demanding now in what they expect the university to provide and since the government made it a market, they all have to provide these things.
My understanding is that even some very highly ranked universities are under serious financial strain. There is also an issue with funding for PhD, which without those, you don't get post-docs, and the ultimately, you don't get the next generation of academic staff.
They shouldn't have become so reliant on foreign students.
If OGH was around he would tell you successive governments told universities to get more foreign students.
I think that one reason RefUK supporters are relatively more anti-Labour is the zeal of the convert, and I think that RefUK may have (as per Farage and Anderson for two) some success in getting their supporters to believe things that are made up, of which they use many. For Farage, it is all about marketing.
Listening to a bit of GB News last night, they are still pounding away at the "Lucy Connolly was imprisoned for a single tweet" lie. They were also coming up with some strange stuff about the "oppressed Christian preacher at Kings Cross" story from this week (which is a non-story; they were using PA equipment without bothering with permission or finding out that they needed it).
Another one that surprised me came from a story about reopening Rufford Ford on a Nottingham news site. That is a sometimes deep Ford in a village where performative ASB wankers have been driving through for several years at high speed and getting on Youtube.
The first comment is "Thanks to Labour's Online Safety Bill, those who post such videos can and will be prosecuted.". The Online Safety Act received Royal Assent in October 2023 afaics. Perhaps an indicator that brazen public deception has much potential in 2025 as a strategy for low information voters; it's penetrated at least one head.
Fox News destroyed US politics and ultimately left us with a US President likely to sell out Ukraine to Russia, start a war in the Middle East and destroy the world economy with tariffs. We do not want GB News repeating the same trick here.
I don't care any more if people vote right, centre or left, as long as they vote for parties connected to reality rather than fantasists.
People become so convinced of the rightness of their cause that they are willing to sell out truth to get it.
Is there anyone who doesn't think the government should give them more money?
Why ?
A lot of this is down to a fall in demand for courses. Giving them more money won’t change that.
Is it? Universities lose money on every home student they teach, because the government caps the fees at below-cost. For a while, the plan was to shimmy round that by bringing in lots of foreign students paying shedloads. For various reasons (including, but not restricted to, fear of numbers of people coming to the UK) that model has blown up.
Suspect that puts universities in the same basket as a lot of other institutions. Yes they need more funding, yes that probably has to come from the taxpayer, no people won't be happy if the University of Theirtown closes down...
... but God forbid that taxes go up to pay for it.
Do they?
Thinking back to my own University days there were about 200 students in the lecture hall. Each student is paying close to £8000 in fees per annum.
That cohort then is paying between them £1.6mn in fees, even if they're all home students.
If the universities aren't able to make money on that, then maybe their costs are too high, rather than fees too low.
Some subjects they absolutely don't get close to covering the cost. Basically, most STEM subjects. Also, students are way more demanding now in what they expect the university to provide and since the government made it a market, they all have to provide these things.
For STEM subjects that are lecture theatre based I don't see why they can't make money, if ran efficiently. The latter part is an issue though.
For medicine/engineering etc there's more involved but compare the class sizes in lecture theatres to the class sizes in primary/high schools and there's little reason why lecture theatre-based courses aren't making money from home students.
Especially when students maybe have about 12-15 hours of lectures a week, not full time.
Talking of capped below inflation, I don't think people realise how bad a deal a funded PhD is these days. It has nowhere near kept up with inflation over the past 10-15 years. When I did mine, the funding was sufficient that you could live day to day quite comfortably and actually, if you factored in no tax / NI, discounted student living, it wasn't that much less than getting a graduate job. Now its really poor deal, where lots of even fully funded students are having to work part-time to cover all the costs.
Even in my day, UK universities were starting to struggle to get British students to stay on. I hear now it is really hard, because the bright ones can get a job that pays 2-3x easily out of the gate in science related jobs.
Canadian filmmaker Denis Villeneuve, known for acclaimed titles such as ‘Dune’ and ‘Blade Runner 2049,’ has been confirmed by Amazon MGM Studios as the director of the next James Bond film, the studio announced
Real terms spending on health related benefits for people of working age: - £36bn in 2019-20 - £52bn in 2024-25 - Without reform £66bn in 2029-30 - with cuts £61bn in 2029-30.
We're told that there are backlogs for everything in this country and that it takes years to get anything approved.
Doesn't seem to apply when it comes to getting signed on the sick though.
LBC had some right callers yesterday. Jake on £50k getting enhanced PIP for his private therapy sessions was a corker. Surely the whole PIP for people who work needs to be very restricted - for instance if you're blind you might have to get taxis to and from work every day. That would be a valid reason for in work PIP to my mind, not anxiety related stuff...
When was the programme? I'd be interested to listen.
Aren't we constantly informed by PBers who know, that £50k in London is poverty pay?
I'm going to my private physio tomorrow for a reassessment on an inflexible shoulder joint; he carefully read me out his price list since "it has gone up since COVID". One hour is just under £100.
Real terms spending on health related benefits for people of working age: - £36bn in 2019-20 - £52bn in 2024-25 - Without reform £66bn in 2029-30 - with cuts £61bn in 2029-30.
We're told that there are backlogs for everything in this country and that it takes years to get anything approved.
Doesn't seem to apply when it comes to getting signed on the sick though.
LBC had some right callers yesterday. Jake on £50k getting enhanced PIP for his private therapy sessions was a corker. Surely the whole PIP for people who work needs to be very restricted - for instance if you're blind you might have to get taxis to and from work every day. That would be a valid reason for in work PIP to my mind, not anxiety related stuff...
When was the programme? I'd be interested to listen.
Aren't we constantly informed by PBers who know, that £50k in London is poverty pay?
I'm going to my private physio tomorrow for a reassessment on an inflexible shoulder joint; he carefully read me out his price list since "it has gone up since COVID". One hour is just under £100.
PIP isn't means tested. It also isn't assessed to pay for medical treatment. An assessment is made, and you get money according to the "level" you are assessed at. Jake is quite unusual in actually spending it on something connected to his disability, most people just use it as income.
If you have to get a taxi to work every day that is paid for by Access to Work as PIP is to defray living expenses. So a blind person would get the highest level of mobility *and* be able to claim travel to work costs on top
Photo of the day: A Youtuber with his collection of Airfix Model Soldiers. I cannot tell his nationality - E European moved to the USA, or post-imperial, perhaps: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDuUIPgWXYA
"DAN HODGES: Keir Starmer's time is up and his party 'have had enough'. That's the withering verdict from his own MPs... and this is what they tell me is coming next"
Is there anyone who doesn't think the government should give them more money?
Why ?
A lot of this is down to a fall in demand for courses. Giving them more money won’t change that.
Is it? Universities lose money on every home student they teach, because the government caps the fees at below-cost. For a while, the plan was to shimmy round that by bringing in lots of foreign students paying shedloads. For various reasons (including, but not restricted to, fear of numbers of people coming to the UK) that model has blown up.
Suspect that puts universities in the same basket as a lot of other institutions. Yes they need more funding, yes that probably has to come from the taxpayer, no people won't be happy if the University of Theirtown closes down...
... but God forbid that taxes go up to pay for it.
Do they?
Thinking back to my own University days there were about 200 students in the lecture hall. Each student is paying close to £8000 in fees per annum.
That cohort then is paying between them £1.6mn in fees, even if they're all home students.
If the universities aren't able to make money on that, then maybe their costs are too high, rather than fees too low.
Some subjects they absolutely don't get close to covering the cost. Basically, most STEM subjects. Also, students are way more demanding now in what they expect the university to provide and since the government made it a market, they all have to provide these things.
For STEM subjects that are lecture theatre based I don't see why they can't make money, if ran efficiently. The latter part is an issue though.
For medicine/engineering etc there's more involved but compare the class sizes in lecture theatres to the class sizes in primary/high schools and there's little reason why lecture theatre-based courses aren't making money from home students.
Especially when students maybe have about 12-15 hours of lectures a week, not full time.
Other than maths, no STEM subject is just lecture thearte based, they all need labs and they are very expensive to run. Also, they aren't part-time, STEM subjects often are basically in either lectures or labs closer to 20-30hrs a week.
I definitely think in general universities aren't run very efficiently, but it is widely acknowledged that things like Chemistry, easily cost £15k / year / student to run due to all the extras that are required to be provided.
Actually even maths now isn't just sit in the lecture theatre and write down all this crazy stuff off the blackboard. There is a lot of interest in theory of ML, application of ML to solving really hard problems, and then you need PC labs with GPU clusters.
£15k / year / student to run due to all the extras that are required to be provided.
Actually even maths now isn't just sit in the lecture theatre and write down all this crazy stuff. There is a lot of interest in theory of ML, application of ML to solving really hard problems, and then you need PC labs with GPU clusters.
I'd say the Maths GPU cost is more at the "research" side rather than the "teaching" side of the ledger tbh.
Is there anyone who doesn't think the government should give them more money?
Why ?
A lot of this is down to a fall in demand for courses. Giving them more money won’t change that.
Is it? Universities lose money on every home student they teach, because the government caps the fees at below-cost. For a while, the plan was to shimmy round that by bringing in lots of foreign students paying shedloads. For various reasons (including, but not restricted to, fear of numbers of people coming to the UK) that model has blown up.
Suspect that puts universities in the same basket as a lot of other institutions. Yes they need more funding, yes that probably has to come from the taxpayer, no people won't be happy if the University of Theirtown closes down...
... but God forbid that taxes go up to pay for it.
Do they?
Thinking back to my own University days there were about 200 students in the lecture hall. Each student is paying close to £8000 in fees per annum.
That cohort then is paying between them £1.6mn in fees, even if they're all home students.
If the universities aren't able to make money on that, then maybe their costs are too high, rather than fees too low.
Some subjects they absolutely don't get close to covering the cost. Basically, most STEM subjects. Also, students are way more demanding now in what they expect the university to provide and since the government made it a market, they all have to provide these things.
For STEM subjects that are lecture theatre based I don't see why they can't make money, if ran efficiently. The latter part is an issue though.
For medicine/engineering etc there's more involved but compare the class sizes in lecture theatres to the class sizes in primary/high schools and there's little reason why lecture theatre-based courses aren't making money from home students.
Especially when students maybe have about 12-15 hours of lectures a week, not full time.
Probably because the lectures are the relatively cheap bit. The labs, seminars and marking are where the costs pile up.
If it were possible for an institution to deliver an attractive HE experience at meaningfully lower cost, I'd expect someone, somewhere to have done it. The obvious candidate being the University of Buckingham. Their Economics degree course costs £12k a year for two years.
Is there anyone who doesn't think the government should give them more money?
Why ?
A lot of this is down to a fall in demand for courses. Giving them more money won’t change that.
Is it? Universities lose money on every home student they teach, because the government caps the fees at below-cost. For a while, the plan was to shimmy round that by bringing in lots of foreign students paying shedloads. For various reasons (including, but not restricted to, fear of numbers of people coming to the UK) that model has blown up.
Suspect that puts universities in the same basket as a lot of other institutions. Yes they need more funding, yes that probably has to come from the taxpayer, no people won't be happy if the University of Theirtown closes down...
... but God forbid that taxes go up to pay for it.
Do they?
Thinking back to my own University days there were about 200 students in the lecture hall. Each student is paying close to £8000 in fees per annum.
That cohort then is paying between them £1.6mn in fees, even if they're all home students.
If the universities aren't able to make money on that, then maybe their costs are too high, rather than fees too low.
Some subjects they absolutely don't get close to covering the cost. Basically, most STEM subjects. Also, students are way more demanding now in what they expect the university to provide and since the government made it a market, they all have to provide these things.
For STEM subjects that are lecture theatre based I don't see why they can't make money, if ran efficiently. The latter part is an issue though.
For medicine/engineering etc there's more involved but compare the class sizes in lecture theatres to the class sizes in primary/high schools and there's little reason why lecture theatre-based courses aren't making money from home students.
Especially when students maybe have about 12-15 hours of lectures a week, not full time.
Real terms spending on health related benefits for people of working age: - £36bn in 2019-20 - £52bn in 2024-25 - Without reform £66bn in 2029-30 - with cuts £61bn in 2029-30.
We're told that there are backlogs for everything in this country and that it takes years to get anything approved.
Doesn't seem to apply when it comes to getting signed on the sick though.
LBC had some right callers yesterday. Jake on £50k getting enhanced PIP for his private therapy sessions was a corker. Surely the whole PIP for people who work needs to be very restricted - for instance if you're blind you might have to get taxis to and from work every day. That would be a valid reason for in work PIP to my mind, not anxiety related stuff...
When was the programme? I'd be interested to listen.
Aren't we constantly informed by PBers who know, that £50k in London is poverty pay?
I'm going to my private physio tomorrow for a reassessment on an inflexible shoulder joint; he carefully read me out his price list since "it has gone up since COVID". One hour is just under £100.
PIP isn't means tested. It also isn't assessed to pay for medical treatment. An assessment is made, and you get money according to the "level" you are assessed at. Jake is quite unusual in actually spending it on something connected to his disability, most people just use it as income.
If you have to get a taxi to work every day that is paid for by Access to Work as PIP is to defray living expenses. So a blind person would get the highest level of mobility *and* be able to claim travel to work costs on top
If it is to defray living expenses for someone disabled, then in most cases I would argue it *is* connected to the disability. Though there are endless nitpicking opportunities for people looking to pick nits.
At a simplistic level this could be minor home or daily equipment changes - eg insulated kettle or round-ended knives for a blind person. It could also be to defray work costs - such as a 27" computer monitor, or software.
These could all be "adaptation expenses", but most people known to me who get PIP would pay for such from their PIP to avoid complexity and aggro over details eg from an employer.
O/T today is a good example of the inherent physical differences between men and women when it comes to sport (no, not the Swiss women’s national football team being beaten by Lucerne’s under 15 boys 7-1).
Faith Kipyegon will today attempt to become the first woman to run a mile under 4 minutes. To do this she will be aided by specialist kit including an aerodynamic skin suit, specialist energy returning lightweight spikes and specialist pace runners arranged to disrupt the airflow for her. She will attempt this on a modern track which returns energy after a lifetime of the best scientific conditioning of fitness and nutrition.
71 years ago Roger Banister did it with none of the above assistance after starting the day at work as a medical student then catching the train up to Oxford mid morning and running at 6pm.
A friend of mine, sadly no longer with us, always used to imagine telling Bannister, as he was collapsing over the finishing line, that fifty years later people would be running sub 4 min miles every race and RB replying “Fuck off, no one will ever do it again”
The mile record of 3:43.13 hasn't been broken since 7th July 1999.
You may be right about drugs, and also stalled advancement in tracks and clothing, but in this particular case, it is more likely that no-one has run a mile since 1999. It is not a competition event so unless there's an attempt at the record, there's no reason to.
Lots of meets do hold mile events - Bisslett used to do the dream mile until at least 2019.
Checks are for British users, and many VPNs route traffic through other countries whose users are not required to prove their age.
As for blackmail, it is surely only a question of time before systems are hacked allowing the baddies to link real identities with porn preferences.
And of course, I highly doubt in the end it will have the intended effect of stopping horny teenage boys looking at nudie ladies as it is everywhere on the internet.
Is there anyone who doesn't think the government should give them more money?
Why ?
A lot of this is down to a fall in demand for courses. Giving them more money won’t change that.
Is it? Universities lose money on every home student they teach, because the government caps the fees at below-cost. For a while, the plan was to shimmy round that by bringing in lots of foreign students paying shedloads. For various reasons (including, but not restricted to, fear of numbers of people coming to the UK) that model has blown up.
Suspect that puts universities in the same basket as a lot of other institutions. Yes they need more funding, yes that probably has to come from the taxpayer, no people won't be happy if the University of Theirtown closes down...
... but God forbid that taxes go up to pay for it.
Do they?
Thinking back to my own University days there were about 200 students in the lecture hall. Each student is paying close to £10000 in fees per annum.
That cohort then is paying between them £2mn in fees, even if they're all home students.
If the universities aren't able to make money on that, then maybe their costs are too high, rather than fees too low.
Costs almost always expand to exceed the money available.
Checks are for British users, and many VPNs route traffic through other countries whose users are not required to prove their age.
As for blackmail, it is surely only a question of time before systems are hacked allowing the baddies to link real identities with porn preferences.
And of course, I highly doubt in the end it will have the intended effect of stopping horny teenage boys looking at nudie ladies as it is everywhere on the internet.
But it will achieve the intended effect of having politicians be able to claim they've done something about it.
Is there anyone who doesn't think the government should give them more money?
Why ?
A lot of this is down to a fall in demand for courses. Giving them more money won’t change that.
Is it? Universities lose money on every home student they teach, because the government caps the fees at below-cost. For a while, the plan was to shimmy round that by bringing in lots of foreign students paying shedloads. For various reasons (including, but not restricted to, fear of numbers of people coming to the UK) that model has blown up.
Suspect that puts universities in the same basket as a lot of other institutions. Yes they need more funding, yes that probably has to come from the taxpayer, no people won't be happy if the University of Theirtown closes down...
... but God forbid that taxes go up to pay for it.
Do they?
Thinking back to my own University days there were about 200 students in the lecture hall. Each student is paying close to £10000 in fees per annum.
That cohort then is paying between them £2mn in fees, even if they're all home students.
If the universities aren't able to make money on that, then maybe their costs are too high, rather than fees too low.
Costs almost always expand to exceed the money available.
I am also not sure people realise how demanding students have become. The dynamic has totally changed from you should be grateful that you are at university and some smart people are going to give up a few hours of their time to lecture you on these subjects and if you have questions they are available 2hrs a week total. To we are paying £9k (or far more if international) for this service, we demand that we get x, y and z, and there are lots of costs associated with that. If you don't provide these services we will make lots of complaints and the people running the university will get very nervy about ratings / rankings and that people might choose other institutions.
"DAN HODGES: Keir Starmer's time is up and his party 'have had enough'. That's the withering verdict from his own MPs... and this is what they tell me is coming next"
Of course, this is Hodges we're dealing with here, but if he's right I wonder if Sir Keir's 'noises off' will be recorded as his death knell, akin to 'crisis what crisis?', 'basket of deplorables' etc. That moment when the person in charge seems irreparably aloof and high handed.
Is there anyone who doesn't think the government should give them more money?
Why ?
A lot of this is down to a fall in demand for courses. Giving them more money won’t change that.
Is it? Universities lose money on every home student they teach, because the government caps the fees at below-cost. For a while, the plan was to shimmy round that by bringing in lots of foreign students paying shedloads. For various reasons (including, but not restricted to, fear of numbers of people coming to the UK) that model has blown up.
Suspect that puts universities in the same basket as a lot of other institutions. Yes they need more funding, yes that probably has to come from the taxpayer, no people won't be happy if the University of Theirtown closes down...
... but God forbid that taxes go up to pay for it.
Do they?
Thinking back to my own University days there were about 200 students in the lecture hall. Each student is paying close to £8000 in fees per annum.
That cohort then is paying between them £1.6mn in fees, even if they're all home students.
If the universities aren't able to make money on that, then maybe their costs are too high, rather than fees too low.
Some subjects they absolutely don't get close to covering the cost. Basically, most STEM subjects. Also, students are way more demanding now in what they expect the university to provide and since the government made it a market, they all have to provide these things.
For STEM subjects that are lecture theatre based I don't see why they can't make money, if ran efficiently. The latter part is an issue though.
For medicine/engineering etc there's more involved but compare the class sizes in lecture theatres to the class sizes in primary/high schools and there's little reason why lecture theatre-based courses aren't making money from home students.
Especially when students maybe have about 12-15 hours of lectures a week, not full time.
Other than maths, no STEM subject is just lecture thearte based, they all need labs and they are very expensive to run. Also, they aren't part-time, STEM subjects often are basically in either lectures or labs closer to 20-30hrs a week.
I definitely think in general universities aren't run very efficiently, but it is widely acknowledged that things like Chemistry, easily cost £15k / year / student to run due to all the extras that are required to be provided.
Actually even maths now isn't just sit in the lecture theatre and write down all this crazy stuff off the blackboard. There is a lot of interest in theory of ML, application of ML to solving really hard problems, and then you need PC labs with GPU clusters.
The cap on fees is ridiculous. The demand is there from the students but universities are suffering from inflation just as the wider economy is too. And add in the NI changes. Plus Uni academics have had the same pay deflation as medics over the same time.
It also a nonsense as some (well one) on here seem to believe a STEM course can be entirely lecture based. What world is he/she living on?
And lastly - the cap on fees is disadvantaging UK citizens. I'm admissions tutor for my course and I have been told that we will likely be in clearing for overseas students, but NOT for home. The uni sees overseas as more attractive because they pay more.
I have no doubt that universities could be better run. We employ a lot of staff that never teach students or do research. Bath has a very well resourced widening access team, aiming to get students from poorer, disadvantaged backgrounds to uni. Its a laudable aim but we pour money into it for relatively few bums on seats. Academics are constantly wasting time on admin tasks that aren't really important. And DEI plays a role here as we have to be hitting all our DEI targets etc.
But frankly the big one is the fees. Let unis charge more and let it become a proper market.
Is there anyone who doesn't think the government should give them more money?
Why ?
A lot of this is down to a fall in demand for courses. Giving them more money won’t change that.
Is it? Universities lose money on every home student they teach, because the government caps the fees at below-cost. For a while, the plan was to shimmy round that by bringing in lots of foreign students paying shedloads. For various reasons (including, but not restricted to, fear of numbers of people coming to the UK) that model has blown up.
Suspect that puts universities in the same basket as a lot of other institutions. Yes they need more funding, yes that probably has to come from the taxpayer, no people won't be happy if the University of Theirtown closes down...
... but God forbid that taxes go up to pay for it.
Do they?
Thinking back to my own University days there were about 200 students in the lecture hall. Each student is paying close to £8000 in fees per annum.
That cohort then is paying between them £1.6mn in fees, even if they're all home students.
If the universities aren't able to make money on that, then maybe their costs are too high, rather than fees too low.
Some subjects they absolutely don't get close to covering the cost. Basically, most STEM subjects. Also, students are way more demanding now in what they expect the university to provide and since the government made it a market, they all have to provide these things.
For STEM subjects that are lecture theatre based I don't see why they can't make money, if ran efficiently. The latter part is an issue though.
For medicine/engineering etc there's more involved but compare the class sizes in lecture theatres to the class sizes in primary/high schools and there's little reason why lecture theatre-based courses aren't making money from home students.
Especially when students maybe have about 12-15 hours of lectures a week, not full time.
Probably because the lectures are the relatively cheap bit. The labs, seminars and marking are where the costs pile up.
If it were possible for an institution to deliver an attractive HE experience at meaningfully lower cost, I'd expect someone, somewhere to have done it. The obvious candidate being the University of Buckingham. Their Economics degree course costs £12k a year for two years.
Labs, lectures, seminars and marking should be doable for £2m in costs from a cohort of 200 students for all but the most extreme cases.
However high you set fees, people will find a way to expand costs to spend all that money and still claim to be short.
Is there anyone who doesn't think the government should give them more money?
Why ?
A lot of this is down to a fall in demand for courses. Giving them more money won’t change that.
Is it? Universities lose money on every home student they teach, because the government caps the fees at below-cost. For a while, the plan was to shimmy round that by bringing in lots of foreign students paying shedloads. For various reasons (including, but not restricted to, fear of numbers of people coming to the UK) that model has blown up.
Suspect that puts universities in the same basket as a lot of other institutions. Yes they need more funding, yes that probably has to come from the taxpayer, no people won't be happy if the University of Theirtown closes down...
... but God forbid that taxes go up to pay for it.
Do they?
Thinking back to my own University days there were about 200 students in the lecture hall. Each student is paying close to £8000 in fees per annum.
That cohort then is paying between them £1.6mn in fees, even if they're all home students.
If the universities aren't able to make money on that, then maybe their costs are too high, rather than fees too low.
Some subjects they absolutely don't get close to covering the cost. Basically, most STEM subjects. Also, students are way more demanding now in what they expect the university to provide and since the government made it a market, they all have to provide these things.
For STEM subjects that are lecture theatre based I don't see why they can't make money, if ran efficiently. The latter part is an issue though.
For medicine/engineering etc there's more involved but compare the class sizes in lecture theatres to the class sizes in primary/high schools and there's little reason why lecture theatre-based courses aren't making money from home students.
Especially when students maybe have about 12-15 hours of lectures a week, not full time.
Probably because the lectures are the relatively cheap bit. The labs, seminars and marking are where the costs pile up.
If it were possible for an institution to deliver an attractive HE experience at meaningfully lower cost, I'd expect someone, somewhere to have done it. The obvious candidate being the University of Buckingham. Their Economics degree course costs £12k a year for two years.
Some of mu University colleagues complain of unmanageably large tutorial groups, and being pressed into distance learning supervision of offshore students that they never meet face to face.
Universities relied on undergraduate fees and postgraduate taught courses such as MBAs to finance the research, which is a money loser, particularly with research grant applications being major pieces of work themselves. An awful lot of postgraduate and academic time is spent on grant applications and resubmitting publications etc. Postgraduate work is how rankings and academic prestige are measured.
I think there is a lot to be said for the German type system where most research is done in freestanding research institutions and universities concentrate on undergraduate taught courses.
Is there anyone who doesn't think the government should give them more money?
Why ?
A lot of this is down to a fall in demand for courses. Giving them more money won’t change that.
Is it? Universities lose money on every home student they teach, because the government caps the fees at below-cost. For a while, the plan was to shimmy round that by bringing in lots of foreign students paying shedloads. For various reasons (including, but not restricted to, fear of numbers of people coming to the UK) that model has blown up.
Suspect that puts universities in the same basket as a lot of other institutions. Yes they need more funding, yes that probably has to come from the taxpayer, no people won't be happy if the University of Theirtown closes down...
... but God forbid that taxes go up to pay for it.
Do they?
Thinking back to my own University days there were about 200 students in the lecture hall. Each student is paying close to £10000 in fees per annum.
That cohort then is paying between them £2mn in fees, even if they're all home students.
If the universities aren't able to make money on that, then maybe their costs are too high, rather than fees too low.
Costs almost always expand to exceed the money available.
Is there an issue about having professional managers in charge, or subject experts who have branched out into management?
Is there anyone who doesn't think the government should give them more money?
Why ?
A lot of this is down to a fall in demand for courses. Giving them more money won’t change that.
Is it? Universities lose money on every home student they teach, because the government caps the fees at below-cost. For a while, the plan was to shimmy round that by bringing in lots of foreign students paying shedloads. For various reasons (including, but not restricted to, fear of numbers of people coming to the UK) that model has blown up.
Suspect that puts universities in the same basket as a lot of other institutions. Yes they need more funding, yes that probably has to come from the taxpayer, no people won't be happy if the University of Theirtown closes down...
... but God forbid that taxes go up to pay for it.
Do they?
Thinking back to my own University days there were about 200 students in the lecture hall. Each student is paying close to £8000 in fees per annum.
That cohort then is paying between them £1.6mn in fees, even if they're all home students.
If the universities aren't able to make money on that, then maybe their costs are too high, rather than fees too low.
Some subjects they absolutely don't get close to covering the cost. Basically, most STEM subjects. Also, students are way more demanding now in what they expect the university to provide and since the government made it a market, they all have to provide these things.
For STEM subjects that are lecture theatre based I don't see why they can't make money, if ran efficiently. The latter part is an issue though.
For medicine/engineering etc there's more involved but compare the class sizes in lecture theatres to the class sizes in primary/high schools and there's little reason why lecture theatre-based courses aren't making money from home students.
Especially when students maybe have about 12-15 hours of lectures a week, not full time.
Other than maths, no STEM subject is just lecture thearte based, they all need labs and they are very expensive to run. Also, they aren't part-time, STEM subjects often are basically in either lectures or labs closer to 20-30hrs a week.
I definitely think in general universities aren't run very efficiently, but it is widely acknowledged that things like Chemistry, easily cost £15k / year / student to run due to all the extras that are required to be provided.
Actually even maths now isn't just sit in the lecture theatre and write down all this crazy stuff off the blackboard. There is a lot of interest in theory of ML, application of ML to solving really hard problems, and then you need PC labs with GPU clusters.
The cap on fees is ridiculous. The demand is there from the students but universities are suffering from inflation just as the wider economy is too. And add in the NI changes. Plus Uni academics have had the same pay deflation as medics over the same time.
It also a nonsense as some (well one) on here seem to believe a STEM course can be entirely lecture based. What world is he/she living on?
And lastly - the cap on fees is disadvantaging UK citizens. I'm admissions tutor for my course and I have been told that we will likely be in clearing for overseas students, but NOT for home. The uni sees overseas as more attractive because they pay more.
I have no doubt that universities could be better run. We employ a lot of staff that never teach students or do research. Bath has a very well resourced widening access team, aiming to get students from poorer, disadvantaged backgrounds to uni. Its a laudable aim but we pour money into it for relatively few bums on seats. Academics are constantly wasting time on admin tasks that aren't really important. And DEI plays a role here as we have to be hitting all our DEI targets etc.
But frankly the big one is the fees. Let unis charge more and let it become a proper market.
In one way, my daugther is going to be extremely fortunate: as a Brit applying from the US, she won't need a visa, but will be classified as a foreign student. This means she'll be paying foreign student rates (for the first year at least), but will probably find it somewhat easier to get into a good university.
I've been trying to persuade her not to go to LSE. Sadly, she seems likely to ignore my entreaties.
Is there anyone who doesn't think the government should give them more money?
Why ?
A lot of this is down to a fall in demand for courses. Giving them more money won’t change that.
Is it? Universities lose money on every home student they teach, because the government caps the fees at below-cost. For a while, the plan was to shimmy round that by bringing in lots of foreign students paying shedloads. For various reasons (including, but not restricted to, fear of numbers of people coming to the UK) that model has blown up.
Suspect that puts universities in the same basket as a lot of other institutions. Yes they need more funding, yes that probably has to come from the taxpayer, no people won't be happy if the University of Theirtown closes down...
... but God forbid that taxes go up to pay for it.
Do they?
Thinking back to my own University days there were about 200 students in the lecture hall. Each student is paying close to £8000 in fees per annum.
That cohort then is paying between them £1.6mn in fees, even if they're all home students.
If the universities aren't able to make money on that, then maybe their costs are too high, rather than fees too low.
Some subjects they absolutely don't get close to covering the cost. Basically, most STEM subjects. Also, students are way more demanding now in what they expect the university to provide and since the government made it a market, they all have to provide these things.
For STEM subjects that are lecture theatre based I don't see why they can't make money, if ran efficiently. The latter part is an issue though.
For medicine/engineering etc there's more involved but compare the class sizes in lecture theatres to the class sizes in primary/high schools and there's little reason why lecture theatre-based courses aren't making money from home students.
Especially when students maybe have about 12-15 hours of lectures a week, not full time.
Other than maths, no STEM subject is just lecture thearte based, they all need labs and they are very expensive to run. Also, they aren't part-time, STEM subjects often are basically in either lectures or labs closer to 20-30hrs a week.
I definitely think in general universities aren't run very efficiently, but it is widely acknowledged that things like Chemistry, easily cost £15k / year / student to run due to all the extras that are required to be provided.
Actually even maths now isn't just sit in the lecture theatre and write down all this crazy stuff off the blackboard. There is a lot of interest in theory of ML, application of ML to solving really hard problems, and then you need PC labs with GPU clusters.
The cap on fees is ridiculous. The demand is there from the students but universities are suffering from inflation just as the wider economy is too. And add in the NI changes. Plus Uni academics have had the same pay deflation as medics over the same time.
It also a nonsense as some (well one) on here seem to believe a STEM course can be entirely lecture based. What world is he/she living on?
And lastly - the cap on fees is disadvantaging UK citizens. I'm admissions tutor for my course and I have been told that we will likely be in clearing for overseas students, but NOT for home. The uni sees overseas as more attractive because they pay more.
I have no doubt that universities could be better run. We employ a lot of staff that never teach students or do research. Bath has a very well resourced widening access team, aiming to get students from poorer, disadvantaged backgrounds to uni. Its a laudable aim but we pour money into it for relatively few bums on seats. Academics are constantly wasting time on admin tasks that aren't really important. And DEI plays a role here as we have to be hitting all our DEI targets etc.
But frankly the big one is the fees. Let unis charge more and let it become a proper market.
I never said all courses are entirely lecture based, however many courses are yet still face the same close to £10k in fees so swings and roundabouts.
Is there anyone who doesn't think the government should give them more money?
Why ?
A lot of this is down to a fall in demand for courses. Giving them more money won’t change that.
Is it? Universities lose money on every home student they teach, because the government caps the fees at below-cost. For a while, the plan was to shimmy round that by bringing in lots of foreign students paying shedloads. For various reasons (including, but not restricted to, fear of numbers of people coming to the UK) that model has blown up.
Suspect that puts universities in the same basket as a lot of other institutions. Yes they need more funding, yes that probably has to come from the taxpayer, no people won't be happy if the University of Theirtown closes down...
... but God forbid that taxes go up to pay for it.
Do they?
Thinking back to my own University days there were about 200 students in the lecture hall. Each student is paying close to £8000 in fees per annum.
That cohort then is paying between them £1.6mn in fees, even if they're all home students.
If the universities aren't able to make money on that, then maybe their costs are too high, rather than fees too low.
Some subjects they absolutely don't get close to covering the cost. Basically, most STEM subjects. Also, students are way more demanding now in what they expect the university to provide and since the government made it a market, they all have to provide these things.
For STEM subjects that are lecture theatre based I don't see why they can't make money, if ran efficiently. The latter part is an issue though.
For medicine/engineering etc there's more involved but compare the class sizes in lecture theatres to the class sizes in primary/high schools and there's little reason why lecture theatre-based courses aren't making money from home students.
Especially when students maybe have about 12-15 hours of lectures a week, not full time.
Other than maths, no STEM subject is just lecture thearte based, they all need labs and they are very expensive to run. Also, they aren't part-time, STEM subjects often are basically in either lectures or labs closer to 20-30hrs a week.
I definitely think in general universities aren't run very efficiently, but it is widely acknowledged that things like Chemistry, easily cost £15k / year / student to run due to all the extras that are required to be provided.
Actually even maths now isn't just sit in the lecture theatre and write down all this crazy stuff off the blackboard. There is a lot of interest in theory of ML, application of ML to solving really hard problems, and then you need PC labs with GPU clusters.
The cap on fees is ridiculous. The demand is there from the students but universities are suffering from inflation just as the wider economy is too. And add in the NI changes. Plus Uni academics have had the same pay deflation as medics over the same time.
It also a nonsense as some (well one) on here seem to believe a STEM course can be entirely lecture based. What world is he/she living on?
And lastly - the cap on fees is disadvantaging UK citizens. I'm admissions tutor for my course and I have been told that we will likely be in clearing for overseas students, but NOT for home. The uni sees overseas as more attractive because they pay more.
I have no doubt that universities could be better run. We employ a lot of staff that never teach students or do research. Bath has a very well resourced widening access team, aiming to get students from poorer, disadvantaged backgrounds to uni. Its a laudable aim but we pour money into it for relatively few bums on seats. Academics are constantly wasting time on admin tasks that aren't really important. And DEI plays a role here as we have to be hitting all our DEI targets etc.
But frankly the big one is the fees. Let unis charge more and let it become a proper market.
I never said all courses are entirely lecture based, however many courses are yet still face the same close to £10k in fees so swings and roundabouts.
Even the courses that are 90% lecture based still have smaller study groups, and have work that needs assigning and marking every week.
Is there anyone who doesn't think the government should give them more money?
Why ?
A lot of this is down to a fall in demand for courses. Giving them more money won’t change that.
Is it? Universities lose money on every home student they teach, because the government caps the fees at below-cost. For a while, the plan was to shimmy round that by bringing in lots of foreign students paying shedloads. For various reasons (including, but not restricted to, fear of numbers of people coming to the UK) that model has blown up.
Suspect that puts universities in the same basket as a lot of other institutions. Yes they need more funding, yes that probably has to come from the taxpayer, no people won't be happy if the University of Theirtown closes down...
... but God forbid that taxes go up to pay for it.
Which is why I think they should go for a merging of technical and academic - apprenticeships need an academic component, some rigour and transferability. The universities could provide that in partnership with the employers.
Is there anyone who doesn't think the government should give them more money?
Why ?
A lot of this is down to a fall in demand for courses. Giving them more money won’t change that.
Is it? Universities lose money on every home student they teach, because the government caps the fees at below-cost. For a while, the plan was to shimmy round that by bringing in lots of foreign students paying shedloads. For various reasons (including, but not restricted to, fear of numbers of people coming to the UK) that model has blown up.
Suspect that puts universities in the same basket as a lot of other institutions. Yes they need more funding, yes that probably has to come from the taxpayer, no people won't be happy if the University of Theirtown closes down...
... but God forbid that taxes go up to pay for it.
Do they?
Thinking back to my own University days there were about 200 students in the lecture hall. Each student is paying close to £8000 in fees per annum.
That cohort then is paying between them £1.6mn in fees, even if they're all home students.
If the universities aren't able to make money on that, then maybe their costs are too high, rather than fees too low.
Some subjects they absolutely don't get close to covering the cost. Basically, most STEM subjects. Also, students are way more demanding now in what they expect the university to provide and since the government made it a market, they all have to provide these things.
For STEM subjects that are lecture theatre based I don't see why they can't make money, if ran efficiently. The latter part is an issue though.
For medicine/engineering etc there's more involved but compare the class sizes in lecture theatres to the class sizes in primary/high schools and there's little reason why lecture theatre-based courses aren't making money from home students.
Especially when students maybe have about 12-15 hours of lectures a week, not full time.
Other than maths, no STEM subject is just lecture thearte based, they all need labs and they are very expensive to run. Also, they aren't part-time, STEM subjects often are basically in either lectures or labs closer to 20-30hrs a week.
I definitely think in general universities aren't run very efficiently, but it is widely acknowledged that things like Chemistry, easily cost £15k / year / student to run due to all the extras that are required to be provided.
Actually even maths now isn't just sit in the lecture theatre and write down all this crazy stuff off the blackboard. There is a lot of interest in theory of ML, application of ML to solving really hard problems, and then you need PC labs with GPU clusters.
The cap on fees is ridiculous. The demand is there from the students but universities are suffering from inflation just as the wider economy is too. And add in the NI changes. Plus Uni academics have had the same pay deflation as medics over the same time.
It also a nonsense as some (well one) on here seem to believe a STEM course can be entirely lecture based. What world is he/she living on?
And lastly - the cap on fees is disadvantaging UK citizens. I'm admissions tutor for my course and I have been told that we will likely be in clearing for overseas students, but NOT for home. The uni sees overseas as more attractive because they pay more.
I have no doubt that universities could be better run. We employ a lot of staff that never teach students or do research. Bath has a very well resourced widening access team, aiming to get students from poorer, disadvantaged backgrounds to uni. Its a laudable aim but we pour money into it for relatively few bums on seats. Academics are constantly wasting time on admin tasks that aren't really important. And DEI plays a role here as we have to be hitting all our DEI targets etc.
But frankly the big one is the fees. Let unis charge more and let it become a proper market.
One thing I think UK unis are on the whole quite poor, not all, but many, is fully sweating their assets and diversifying their income. US universities are brilliant at getting money from the private sector, renting out all their accommodation and always hosting events that utilise their facilities to whoever is willing to pay. I feel that many universities are quite uncomfortable with this as if it makes them less "pure" to be engaging with activities outside of teaching and research.
When I visit UK university campuses out of term time they are often very dead. There are exceptions, Warwick seems to really go in for this, loads of business conferences are held there, they have an Arts Cenre, Restaurants, state of the art sporting facilities, they also do things like the FA coaching badges for football and hold training camps for junior levels of football. It feels very much part university, part business park. But others, its a bit like a ghost town.
I have tried to think of circumstances where I might vote Reform. Possibly to defeat the SNP? But that makes the choice between Charybdis and Scylla look a pleasant one.
I don't think I could. See also a Tory party led by Jenrick.
You've voted for that moral dustbin Johnson and the vast array of talent that is the Scottish Tories so you should be pretty battle hardened by now. Just close your eyes and think of England.
I voted Con in 2019 because the dubious Johnson was preferable to the even dubiouser Corbyn. I'd probably vote for Reform if it kept an equivalent far left Labour out (Rayner?). Starmer, despite his ineptitude and his succession of deals which seem to prioritise everyone else over Britain, isn't yet in that league. I suppose at constituency level I'd vote Ref if it kept the Greens out, or, in the hypothetical event I happened to be living in Scotland, the SNP.
Regrettably, our political system almost forces you to vote against the party you like least, rather than for the party you like most.
Well, yes and it becomes a negative democracy if you like. I would be the opposite of you - in a forced choice between Labour and Reform, it would be Labour for me but the forced choice is false because we don't have a proportional system which allocates seats based on total number of votes.
That's not an argument for or against PR - simply a statement of fact.
We have 650 individual contests and in many of them the option isn't Labour vs Reform - it isn't in East Ham for example where Reform are irrelevant so the "choice" becomes Labour or not Labour. I've always chosen "not Labour" but the size of the Labour vote in turn makes that irrelevant.
A lot will depend on perceptions closer to the time.
The 'voting against' habit makes sense when you consider the relationship of the average person to politics. Dislikes tend to be stronger than likes in this space because it is fashionable to be down on politics and politicians. Being disparaging about it all projects a certain weary wisdom, and it's a rare individual who doesn't want to project a certain weary wisdom.
Politics is unusual in this respect. For most things - food, music, books - it's the opposite, the 'likes' prevail. Eg I'm a Stones fan and my most unfavourite type of music is Big Band. They are my extremes, I love the Stones and hate Big Band. But the point is, the second is not true. I don't hate Big Band. It doesn't work for me - even irritates slightly - but if I'm hanging out somewhere and on comes Frank with some shoo-be-doo-be-dooing and delayed delivery over a pumping brass section I sit there and wait it out. I don't leave in a huff. It's fine. I wouldn't, to get back to politics, vote tactically against Big Band in the way that I would against RUK.
Is there anyone who doesn't think the government should give them more money?
Why ?
A lot of this is down to a fall in demand for courses. Giving them more money won’t change that.
Is it? Universities lose money on every home student they teach, because the government caps the fees at below-cost. For a while, the plan was to shimmy round that by bringing in lots of foreign students paying shedloads. For various reasons (including, but not restricted to, fear of numbers of people coming to the UK) that model has blown up.
Suspect that puts universities in the same basket as a lot of other institutions. Yes they need more funding, yes that probably has to come from the taxpayer, no people won't be happy if the University of Theirtown closes down...
... but God forbid that taxes go up to pay for it.
Do they?
Thinking back to my own University days there were about 200 students in the lecture hall. Each student is paying close to £8000 in fees per annum.
That cohort then is paying between them £1.6mn in fees, even if they're all home students.
If the universities aren't able to make money on that, then maybe their costs are too high, rather than fees too low.
Some subjects they absolutely don't get close to covering the cost. Basically, most STEM subjects. Also, students are way more demanding now in what they expect the university to provide and since the government made it a market, they all have to provide these things.
For STEM subjects that are lecture theatre based I don't see why they can't make money, if ran efficiently. The latter part is an issue though.
For medicine/engineering etc there's more involved but compare the class sizes in lecture theatres to the class sizes in primary/high schools and there's little reason why lecture theatre-based courses aren't making money from home students.
Especially when students maybe have about 12-15 hours of lectures a week, not full time.
Other than maths, no STEM subject is just lecture thearte based, they all need labs and they are very expensive to run. Also, they aren't part-time, STEM subjects often are basically in either lectures or labs closer to 20-30hrs a week.
I definitely think in general universities aren't run very efficiently, but it is widely acknowledged that things like Chemistry, easily cost £15k / year / student to run due to all the extras that are required to be provided.
Actually even maths now isn't just sit in the lecture theatre and write down all this crazy stuff off the blackboard. There is a lot of interest in theory of ML, application of ML to solving really hard problems, and then you need PC labs with GPU clusters.
Perhaps the business model of universities needs reconsideration. It might be that when the push to expand the numbers getting degrees happened, it was workable because the tuition needs were few, based on students literally 'reading' their subject. Now that each student requires so many more resources, perhaps a model with fewer students is needed again.
Is there anyone who doesn't think the government should give them more money?
Why ?
A lot of this is down to a fall in demand for courses. Giving them more money won’t change that.
Is it? Universities lose money on every home student they teach, because the government caps the fees at below-cost. For a while, the plan was to shimmy round that by bringing in lots of foreign students paying shedloads. For various reasons (including, but not restricted to, fear of numbers of people coming to the UK) that model has blown up.
Suspect that puts universities in the same basket as a lot of other institutions. Yes they need more funding, yes that probably has to come from the taxpayer, no people won't be happy if the University of Theirtown closes down...
... but God forbid that taxes go up to pay for it.
Do they?
Thinking back to my own University days there were about 200 students in the lecture hall. Each student is paying close to £8000 in fees per annum.
That cohort then is paying between them £1.6mn in fees, even if they're all home students.
If the universities aren't able to make money on that, then maybe their costs are too high, rather than fees too low.
Some subjects they absolutely don't get close to covering the cost. Basically, most STEM subjects. Also, students are way more demanding now in what they expect the university to provide and since the government made it a market, they all have to provide these things.
For STEM subjects that are lecture theatre based I don't see why they can't make money, if ran efficiently. The latter part is an issue though.
For medicine/engineering etc there's more involved but compare the class sizes in lecture theatres to the class sizes in primary/high schools and there's little reason why lecture theatre-based courses aren't making money from home students.
Especially when students maybe have about 12-15 hours of lectures a week, not full time.
Other than maths, no STEM subject is just lecture thearte based, they all need labs and they are very expensive to run. Also, they aren't part-time, STEM subjects often are basically in either lectures or labs closer to 20-30hrs a week.
I definitely think in general universities aren't run very efficiently, but it is widely acknowledged that things like Chemistry, easily cost £15k / year / student to run due to all the extras that are required to be provided.
Actually even maths now isn't just sit in the lecture theatre and write down all this crazy stuff off the blackboard. There is a lot of interest in theory of ML, application of ML to solving really hard problems, and then you need PC labs with GPU clusters.
The cap on fees is ridiculous. The demand is there from the students but universities are suffering from inflation just as the wider economy is too. And add in the NI changes. Plus Uni academics have had the same pay deflation as medics over the same time.
It also a nonsense as some (well one) on here seem to believe a STEM course can be entirely lecture based. What world is he/she living on?
And lastly - the cap on fees is disadvantaging UK citizens. I'm admissions tutor for my course and I have been told that we will likely be in clearing for overseas students, but NOT for home. The uni sees overseas as more attractive because they pay more.
I have no doubt that universities could be better run. We employ a lot of staff that never teach students or do research. Bath has a very well resourced widening access team, aiming to get students from poorer, disadvantaged backgrounds to uni. Its a laudable aim but we pour money into it for relatively few bums on seats. Academics are constantly wasting time on admin tasks that aren't really important. And DEI plays a role here as we have to be hitting all our DEI targets etc.
But frankly the big one is the fees. Let unis charge more and let it become a proper market.
I never said all courses are entirely lecture based, however many courses are yet still face the same close to £10k in fees so swings and roundabouts.
Even the courses that are 90% lecture based still have smaller study groups, and have work that needs assigning and marking every week.
Of course they do, however £10k per student is still nearly twice as much as schools get per pupil with considerably smaller class sizes and work that needs assigning and marking too, with pupils taught full time.
Is there anyone who doesn't think the government should give them more money?
Why ?
A lot of this is down to a fall in demand for courses. Giving them more money won’t change that.
Is it? Universities lose money on every home student they teach, because the government caps the fees at below-cost. For a while, the plan was to shimmy round that by bringing in lots of foreign students paying shedloads. For various reasons (including, but not restricted to, fear of numbers of people coming to the UK) that model has blown up.
Suspect that puts universities in the same basket as a lot of other institutions. Yes they need more funding, yes that probably has to come from the taxpayer, no people won't be happy if the University of Theirtown closes down...
... but God forbid that taxes go up to pay for it.
Do they?
Thinking back to my own University days there were about 200 students in the lecture hall. Each student is paying close to £8000 in fees per annum.
That cohort then is paying between them £1.6mn in fees, even if they're all home students.
If the universities aren't able to make money on that, then maybe their costs are too high, rather than fees too low.
Some subjects they absolutely don't get close to covering the cost. Basically, most STEM subjects. Also, students are way more demanding now in what they expect the university to provide and since the government made it a market, they all have to provide these things.
For STEM subjects that are lecture theatre based I don't see why they can't make money, if ran efficiently. The latter part is an issue though.
For medicine/engineering etc there's more involved but compare the class sizes in lecture theatres to the class sizes in primary/high schools and there's little reason why lecture theatre-based courses aren't making money from home students.
Especially when students maybe have about 12-15 hours of lectures a week, not full time.
Other than maths, no STEM subject is just lecture thearte based, they all need labs and they are very expensive to run. Also, they aren't part-time, STEM subjects often are basically in either lectures or labs closer to 20-30hrs a week.
I definitely think in general universities aren't run very efficiently, but it is widely acknowledged that things like Chemistry, easily cost £15k / year / student to run due to all the extras that are required to be provided.
Actually even maths now isn't just sit in the lecture theatre and write down all this crazy stuff off the blackboard. There is a lot of interest in theory of ML, application of ML to solving really hard problems, and then you need PC labs with GPU clusters.
The cap on fees is ridiculous. The demand is there from the students but universities are suffering from inflation just as the wider economy is too. And add in the NI changes. Plus Uni academics have had the same pay deflation as medics over the same time.
It also a nonsense as some (well one) on here seem to believe a STEM course can be entirely lecture based. What world is he/she living on?
And lastly - the cap on fees is disadvantaging UK citizens. I'm admissions tutor for my course and I have been told that we will likely be in clearing for overseas students, but NOT for home. The uni sees overseas as more attractive because they pay more.
I have no doubt that universities could be better run. We employ a lot of staff that never teach students or do research. Bath has a very well resourced widening access team, aiming to get students from poorer, disadvantaged backgrounds to uni. Its a laudable aim but we pour money into it for relatively few bums on seats. Academics are constantly wasting time on admin tasks that aren't really important. And DEI plays a role here as we have to be hitting all our DEI targets etc.
But frankly the big one is the fees. Let unis charge more and let it become a proper market.
In one way, my daugther is going to be extremely fortunate: as a Brit applying from the US, she won't need a visa, but will be classified as a foreign student. This means she'll be paying foreign student rates (for the first year at least), but will probably find it somewhat easier to get into a good university.
I've been trying to persuade her not to go to LSE. Sadly, she seems likely to ignore my entreaties.
My eldest (half)Thai granddaughter ..... both passports ..... felt British Uni's were too expensive, so has gone to an Aussie one. Her younger sister is currently, I understand, busy researching grants, scholarships etc to the same end. Neither girl fancies UK, apparently.
From 'Simon shows you maps' on facebook (I think Simon is Australian so has no particular axe to grind on this:
Interesting.
My first thought was I was surprised by USA as anyone I speak to wants to avoid it like the plague at the moment, then I notice it is a forecast for 2024 so is old and at least a year before Trump won. It is also pre our election.
Also a high net worth individual is defined as having wealth over $1m. Really? That is not high net worth.
Is there anyone who doesn't think the government should give them more money?
Why ?
A lot of this is down to a fall in demand for courses. Giving them more money won’t change that.
Is it? Universities lose money on every home student they teach, because the government caps the fees at below-cost. For a while, the plan was to shimmy round that by bringing in lots of foreign students paying shedloads. For various reasons (including, but not restricted to, fear of numbers of people coming to the UK) that model has blown up.
Suspect that puts universities in the same basket as a lot of other institutions. Yes they need more funding, yes that probably has to come from the taxpayer, no people won't be happy if the University of Theirtown closes down...
... but God forbid that taxes go up to pay for it.
Do they?
Thinking back to my own University days there were about 200 students in the lecture hall. Each student is paying close to £8000 in fees per annum.
That cohort then is paying between them £1.6mn in fees, even if they're all home students.
If the universities aren't able to make money on that, then maybe their costs are too high, rather than fees too low.
Some subjects they absolutely don't get close to covering the cost. Basically, most STEM subjects. Also, students are way more demanding now in what they expect the university to provide and since the government made it a market, they all have to provide these things.
For STEM subjects that are lecture theatre based I don't see why they can't make money, if ran efficiently. The latter part is an issue though.
For medicine/engineering etc there's more involved but compare the class sizes in lecture theatres to the class sizes in primary/high schools and there's little reason why lecture theatre-based courses aren't making money from home students.
Especially when students maybe have about 12-15 hours of lectures a week, not full time.
Other than maths, no STEM subject is just lecture thearte based, they all need labs and they are very expensive to run. Also, they aren't part-time, STEM subjects often are basically in either lectures or labs closer to 20-30hrs a week.
I definitely think in general universities aren't run very efficiently, but it is widely acknowledged that things like Chemistry, easily cost £15k / year / student to run due to all the extras that are required to be provided.
Actually even maths now isn't just sit in the lecture theatre and write down all this crazy stuff off the blackboard. There is a lot of interest in theory of ML, application of ML to solving really hard problems, and then you need PC labs with GPU clusters.
Perhaps the business model of universities needs reconsideration. It might be that when the push to expand the numbers getting degrees happened, it was workable because the tuition needs were few, based on students literally 'reading' their subject. Now that each student requires so many more resources, perhaps a model with fewer students is needed again.
But I'm a total ignoramus on the topic.
IMO, fewer students, fewer courses, fewer institutions cos-playing at being a full research university, instead HE education with "flexible" learning, which is combination of work / study.
There is another aspect of when we had dedicated polys that specialised in a niche of subjects, you only built facilities for those subjects, rather than the current situation that if you want to be able to be categorised as a university you have to offer a wide enough set of subjects and provides all these extra facilities, which all costs money to build, run and maintain.
"DAN HODGES: Keir Starmer's time is up and his party 'have had enough'. That's the withering verdict from his own MPs... and this is what they tell me is coming next"
I expect Starmer to survive no matter what happens next week, but he is very diminished and frankly looks haunted
In his speech to 'Business' today he championed all his successes, including the much vaunted (by him) trade deals, but everything he spoke about is a long time in the making and amplified after the speech with the question 'all very well and good but when will people feel it ? '
He talks long on change and his 10 year plan, but the electorate won't wait 10 years, nor even 5 years, and he has to hope that by the next election the public haven't decided to deliver to labour the same as happened to the conservatives in 2024
Ultimately, Reeves has been an unmitigating disaster for him, and at times at PMQs yesterday she looked grim and close to tears
In his next shuffle Reeves has to be moved, and as poor as Starmer is, Reeves has compromised his government far more than anyone else
On a wider point the country is spending, borrowing, and taxing far beyond it's means and every year more and more is demanded from the cake 'that is no more'
I know the idea the IMF will intervene is suggested by some, but irrespective ultimately hard and unpopular decisions will be forced on a future government, probably by the markets
Photo of the day: A Youtuber with his collection of Airfix Model Soldiers. I cannot tell his nationality - E European moved to the USA, or post-imperial, perhaps: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDuUIPgWXYA
I have tried to think of circumstances where I might vote Reform. Possibly to defeat the SNP? But that makes the choice between Charybdis and Scylla look a pleasant one.
I don't think I could. See also a Tory party led by Jenrick.
You've voted for that moral dustbin Johnson and the vast array of talent that is the Scottish Tories so you should be pretty battle hardened by now. Just close your eyes and think of England.
I voted Con in 2019 because the dubious Johnson was preferable to the even dubiouser Corbyn. I'd probably vote for Reform if it kept an equivalent far left Labour out (Rayner?). Starmer, despite his ineptitude and his succession of deals which seem to prioritise everyone else over Britain, isn't yet in that league. I suppose at constituency level I'd vote Ref if it kept the Greens out, or, in the hypothetical event I happened to be living in Scotland, the SNP.
Regrettably, our political system almost forces you to vote against the party you like least, rather than for the party you like most.
Well, yes and it becomes a negative democracy if you like. I would be the opposite of you - in a forced choice between Labour and Reform, it would be Labour for me but the forced choice is false because we don't have a proportional system which allocates seats based on total number of votes.
That's not an argument for or against PR - simply a statement of fact.
We have 650 individual contests and in many of them the option isn't Labour vs Reform - it isn't in East Ham for example where Reform are irrelevant so the "choice" becomes Labour or not Labour. I've always chosen "not Labour" but the size of the Labour vote in turn makes that irrelevant.
A lot will depend on perceptions closer to the time.
The 'voting against' habit makes sense when you consider the relationship of the average person to politics. Dislikes tend to be stronger than likes in this space because it is fashionable to be down on politics and politicians. Being disparaging about it all projects a certain weary wisdom, and it's a rare individual who doesn't want to project a certain weary wisdom.
Politics is unusual in this respect. For most things - food, music, books - it's the opposite, the 'likes' prevail. Eg I'm a Stones fan and my most unfavourite type of music is Big Band. They are my extremes, I love the Stones and hate Big Band. But the point is, the second is not true. I don't hate Big Band. It doesn't work for me - even irritates slightly - but if I'm hanging out somewhere and on comes Frank with some shoo-be-doo-be-dooing and delayed delivery over a pumping brass section I sit there and wait it out. I don't leave in a huff. It's fine. I wouldn't, to get back to politics, vote tactically against Big Band in the way that I would against RUK.
Yes and the evidence of this forum (not surprisingly) supports you. We are, as a group, passionate about our politics - if we weren't, we wouldn't be here.
That passion is a part of who are are on this forum and has to be a part of this forum but as long as we underdtand our passion isn't everyone else's passion that's fine.
"DAN HODGES: Keir Starmer's time is up and his party 'have had enough'. That's the withering verdict from his own MPs... and this is what they tell me is coming next"
Of course, this is Hodges we're dealing with here, but if he's right I wonder if Sir Keir's 'noises off' will be recorded as his death knell, akin to 'crisis what crisis?', 'basket of deplorables' etc. That moment when the person in charge seems irreparably aloof and high handed.
There is no obvious mechanism to force Starmer out but I reckon he'll retire early anyway. But whether you believe me or Dan Hodges, only bet on Labour MPs to be next Prime Minister. Nigel Farage is 2/1 favourite, 7/1 bar.
Starmer is even money to be PM at the next general election, and there is also exit date betting available.
From 'Simon shows you maps' on facebook (I think Simon is Australian so has no particular axe to grind on this:
Interesting.
My first thought was I was surprised by USA as anyone I speak to wants to avoid it like the plague at the moment, then I notice it is a forecast for 2024 so is old and at least a year before Trump won. It is also pre our election.
Also a high net worth individual is defined as having wealth over $1m. Really? That is not high net worth.
$1m is anyone with an average house in places Surbiton or perhaps Neasden without a mortgage, before all the rest.
Real terms spending on health related benefits for people of working age: - £36bn in 2019-20 - £52bn in 2024-25 - Without reform £66bn in 2029-30 - with cuts £61bn in 2029-30.
We're told that there are backlogs for everything in this country and that it takes years to get anything approved.
Doesn't seem to apply when it comes to getting signed on the sick though.
LBC had some right callers yesterday. Jake on £50k getting enhanced PIP for his private therapy sessions was a corker. Surely the whole PIP for people who work needs to be very restricted - for instance if you're blind you might have to get taxis to and from work every day. That would be a valid reason for in work PIP to my mind, not anxiety related stuff which ~ 1/6th of the population suffers from
The concept behind PIP is surprisingly idealistic - it's to put the recipient in the same financial situation as they would be if they didn't suffer from their medical condition. So that means the state assuming responsibility for all expenses a person might incur an a result of their disability or condition.
It does feel like a situation where the threshold for the government stepping in could be reassessed.
Is there anyone who doesn't think the government should give them more money?
Why ?
A lot of this is down to a fall in demand for courses. Giving them more money won’t change that.
Is it? Universities lose money on every home student they teach, because the government caps the fees at below-cost. For a while, the plan was to shimmy round that by bringing in lots of foreign students paying shedloads. For various reasons (including, but not restricted to, fear of numbers of people coming to the UK) that model has blown up.
Suspect that puts universities in the same basket as a lot of other institutions. Yes they need more funding, yes that probably has to come from the taxpayer, no people won't be happy if the University of Theirtown closes down...
... but God forbid that taxes go up to pay for it.
Do they?
Thinking back to my own University days there were about 200 students in the lecture hall. Each student is paying close to £8000 in fees per annum.
That cohort then is paying between them £1.6mn in fees, even if they're all home students.
If the universities aren't able to make money on that, then maybe their costs are too high, rather than fees too low.
Some subjects they absolutely don't get close to covering the cost. Basically, most STEM subjects. Also, students are way more demanding now in what they expect the university to provide and since the government made it a market, they all have to provide these things.
For STEM subjects that are lecture theatre based I don't see why they can't make money, if ran efficiently. The latter part is an issue though.
For medicine/engineering etc there's more involved but compare the class sizes in lecture theatres to the class sizes in primary/high schools and there's little reason why lecture theatre-based courses aren't making money from home students.
Especially when students maybe have about 12-15 hours of lectures a week, not full time.
Other than maths, no STEM subject is just lecture thearte based, they all need labs and they are very expensive to run. Also, they aren't part-time, STEM subjects often are basically in either lectures or labs closer to 20-30hrs a week.
I definitely think in general universities aren't run very efficiently, but it is widely acknowledged that things like Chemistry, easily cost £15k / year / student to run due to all the extras that are required to be provided.
Actually even maths now isn't just sit in the lecture theatre and write down all this crazy stuff off the blackboard. There is a lot of interest in theory of ML, application of ML to solving really hard problems, and then you need PC labs with GPU clusters.
The cap on fees is ridiculous. The demand is there from the students but universities are suffering from inflation just as the wider economy is too. And add in the NI changes. Plus Uni academics have had the same pay deflation as medics over the same time.
It also a nonsense as some (well one) on here seem to believe a STEM course can be entirely lecture based. What world is he/she living on?
And lastly - the cap on fees is disadvantaging UK citizens. I'm admissions tutor for my course and I have been told that we will likely be in clearing for overseas students, but NOT for home. The uni sees overseas as more attractive because they pay more.
I have no doubt that universities could be better run. We employ a lot of staff that never teach students or do research. Bath has a very well resourced widening access team, aiming to get students from poorer, disadvantaged backgrounds to uni. Its a laudable aim but we pour money into it for relatively few bums on seats. Academics are constantly wasting time on admin tasks that aren't really important. And DEI plays a role here as we have to be hitting all our DEI targets etc.
But frankly the big one is the fees. Let unis charge more and let it become a proper market.
I never said all courses are entirely lecture based, however many courses are yet still face the same close to £10k in fees so swings and roundabouts.
For STEM subjects that are lecture based... Which ones are those then?
Is there anyone who doesn't think the government should give them more money?
Why ?
A lot of this is down to a fall in demand for courses. Giving them more money won’t change that.
Is it? Universities lose money on every home student they teach, because the government caps the fees at below-cost. For a while, the plan was to shimmy round that by bringing in lots of foreign students paying shedloads. For various reasons (including, but not restricted to, fear of numbers of people coming to the UK) that model has blown up.
Suspect that puts universities in the same basket as a lot of other institutions. Yes they need more funding, yes that probably has to come from the taxpayer, no people won't be happy if the University of Theirtown closes down...
... but God forbid that taxes go up to pay for it.
Do they?
Thinking back to my own University days there were about 200 students in the lecture hall. Each student is paying close to £8000 in fees per annum.
That cohort then is paying between them £1.6mn in fees, even if they're all home students.
If the universities aren't able to make money on that, then maybe their costs are too high, rather than fees too low.
Some subjects they absolutely don't get close to covering the cost. Basically, most STEM subjects. Also, students are way more demanding now in what they expect the university to provide and since the government made it a market, they all have to provide these things.
For STEM subjects that are lecture theatre based I don't see why they can't make money, if ran efficiently. The latter part is an issue though.
For medicine/engineering etc there's more involved but compare the class sizes in lecture theatres to the class sizes in primary/high schools and there's little reason why lecture theatre-based courses aren't making money from home students.
Especially when students maybe have about 12-15 hours of lectures a week, not full time.
Other than maths, no STEM subject is just lecture thearte based, they all need labs and they are very expensive to run. Also, they aren't part-time, STEM subjects often are basically in either lectures or labs closer to 20-30hrs a week.
I definitely think in general universities aren't run very efficiently, but it is widely acknowledged that things like Chemistry, easily cost £15k / year / student to run due to all the extras that are required to be provided.
Actually even maths now isn't just sit in the lecture theatre and write down all this crazy stuff off the blackboard. There is a lot of interest in theory of ML, application of ML to solving really hard problems, and then you need PC labs with GPU clusters.
Perhaps the business model of universities needs reconsideration. It might be that when the push to expand the numbers getting degrees happened, it was workable because the tuition needs were few, based on students literally 'reading' their subject. Now that each student requires so many more resources, perhaps a model with fewer students is needed again.
But I'm a total ignoramus on the topic.
IMO, fewer students, fewer courses, fewer institutions cos-playing at being a full research university, instead HE education with "flexible" learning, which is combination of work / study.
There is another aspect of when we had dedicated polys that specialised in a niche of subjects, you only built facilities for those subjects, rather than the current situation that if you want to be able to be categorised as a university you have to offer a wide enough set of subjects and provides all these extra facilities, which all costs money to build, run and maintain.
Don't most universities rely for their profit on being immigration portals? This subsidises the fees for home students and takes pressure off the Dept of Ed. In the long-term we may, if we're lucky, get a continuous stream of well-educated migrants to pay taxes to settle our debts.
I have tried to think of circumstances where I might vote Reform. Possibly to defeat the SNP? But that makes the choice between Charybdis and Scylla look a pleasant one.
I don't think I could. See also a Tory party led by Jenrick.
You've voted for that moral dustbin Johnson and the vast array of talent that is the Scottish Tories so you should be pretty battle hardened by now. Just close your eyes and think of England.
I voted Con in 2019 because the dubious Johnson was preferable to the even dubiouser Corbyn. I'd probably vote for Reform if it kept an equivalent far left Labour out (Rayner?). Starmer, despite his ineptitude and his succession of deals which seem to prioritise everyone else over Britain, isn't yet in that league. I suppose at constituency level I'd vote Ref if it kept the Greens out, or, in the hypothetical event I happened to be living in Scotland, the SNP.
Regrettably, our political system almost forces you to vote against the party you like least, rather than for the party you like most.
Angela Rayner isn't far left!
You've gone all golf club there.
Looking at her performance at PMQs yesterday she was rather too far right for my current tastes.
Is there anyone who doesn't think the government should give them more money?
Why ?
A lot of this is down to a fall in demand for courses. Giving them more money won’t change that.
Is it? Universities lose money on every home student they teach, because the government caps the fees at below-cost. For a while, the plan was to shimmy round that by bringing in lots of foreign students paying shedloads. For various reasons (including, but not restricted to, fear of numbers of people coming to the UK) that model has blown up.
Suspect that puts universities in the same basket as a lot of other institutions. Yes they need more funding, yes that probably has to come from the taxpayer, no people won't be happy if the University of Theirtown closes down...
... but God forbid that taxes go up to pay for it.
Do they?
Thinking back to my own University days there were about 200 students in the lecture hall. Each student is paying close to £10000 in fees per annum.
That cohort then is paying between them £2mn in fees, even if they're all home students.
If the universities aren't able to make money on that, then maybe their costs are too high, rather than fees too low.
Costs almost always expand to exceed the money available.
I am also not sure people realise how demanding students have become. The dynamic has totally changed from you should be grateful that you are at university and some smart people are going to give up a few hours of their time to lecture you on these subjects and if you have questions they are available 2hrs a week total. To we are paying £9k (or far more if international) for this service, we demand that we get x, y and z, and there are lots of costs associated with that. If you don't provide these services we will make lots of complaints and the people running the university will get very nervy about ratings / rankings and that people might choose other institutions.
Basically young people were being given time to study, plus access to specialists in their field. Nowadays it's utterly different and all of them come away with massive debt. That may be OK if the jobs are there to reward them but that doesn't seem very certain.
Is there anyone who doesn't think the government should give them more money?
Why ?
A lot of this is down to a fall in demand for courses. Giving them more money won’t change that.
The amount universities get per home undergraduate is significantly down in real terms. That has consequences.
Our most recent Open Days (friday and saturday) were the most popular (in terms of how many came and wanted places in talks) that we've ever seen. Demand is not down at my Uni. Its perfectly rational for under-performing (under recruiting) to be shelved by an institution, but when the institution is forced to chose foreign students over home simply because of money then you might start a campaign - British uni places for British students, or something.
My understanding is that even some very highly ranked universities are under serious financial strain. There is also an issue with funding for PhD, which without those, you don't get post-docs, and the ultimately, you don't get the next generation of academic staff.
They shouldn't have become so reliant on foreign students.
Well, the money has to come from somewhere. The money from home students and research fell (in real terms), so universities looked elsewhere.
Is there anyone who doesn't think the government should give them more money?
Why ?
A lot of this is down to a fall in demand for courses. Giving them more money won’t change that.
Is it? Universities lose money on every home student they teach, because the government caps the fees at below-cost. For a while, the plan was to shimmy round that by bringing in lots of foreign students paying shedloads. For various reasons (including, but not restricted to, fear of numbers of people coming to the UK) that model has blown up.
Suspect that puts universities in the same basket as a lot of other institutions. Yes they need more funding, yes that probably has to come from the taxpayer, no people won't be happy if the University of Theirtown closes down...
... but God forbid that taxes go up to pay for it.
Do they?
Thinking back to my own University days there were about 200 students in the lecture hall. Each student is paying close to £8000 in fees per annum.
That cohort then is paying between them £1.6mn in fees, even if they're all home students.
If the universities aren't able to make money on that, then maybe their costs are too high, rather than fees too low.
Some subjects they absolutely don't get close to covering the cost. Basically, most STEM subjects. Also, students are way more demanding now in what they expect the university to provide and since the government made it a market, they all have to provide these things.
For STEM subjects that are lecture theatre based I don't see why they can't make money, if ran efficiently. The latter part is an issue though.
For medicine/engineering etc there's more involved but compare the class sizes in lecture theatres to the class sizes in primary/high schools and there's little reason why lecture theatre-based courses aren't making money from home students.
Especially when students maybe have about 12-15 hours of lectures a week, not full time.
Other than maths, no STEM subject is just lecture thearte based, they all need labs and they are very expensive to run. Also, they aren't part-time, STEM subjects often are basically in either lectures or labs closer to 20-30hrs a week.
I definitely think in general universities aren't run very efficiently, but it is widely acknowledged that things like Chemistry, easily cost £15k / year / student to run due to all the extras that are required to be provided.
Actually even maths now isn't just sit in the lecture theatre and write down all this crazy stuff off the blackboard. There is a lot of interest in theory of ML, application of ML to solving really hard problems, and then you need PC labs with GPU clusters.
The cap on fees is ridiculous. The demand is there from the students but universities are suffering from inflation just as the wider economy is too. And add in the NI changes. Plus Uni academics have had the same pay deflation as medics over the same time.
It also a nonsense as some (well one) on here seem to believe a STEM course can be entirely lecture based. What world is he/she living on?
And lastly - the cap on fees is disadvantaging UK citizens. I'm admissions tutor for my course and I have been told that we will likely be in clearing for overseas students, but NOT for home. The uni sees overseas as more attractive because they pay more.
I have no doubt that universities could be better run. We employ a lot of staff that never teach students or do research. Bath has a very well resourced widening access team, aiming to get students from poorer, disadvantaged backgrounds to uni. Its a laudable aim but we pour money into it for relatively few bums on seats. Academics are constantly wasting time on admin tasks that aren't really important. And DEI plays a role here as we have to be hitting all our DEI targets etc.
But frankly the big one is the fees. Let unis charge more and let it become a proper market.
I never said all courses are entirely lecture based, however many courses are yet still face the same close to £10k in fees so swings and roundabouts.
For STEM subjects that are lecture based... Which ones are those then?
Given that non-lecture based STEM courses are less than twenty years old, they could all be reset to lectures+essays+exams quickly, except for computing.
Photo of the day: A Youtuber with his collection of Airfix Model Soldiers. I cannot tell his nationality - E European moved to the USA, or post-imperial, perhaps: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDuUIPgWXYA
I have seen some collections that would put Imelda Marcos to shame.
Tip of the day: Don't buy a house from someone with a large toy soldier collection. (Don't ask me how I know).
Photo of the day: A Youtuber with his collection of Airfix Model Soldiers. I cannot tell his nationality - E European moved to the USA, or post-imperial, perhaps: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDuUIPgWXYA
Is there anyone who doesn't think the government should give them more money?
Why ?
A lot of this is down to a fall in demand for courses. Giving them more money won’t change that.
Is it? Universities lose money on every home student they teach, because the government caps the fees at below-cost. For a while, the plan was to shimmy round that by bringing in lots of foreign students paying shedloads. For various reasons (including, but not restricted to, fear of numbers of people coming to the UK) that model has blown up.
Suspect that puts universities in the same basket as a lot of other institutions. Yes they need more funding, yes that probably has to come from the taxpayer, no people won't be happy if the University of Theirtown closes down...
... but God forbid that taxes go up to pay for it.
Do they?
Thinking back to my own University days there were about 200 students in the lecture hall. Each student is paying close to £8000 in fees per annum.
That cohort then is paying between them £1.6mn in fees, even if they're all home students.
If the universities aren't able to make money on that, then maybe their costs are too high, rather than fees too low.
Some subjects they absolutely don't get close to covering the cost. Basically, most STEM subjects. Also, students are way more demanding now in what they expect the university to provide and since the government made it a market, they all have to provide these things.
For STEM subjects that are lecture theatre based I don't see why they can't make money, if ran efficiently. The latter part is an issue though.
For medicine/engineering etc there's more involved but compare the class sizes in lecture theatres to the class sizes in primary/high schools and there's little reason why lecture theatre-based courses aren't making money from home students.
Especially when students maybe have about 12-15 hours of lectures a week, not full time.
Other than maths, no STEM subject is just lecture thearte based, they all need labs and they are very expensive to run. Also, they aren't part-time, STEM subjects often are basically in either lectures or labs closer to 20-30hrs a week.
I definitely think in general universities aren't run very efficiently, but it is widely acknowledged that things like Chemistry, easily cost £15k / year / student to run due to all the extras that are required to be provided.
Actually even maths now isn't just sit in the lecture theatre and write down all this crazy stuff off the blackboard. There is a lot of interest in theory of ML, application of ML to solving really hard problems, and then you need PC labs with GPU clusters.
The cap on fees is ridiculous. The demand is there from the students but universities are suffering from inflation just as the wider economy is too. And add in the NI changes. Plus Uni academics have had the same pay deflation as medics over the same time.
It also a nonsense as some (well one) on here seem to believe a STEM course can be entirely lecture based. What world is he/she living on?
And lastly - the cap on fees is disadvantaging UK citizens. I'm admissions tutor for my course and I have been told that we will likely be in clearing for overseas students, but NOT for home. The uni sees overseas as more attractive because they pay more.
I have no doubt that universities could be better run. We employ a lot of staff that never teach students or do research. Bath has a very well resourced widening access team, aiming to get students from poorer, disadvantaged backgrounds to uni. Its a laudable aim but we pour money into it for relatively few bums on seats. Academics are constantly wasting time on admin tasks that aren't really important. And DEI plays a role here as we have to be hitting all our DEI targets etc.
But frankly the big one is the fees. Let unis charge more and let it become a proper market.
I never said all courses are entirely lecture based, however many courses are yet still face the same close to £10k in fees so swings and roundabouts.
For STEM subjects that are lecture based... Which ones are those then?
Comments
That's not an argument for or against PR - simply a statement of fact.
We have 650 individual contests and in many of them the option isn't Labour vs Reform - it isn't in East Ham for example where Reform are irrelevant so the "choice" becomes Labour or not Labour. I've always chosen "not Labour" but the size of the Labour vote in turn makes that irrelevant.
A lot will depend on perceptions closer to the time.
The women's 100m only got broken in the past few years after Flo-Jo held it for a similar length of time and she dropped down dead at 38.
On drones, the Dutch have a programme to provide 600k (600,000) drones - which is a lot, even by Ukr standards. The UK has similar, but numbers are not as easy to come by. The Dutch one:
https://odessa-journal.com/the-netherlands-has-signed-contracts-for-the-production-of-600000-drones-for-ukraine
Marathon runner too, I think.
Happy days.
You've gone all golf club there.
These are the 46 Con seats with the new YouGov MRP. Percentages in brackets are Con v Ref unless otherwise stated.
Tonbridge (31/26), Sevenoaks (29/27), East Grinstead (30/23 LD), Bromley (28/26), E Surrey (28/26),
Croydon S (33/25 Lab), Chingford (28/22 Lab), Orpington (30/29), Chelsea (32/28 Lab), Reigate (28/24),
Earley (30/27 Lab), Arundel (30/26), NW Hants (29/25), E Wilts (28/27), N Somerset (25/24),
Mid Bucks (30/25 LD), Runnymede (30/27 LD), Windsor (30/26 LD), Beaconsfield (30/29 LD), Ruislip (37/20),
Uxbridge (26/26/25 Lab), Harrow E (45/19 Lab), Hendon (31/28 Lab), Hertsmere (36/24), Epping Forest (35/18 Lab),
NW Essex (28/25), N Beds (31/26), Huntingdon (28/27), Kenilworth (29/24), W Worcs (27/26),
Solihull W (27/25), Sutton Coldfield (29/28), Stone (26/20/20 Lab), Harborough (29/25), Rutland (34/26),
Newark (30/27), Leicester E (26/19 LD), Chester S (30/24), Tatton (30/24 Lab), Keighley (31/24/24 Lab),
Wetherby (29/28), Richmond (36/28), Middlesbrough S (31/26 Lab), Stockton W (33/26), Berwickshire (28/27 SNP),
Gordon (24/24/24 SNP)
40 holds, and 6 gains from Lab in Chelsea/Uxbridge/Hendon/Earley/N Somerset/Middlesbrough S.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8rpkj18xjjo
What a basket case our universities seems to be.
I can easily believe that some of the drinks taken out were alcoholic.
A lot of this is down to a fall in demand for courses. Giving them more money won’t change that.
I believe John McEnroe also never trained or practiced.
Some just have it.
Also, I think as long as I have posted on here, I have made the observation, that our university system is far too binary. At 18, you either go, and you live away from home and do full time, or do you don't go and you get a job. Yes, there is a very small proportion who do part-time in association with their job and / or live a home, but they are the minority. This isn't true in other European countries.
Although I am not full Leon, AI AI AI, no need for a degree, but the world is changing rapidly and we do need to have a rethink about this.
And it is back in the 2026 Commonwealth Games. That smells a little like a Boris intervention.
- £36bn in 2019-20
- £52bn in 2024-25
- Without reform £66bn in 2029-30
- with cuts £61bn in 2029-30.
https://x.com/pjtheeconomist/status/1938158044996915605?s=61
RefUK 30%
Lab 27%
Con 17%
Grn 13%
LD 11%
Oth 2%
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/52437-first-yougov-mrp-since-2024-election-shows-a-hung-parliament-with-reform-uk-as-largest-party
Many of them are doomed because of AI and globalisation.
Its the students I have sympathy for - they'll have £50k of debt for skillsets about as much use as that of a hansom cab lamp fitter.
Athletes eat fast food. Fish and chips for Alf Tupper; McDonald's chicken nuggets for Usain Bolt.
Footballers would eat steak before a big game (although more recently it was all pasta and grilled chicken days).
One of the issues is yes too many universities and also the change from having a higher education sector of unis, polys, HE colleges, many non-universities they trained people, they did a great job of it, but as you say they weren't then also trying to fund PhDs and Post-Docs (and there is a load of extra admin staff when you start to want to run proper research programmes).
Suspect that puts universities in the same basket as a lot of other institutions. Yes they need more funding, yes that probably has to come from the taxpayer, no people won't be happy if the University of Theirtown closes down...
... but God forbid that taxes go up to pay for it.
Ukraine and the United Kingdom are launching a new joint drone production initiative. This agreement was reached by President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Prime Minister Keir Starmer.
As part of the initiative, during the first three years of this mega-project, the UK side will finance the procurement of a wide range of Ukrainian drones that will be manufactured in the United Kingdom.
This will enable British defense companies to rapidly design and produce state-of-the-art drones on a large scale.
While the war continues, all production will be directed to meet the needs of the Defense Forces. After the war ends, the UK and Ukraine will share the produced drones between themselves.
This will support the scaling of advanced technologies, increased drone production, and the integration of our defense industries.
https://x.com/DefenceU/status/1937433619758469438
Credit for "world-beating" not being in there. Imo it will include anti-drone energy weapons.
Doesn't seem to apply when it comes to getting signed on the sick though.
In addition to my bug bear about the unique super computer getting cut, another area not getting enough funding is GPU clusters. Universities will always struggle to compete with these mega tech companies and I don't think they can, but all STEM subjects now need access to GPUs, because ML is such a powerful approach to estimating complex functions from data. Its not just Computer Science with their LLMs, Maths / Physics / Chemistry / Biology / Engineering, they all want to leverage these ML approaches.
Surely the whole PIP for people who work needs to be very restricted - for instance if you're blind you might have to get taxis to and from work every day. That would be a valid reason for in work PIP to my mind, not anxiety related stuff which ~ 1/6th of the population suffers from
https://x.com/ianvisits/status/1938157383626203180
ianVisits
@ianvisits
The only daddy anyone should need.
In my experience, universities are also often particularly poorly run. Academics are often bad managers / bad at deciding on purchasing and there is lots of inefficiency/wastage. And universities have these layers of paper pushers to try and oversee every decision they make. Also, students have become way more demanding, now they pay £9k a year, they want their value for money, so universities have to provide lots more services such as mental health support, counselling, more people to answer queries about every part of their experience, so additional layers of non-academic staffing has been hired.
Thinking back to my own University days there were about 200 students in the lecture hall. Each student is paying close to £10000 in fees per annum.
That cohort then is paying between them £2mn in fees, even if they're all home students.
If the universities aren't able to make money on that, then maybe their costs are too high, rather than fees too low.
Aren't we constantly informed by PBers who know, that £50k in London is poverty pay?
I'm going to my private physio tomorrow for a reassessment on an inflexible shoulder joint; he carefully read me out his price list since "it has gone up since COVID". One hour is just under £100.
Also, students are way more demanding now in what they expect the university to provide and since the government made it a market, they all have to provide these things.
For medicine/engineering etc there's more involved but compare the class sizes in lecture theatres to the class sizes in primary/high schools and there's little reason why lecture theatre-based courses aren't making money from home students.
Especially when students maybe have about 12-15 hours of lectures a week, not full time.
Even in my day, UK universities were starting to struggle to get British students to stay on. I hear now it is really hard, because the bright ones can get a job that pays 2-3x easily out of the gate in science related jobs.
Canadian filmmaker Denis Villeneuve, known for acclaimed titles such as ‘Dune’ and ‘Blade Runner 2049,’ has been confirmed by Amazon MGM Studios as the director of the next James Bond film, the studio announced
If you have to get a taxi to work every day that is paid for by Access to Work as PIP is to defray living expenses. So a blind person would get the highest level of mobility *and* be able to claim travel to work costs on top
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDuUIPgWXYA
https://x.com/DailyMailUK/status/1937951083395006506
After 11 months? Bloody hell.
I definitely think in general universities aren't run very efficiently, but it is widely acknowledged that things like Chemistry, easily cost £15k / year / student to run due to all the extras that are required to be provided.
Actually even maths now isn't just sit in the lecture theatre and write down all this crazy stuff off the blackboard. There is a lot of interest in theory of ML, application of ML to solving really hard problems, and then you need PC labs with GPU clusters.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr5v2lz5vl6o
VPN-use and blackmail to rise.
Checks are for British users, and many VPNs route traffic through other countries whose users are not required to prove their age.
As for blackmail, it is surely only a question of time before systems are hacked allowing the baddies to link real identities with porn preferences.
If it were possible for an institution to deliver an attractive HE experience at meaningfully lower cost, I'd expect someone, somewhere to have done it. The obvious candidate being the University of Buckingham. Their Economics degree course costs £12k a year for two years.
At a simplistic level this could be minor home or daily equipment changes - eg insulated kettle or round-ended knives for a blind person. It could also be to defray work costs - such as a 27" computer monitor, or software.
These could all be "adaptation expenses", but most people known to me who get PIP would pay for such from their PIP to avoid complexity and aggro over details eg from an employer.
Have a good day, all.
It also a nonsense as some (well one) on here seem to believe a STEM course can be entirely lecture based. What world is he/she living on?
And lastly - the cap on fees is disadvantaging UK citizens. I'm admissions tutor for my course and I have been told that we will likely be in clearing for overseas students, but NOT for home. The uni sees overseas as more attractive because they pay more.
I have no doubt that universities could be better run. We employ a lot of staff that never teach students or do research. Bath has a very well resourced widening access team, aiming to get students from poorer, disadvantaged backgrounds to uni. Its a laudable aim but we pour money into it for relatively few bums on seats. Academics are constantly wasting time on admin tasks that aren't really important. And DEI plays a role here as we have to be hitting all our DEI targets etc.
But frankly the big one is the fees. Let unis charge more and let it become a proper market.
However high you set fees, people will find a way to expand costs to spend all that money and still claim to be short.
Universities relied on undergraduate fees and postgraduate taught courses such as MBAs to finance the research, which is a money loser, particularly with research grant applications being major pieces of work themselves. An awful lot of postgraduate and academic time is spent on grant applications and resubmitting publications etc. Postgraduate work is how rankings and academic prestige are measured.
I think there is a lot to be said for the German type system where most research is done in freestanding research institutions and universities concentrate on undergraduate taught courses.
I've been trying to persuade her not to go to LSE. Sadly, she seems likely to ignore my entreaties.
When I visit UK university campuses out of term time they are often very dead. There are exceptions, Warwick seems to really go in for this, loads of business conferences are held there, they have an Arts Cenre, Restaurants, state of the art sporting facilities, they also do things like the FA coaching badges for football and hold training camps for junior levels of football. It feels very much part university, part business park. But others, its a bit like a ghost town.
Politics is unusual in this respect. For most things - food, music, books - it's the opposite, the 'likes' prevail. Eg I'm a Stones fan and my most unfavourite type of music is Big Band. They are my extremes, I love the Stones and hate Big Band. But the point is, the second is not true. I don't hate Big Band. It doesn't work for me - even irritates slightly - but if I'm hanging out somewhere and on comes Frank with some shoo-be-doo-be-dooing and delayed delivery over a pumping brass section I sit there and wait it out. I don't leave in a huff. It's fine. I wouldn't, to get back to politics, vote tactically against Big Band in the way that I would against RUK.
But I'm a total ignoramus on the topic.
Her younger sister is currently, I understand, busy researching grants, scholarships etc to the same end.
Neither girl fancies UK, apparently.
My first thought was I was surprised by USA as anyone I speak to wants to avoid it like the plague at the moment, then I notice it is a forecast for 2024 so is old and at least a year before Trump won. It is also pre our election.
Also a high net worth individual is defined as having wealth over $1m. Really? That is not high net worth.
There is another aspect of when we had dedicated polys that specialised in a niche of subjects, you only built facilities for those subjects, rather than the current situation that if you want to be able to be categorised as a university you have to offer a wide enough set of subjects and provides all these extra facilities, which all costs money to build, run and maintain.
I expect Starmer to survive no matter what happens next week, but he is very diminished and frankly looks haunted
In his speech to 'Business' today he championed all his successes, including the much vaunted (by him) trade deals, but everything he spoke about is a long time in the making and amplified after the speech with the question 'all very well and good but when will people feel it ? '
He talks long on change and his 10 year plan, but the electorate won't wait 10 years, nor even 5 years, and he has to hope that by the next election the public haven't decided to deliver to labour the same as happened to the conservatives in 2024
Ultimately, Reeves has been an unmitigating disaster for him, and at times at PMQs yesterday she looked grim and close to tears
In his next shuffle Reeves has to be moved, and as poor as Starmer is, Reeves has compromised his government far more than anyone else
On a wider point the country is spending, borrowing, and taxing far beyond it's means and every year more and more is demanded from the cake 'that is no more'
I know the idea the IMF will intervene is suggested by some, but irrespective ultimately hard and unpopular decisions will be forced on a future government, probably by the markets
That passion is a part of who are are on this forum and has to be a part of this forum but as long as we underdtand our passion isn't everyone else's passion that's fine.
Starmer is even money to be PM at the next general election, and there is also exit date betting available.
It does feel like a situation where the threshold for the government stepping in could be reassessed.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr5v2lz5vl6o
Tip of the day: Don't buy a house from someone with a large toy soldier collection. (Don't ask me how I know).