Glen O'Hara @gsoh31 · 1h Student visas are already down nearly 30%, and I would say between 10 and 20 universities are going to get into deep trouble. Another 10 to 20 will follow rapidly. Imagine sending a further signal that you want the numbers down... (1/2)
We could do with a fundamental restructuring of FE in this county. Clearly I don’t want there to be a collapse of institutions (that serves no-one) but we could do with moving away from the New Labour model of degrees for all.
All want degrees (or many do). It's aspirational, which is supposed to be good. People with degrees, including many in this board, saying other people shouldn't have them is a poor look.
But yes higher education does need restructuring. To be specific undergraduate education needs to be a lot, lot cheaper. Education factories in other words, efficiency two year degrees, longer semesters and more part time degrees. Anyone who starts talking about Oxbridge, world rankings etc is self serving
Perhaps “degrees for all” was a bad choice of words. I believe that we need to look at making sure all qualifications are high quality and that everyone has the chance to access them. Where I am not convinced, is that a university degree in the traditional academic sense is appropriate for all trades, professions and wants/needs of young people. We need to move away from elitist interpretations of universities needing to be the places to go to get on in life, and see that there is better careers advice and more flexible pathways for the future workforce.
I agree with everything you say but that doesn't address the affordability issue. The problem is we can't afford 50% of young people going to university at current costs and prices. Employability is fine. In general graduates can find jobs more easily than non graduates. The cost isn't fine.
So that gives us three choices I think:
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
3 seems obviously the right answer to me but that will need radical changes to universities. They need become Premier Inns (where the bed and shower are better anyway) and no longer pretend to be the Savoy.
I am taking about undergraduate education. Postgraduate is a different requirement entirely.
As I was saying...
Ex-ministers warn UK universities will go bust without higher fees or funding: Vice-chancellors suggest fee rise of £2,000 to £3,500 a year, but others say that is ‘politically impossible’
Vice-chancellors and former ministers are warning that the cash crisis facing universities is so serious that the next government will have to urgently raise tuition fees or increase funding to avoid bankruptcies within two years.
They said the state of university finances was more dire than revealed in last week’s report by the Office for Students, which forecast 40% of England’s universities would end this year in the red.
Vice-chancellors said that increases of between £2,000 to £3,500 a year for each student would be needed.
The UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight, and a major driver for innovation and growth. We are never going to improve productivity by reacting to everything with an attitude of managing down.
For the reasons I set out above I don't think, at the undergraduate level, that the UK should pretend to have a "world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight".
It should aim to educate anyone who is qualified, and could benefit from it, to a decent standard and at an affordable cost. Something the sector is utterly failing to do and so it's heading towards bankruptcy.
It's not pretending that the UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight. We do have a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight. That's true in terms of research and it's true in terms of our ability to attract fees from overseas students. UK degrees are highly valued.
The universities do not get to decide whether to take "anyone who is qualified". That is determined by government policy. It's the government that controls that, not the sector. University education in the UK is not unaffordable. The sector is heading towards bankruptcy because its income is very heavily determined by the government, and the government chooses to cut corners, as always.
Costs are higher than fees, when the price of going through university is generally regarded as too high already. I set out what I think are the options for a sustainable university sector
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
We have choices. I would choose (3). What is your choice? It could be something I missed.
Question: does the £9k amount to more than just the cost of the course? i.e. is there a cross-subsidy of research, etc? £9k seems preposterously expensive for a few lectures a week and membership of a nice library. If so, the *right* option might be to charge students a fair fee and fund research from other sources e.g. the state.
Universities currently lose money on the average home undergrad. Before the recent period in inflation, universities made a small margin on home undergrads that helped subsidise research, although the much bigger margins are in postgrad teaching and overseas students. However, the fee level has not changed, despite inflation, so now home undergrads lose money.
So, summarising a few of the early bits ás I understand them.
At 2016/17 prices, the full costs to the universities of providing degrees per student per year (I presume some elements are funded out with tuition fees):
- Around £8800 for write on paper degrees - Around 15-30% more for degrees with consumables budgets (STEM, but also art, design, archaeology etc. etc.) - Double for medicine
The split is in somewhat technical accountancy categories but for the paper based subjects is something like:
30% staff costs and overheads 20% buildings and running costs 30% central student facing costs (libraries, IT including teaching IT, admissions, welfare, students unions, but afaict additional bursaries are the main cost. A lot dictated by statute) 20% central university running and "sustainability adjustment".
Even if it is includes a myriad of things, those central costs do seem a chunky percentage.
The financial situation is apparently even worse than previously reported.
Incidentally; what would this mean for the (what feels like) millions of student flats that have been built in city centres up and down the nation? Are some developers going to be worried?
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31 · 1h Student visas are already down nearly 30%, and I would say between 10 and 20 universities are going to get into deep trouble. Another 10 to 20 will follow rapidly. Imagine sending a further signal that you want the numbers down... (1/2)
We could do with a fundamental restructuring of FE in this county. Clearly I don’t want there to be a collapse of institutions (that serves no-one) but we could do with moving away from the New Labour model of degrees for all.
All want degrees (or many do). It's aspirational, which is supposed to be good. People with degrees, including many in this board, saying other people shouldn't have them is a poor look.
But yes higher education does need restructuring. To be specific undergraduate education needs to be a lot, lot cheaper. Education factories in other words, efficiency two year degrees, longer semesters and more part time degrees. Anyone who starts talking about Oxbridge, world rankings etc is self serving
Perhaps “degrees for all” was a bad choice of words. I believe that we need to look at making sure all qualifications are high quality and that everyone has the chance to access them. Where I am not convinced, is that a university degree in the traditional academic sense is appropriate for all trades, professions and wants/needs of young people. We need to move away from elitist interpretations of universities needing to be the places to go to get on in life, and see that there is better careers advice and more flexible pathways for the future workforce.
I agree with everything you say but that doesn't address the affordability issue. The problem is we can't afford 50% of young people going to university at current costs and prices. Employability is fine. In general graduates can find jobs more easily than non graduates. The cost isn't fine.
So that gives us three choices I think:
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
3 seems obviously the right answer to me but that will need radical changes to universities. They need become Premier Inns (where the bed and shower are better anyway) and no longer pretend to be the Savoy.
I am taking about undergraduate education. Postgraduate is a different requirement entirely.
As I was saying...
Ex-ministers warn UK universities will go bust without higher fees or funding: Vice-chancellors suggest fee rise of £2,000 to £3,500 a year, but others say that is ‘politically impossible’
Vice-chancellors and former ministers are warning that the cash crisis facing universities is so serious that the next government will have to urgently raise tuition fees or increase funding to avoid bankruptcies within two years.
They said the state of university finances was more dire than revealed in last week’s report by the Office for Students, which forecast 40% of England’s universities would end this year in the red.
Vice-chancellors said that increases of between £2,000 to £3,500 a year for each student would be needed.
The UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight, and a major driver for innovation and growth. We are never going to improve productivity by reacting to everything with an attitude of managing down.
For the reasons I set out above I don't think, at the undergraduate level, that the UK should pretend to have a "world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight".
It should aim to educate anyone who is qualified, and could benefit from it, to a decent standard and at an affordable cost. Something the sector is utterly failing to do and so it's heading towards bankruptcy.
It's not pretending that the UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight. We do have a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight. That's true in terms of research and it's true in terms of our ability to attract fees from overseas students. UK degrees are highly valued.
The universities do not get to decide whether to take "anyone who is qualified". That is determined by government policy. It's the government that controls that, not the sector. University education in the UK is not unaffordable. The sector is heading towards bankruptcy because its income is very heavily determined by the government, and the government chooses to cut corners, as always.
Costs are higher than fees, when the price of going through university is generally regarded as too high already. I set out what I think are the options for a sustainable university sector
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
We have choices. I would choose (3). What is your choice? It could be something I missed.
Question: does the £9k amount to more than just the cost of the course? i.e. is there a cross-subsidy of research, etc? £9k seems preposterously expensive for a few lectures a week and membership of a nice library. If so, the *right* option might be to charge students a fair fee and fund research from other sources e.g. the state.
How much should a university course cost?
I guess one reference point is the cost of schools and FE- in the state sector, that's about £7500 a head, for private schools rather more.
You might be able to do a humanities degree cheaper than that (though I'd be a bit surprised even then), but the idea of doing science/engineering for that much is surely for the birds.
I'd argue that the average state sector senior school student is receiving about 10 times the active education that a university student is getting. Plus being looked after in loco parentis. 30 to 1 or better teaching, 5+ hours a day, by people who actually care about them as people. Plus an absolute stack of work which doesn't assess itself.
Compared against this, universities look bloody cheeky asking for more than about £2k a year.
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31 · 1h Student visas are already down nearly 30%, and I would say between 10 and 20 universities are going to get into deep trouble. Another 10 to 20 will follow rapidly. Imagine sending a further signal that you want the numbers down... (1/2)
We could do with a fundamental restructuring of FE in this county. Clearly I don’t want there to be a collapse of institutions (that serves no-one) but we could do with moving away from the New Labour model of degrees for all.
All want degrees (or many do). It's aspirational, which is supposed to be good. People with degrees, including many in this board, saying other people shouldn't have them is a poor look.
But yes higher education does need restructuring. To be specific undergraduate education needs to be a lot, lot cheaper. Education factories in other words, efficiency two year degrees, longer semesters and more part time degrees. Anyone who starts talking about Oxbridge, world rankings etc is self serving
Perhaps “degrees for all” was a bad choice of words. I believe that we need to look at making sure all qualifications are high quality and that everyone has the chance to access them. Where I am not convinced, is that a university degree in the traditional academic sense is appropriate for all trades, professions and wants/needs of young people. We need to move away from elitist interpretations of universities needing to be the places to go to get on in life, and see that there is better careers advice and more flexible pathways for the future workforce.
I agree with everything you say but that doesn't address the affordability issue. The problem is we can't afford 50% of young people going to university at current costs and prices. Employability is fine. In general graduates can find jobs more easily than non graduates. The cost isn't fine.
So that gives us three choices I think:
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
3 seems obviously the right answer to me but that will need radical changes to universities. They need become Premier Inns (where the bed and shower are better anyway) and no longer pretend to be the Savoy.
I am taking about undergraduate education. Postgraduate is a different requirement entirely.
As I was saying...
Ex-ministers warn UK universities will go bust without higher fees or funding: Vice-chancellors suggest fee rise of £2,000 to £3,500 a year, but others say that is ‘politically impossible’
Vice-chancellors and former ministers are warning that the cash crisis facing universities is so serious that the next government will have to urgently raise tuition fees or increase funding to avoid bankruptcies within two years.
They said the state of university finances was more dire than revealed in last week’s report by the Office for Students, which forecast 40% of England’s universities would end this year in the red.
Vice-chancellors said that increases of between £2,000 to £3,500 a year for each student would be needed.
The UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight, and a major driver for innovation and growth. We are never going to improve productivity by reacting to everything with an attitude of managing down.
For the reasons I set out above I don't think, at the undergraduate level, that the UK should pretend to have a "world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight".
It should aim to educate anyone who is qualified, and could benefit from it, to a decent standard and at an affordable cost. Something the sector is utterly failing to do and so it's heading towards bankruptcy.
It's not pretending that the UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight. We do have a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight. That's true in terms of research and it's true in terms of our ability to attract fees from overseas students. UK degrees are highly valued.
The universities do not get to decide whether to take "anyone who is qualified". That is determined by government policy. It's the government that controls that, not the sector. University education in the UK is not unaffordable. The sector is heading towards bankruptcy because its income is very heavily determined by the government, and the government chooses to cut corners, as always.
Costs are higher than fees, when the price of going through university is generally regarded as too high already. I set out what I think are the options for a sustainable university sector
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
We have choices. I would choose (3). What is your choice? It could be something I missed.
Question: does the £9k amount to more than just the cost of the course? i.e. is there a cross-subsidy of research, etc? £9k seems preposterously expensive for a few lectures a week and membership of a nice library. If so, the *right* option might be to charge students a fair fee and fund research from other sources e.g. the state.
Universities currently lose money on the average home undergrad. Before the recent period in inflation, universities made a small margin on home undergrads that helped subsidise research, although the much bigger margins are in postgrad teaching and overseas students. However, the fee level has not changed, despite inflation, so now home undergrads lose money.
So, summarising a few of the early bits ás I understand them.
At 2016/17 prices, the full costs to the universities of providing degrees per student per year (I presume some elements are funded out with tuition fees):
- Around £8800 for write on paper degrees - Around 15-30% more for degrees with consumables budgets (STEM, but also art, design, archaeology etc. etc.) - Double for medicine
The split is in somewhat technical accountancy categories but for the paper based subjects is something like:
30% staff costs and overheads 20% buildings and running costs 30% central student facing costs (libraries, IT including teaching IT, admissions, welfare, students unions, but afaict additional bursaries are the main cost. A lot dictated by statute) 20% central university running and "sustainability adjustment".
Even if it is includes a myriad of things, those central costs do seem a chunky percentage.
The financial situation is apparently even worse than previously reported.
Incidentally; what would this mean for the (what feels like) millions of student flats that have been built in city centres up and down the nation? Are some developers going to be worried?
Could they be repurposed as city centre accomodation to help with the property shortage we currently have 🤔
Very much off topic, but I just heard the Radio 3 news presenter pronounce 'Ofwat' as if it rhymed with 'Twat'. That is from now on going to be my preferred way of saying it.
This could get very interesting - as in the Chinese curse .
The president was a man responsible for brutal repression at home, and fomenting war and conflict abroad. For his role in the death committee during the 1988 prosecution of political prisoners alone, he deserves to have toasty feet in Hell.
Are UK wages too low, (and taxes too high) in order for the full commercialisation of student loans and finance to take place ?
The main source of UK debt right now is property but that does mean you live, or at least have an asset here. If universities could charge what they like, and the loans fully commercial (No repayment threshold) would students flock en masse to the USA or Aus post graduation as staying in the UK wages would simply be too low for realistic repayments of the 100k student loan debt on top of rents or whatever ? Internally it'd surely send everyone to London or Cambridge new developments even more then is the case now ?
It happens more than people would like to think, because it’s basic human instinct to wish to complete the task assigned, in the face of evidence that it’s a bad idea, especially when you know that others are relying on you to complete it.
Pilots call this get-there-itis, and resisting it is specifically trained on command courses. It’s very common in charter and VIP operations, and obviously the military where you do what you’re told or else. Airlines are mostly very good with it, and accept that sometimes a Captain needs to use his judgement to deviate from the planned trip, even if it costs money and causes inconvenience.
See also the death of the president of Poland in 2010. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smolensk_air_disaster a classic example, where they flew into a thunderstorm because the President had important presidenty things to do, and diverting elsewhere was going to be frowned upon by the top brass.
Another one was the helicopter that crashed into a crane in Vauxhall in 2013 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vauxhall_helicopter_crash He was on his way to pick up a customer and get caught out by deteriorating weather, but pressed on anyway rather than diverting until it was too late - even when the customer was happy to reschedule.
It appears the Iranians are having some trouble finding their president's helicopter
Don’t fly helicopters in the mountains when it’s foggy - no matter who is the customer, and no matter how insistent they might be that you go.
(This one was probably military, so the pilot himself would have had little choice but to do what he was told to do).
I was once walking in deep clag on the Applecross peninsula when three army Pumas floated over at what felt like 10-15 metres. Perhaps the most impressive thing I've ever seen - it's tricky topography round there.
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31 · 1h Student visas are already down nearly 30%, and I would say between 10 and 20 universities are going to get into deep trouble. Another 10 to 20 will follow rapidly. Imagine sending a further signal that you want the numbers down... (1/2)
We could do with a fundamental restructuring of FE in this county. Clearly I don’t want there to be a collapse of institutions (that serves no-one) but we could do with moving away from the New Labour model of degrees for all.
All want degrees (or many do). It's aspirational, which is supposed to be good. People with degrees, including many in this board, saying other people shouldn't have them is a poor look.
But yes higher education does need restructuring. To be specific undergraduate education needs to be a lot, lot cheaper. Education factories in other words, efficiency two year degrees, longer semesters and more part time degrees. Anyone who starts talking about Oxbridge, world rankings etc is self serving
Perhaps “degrees for all” was a bad choice of words. I believe that we need to look at making sure all qualifications are high quality and that everyone has the chance to access them. Where I am not convinced, is that a university degree in the traditional academic sense is appropriate for all trades, professions and wants/needs of young people. We need to move away from elitist interpretations of universities needing to be the places to go to get on in life, and see that there is better careers advice and more flexible pathways for the future workforce.
I agree with everything you say but that doesn't address the affordability issue. The problem is we can't afford 50% of young people going to university at current costs and prices. Employability is fine. In general graduates can find jobs more easily than non graduates. The cost isn't fine.
So that gives us three choices I think:
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
3 seems obviously the right answer to me but that will need radical changes to universities. They need become Premier Inns (where the bed and shower are better anyway) and no longer pretend to be the Savoy.
I am taking about undergraduate education. Postgraduate is a different requirement entirely.
As I was saying...
Ex-ministers warn UK universities will go bust without higher fees or funding: Vice-chancellors suggest fee rise of £2,000 to £3,500 a year, but others say that is ‘politically impossible’
Vice-chancellors and former ministers are warning that the cash crisis facing universities is so serious that the next government will have to urgently raise tuition fees or increase funding to avoid bankruptcies within two years.
They said the state of university finances was more dire than revealed in last week’s report by the Office for Students, which forecast 40% of England’s universities would end this year in the red.
Vice-chancellors said that increases of between £2,000 to £3,500 a year for each student would be needed.
The UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight, and a major driver for innovation and growth. We are never going to improve productivity by reacting to everything with an attitude of managing down.
For the reasons I set out above I don't think, at the undergraduate level, that the UK should pretend to have a "world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight".
It should aim to educate anyone who is qualified, and could benefit from it, to a decent standard and at an affordable cost. Something the sector is utterly failing to do and so it's heading towards bankruptcy.
It's not pretending that the UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight. We do have a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight. That's true in terms of research and it's true in terms of our ability to attract fees from overseas students. UK degrees are highly valued.
The universities do not get to decide whether to take "anyone who is qualified". That is determined by government policy. It's the government that controls that, not the sector. University education in the UK is not unaffordable. The sector is heading towards bankruptcy because its income is very heavily determined by the government, and the government chooses to cut corners, as always.
Costs are higher than fees, when the price of going through university is generally regarded as too high already. I set out what I think are the options for a sustainable university sector
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
We have choices. I would choose (3). What is your choice? It could be something I missed.
Question: does the £9k amount to more than just the cost of the course? i.e. is there a cross-subsidy of research, etc? £9k seems preposterously expensive for a few lectures a week and membership of a nice library. If so, the *right* option might be to charge students a fair fee and fund research from other sources e.g. the state.
Universities currently lose money on the average home undergrad. Before the recent period in inflation, universities made a small margin on home undergrads that helped subsidise research, although the much bigger margins are in postgrad teaching and overseas students. However, the fee level has not changed, despite inflation, so now home undergrads lose money.
So, summarising a few of the early bits ás I understand them.
At 2016/17 prices, the full costs to the universities of providing degrees per student per year (I presume some elements are funded out with tuition fees):
- Around £8800 for write on paper degrees - Around 15-30% more for degrees with consumables budgets (STEM, but also art, design, archaeology etc. etc.) - Double for medicine
The split is in somewhat technical accountancy categories but for the paper based subjects is something like:
30% staff costs and overheads 20% buildings and running costs 30% central student facing costs (libraries, IT including teaching IT, admissions, welfare, students unions, but afaict additional bursaries are the main cost. A lot dictated by statute) 20% central university running and "sustainability adjustment".
Even if it is includes a myriad of things, those central costs do seem a chunky percentage.
The financial situation is apparently even worse than previously reported.
Incidentally; what would this mean for the (what feels like) millions of student flats that have been built in city centres up and down the nation? Are some developers going to be worried?
Could they be repurposed as city centre accomodation to help with the property shortage we currently have 🤔
I watched a video this morning from someone who goes around the country looking at near-empty shopping centres. He bemoans this change; and I can see why. Change is bad, and empty shops are mostly soulless and depressing.
But I cannot see why this cannot be used as a regeneration: change shops into residential accommodation - which many smaller ones were in the first place, anyway. But I fear councils are afraid of change, and will miss the business rates (which they are not getting anyway if the units are empty).
In Cambridge, there are plans for the emptying Grafton Centre to become a life sciences hub; and the nearby Beehive Centre to become... something I don't quite understand.
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31 · 1h Student visas are already down nearly 30%, and I would say between 10 and 20 universities are going to get into deep trouble. Another 10 to 20 will follow rapidly. Imagine sending a further signal that you want the numbers down... (1/2)
We could do with a fundamental restructuring of FE in this county. Clearly I don’t want there to be a collapse of institutions (that serves no-one) but we could do with moving away from the New Labour model of degrees for all.
All want degrees (or many do). It's aspirational, which is supposed to be good. People with degrees, including many in this board, saying other people shouldn't have them is a poor look.
But yes higher education does need restructuring. To be specific undergraduate education needs to be a lot, lot cheaper. Education factories in other words, efficiency two year degrees, longer semesters and more part time degrees. Anyone who starts talking about Oxbridge, world rankings etc is self serving
Perhaps “degrees for all” was a bad choice of words. I believe that we need to look at making sure all qualifications are high quality and that everyone has the chance to access them. Where I am not convinced, is that a university degree in the traditional academic sense is appropriate for all trades, professions and wants/needs of young people. We need to move away from elitist interpretations of universities needing to be the places to go to get on in life, and see that there is better careers advice and more flexible pathways for the future workforce.
I agree with everything you say but that doesn't address the affordability issue. The problem is we can't afford 50% of young people going to university at current costs and prices. Employability is fine. In general graduates can find jobs more easily than non graduates. The cost isn't fine.
So that gives us three choices I think:
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
3 seems obviously the right answer to me but that will need radical changes to universities. They need become Premier Inns (where the bed and shower are better anyway) and no longer pretend to be the Savoy.
I am taking about undergraduate education. Postgraduate is a different requirement entirely.
As I was saying...
Ex-ministers warn UK universities will go bust without higher fees or funding: Vice-chancellors suggest fee rise of £2,000 to £3,500 a year, but others say that is ‘politically impossible’
Vice-chancellors and former ministers are warning that the cash crisis facing universities is so serious that the next government will have to urgently raise tuition fees or increase funding to avoid bankruptcies within two years.
They said the state of university finances was more dire than revealed in last week’s report by the Office for Students, which forecast 40% of England’s universities would end this year in the red.
Vice-chancellors said that increases of between £2,000 to £3,500 a year for each student would be needed.
The UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight, and a major driver for innovation and growth. We are never going to improve productivity by reacting to everything with an attitude of managing down.
For the reasons I set out above I don't think, at the undergraduate level, that the UK should pretend to have a "world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight".
It should aim to educate anyone who is qualified, and could benefit from it, to a decent standard and at an affordable cost. Something the sector is utterly failing to do and so it's heading towards bankruptcy.
It's not pretending that the UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight. We do have a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight. That's true in terms of research and it's true in terms of our ability to attract fees from overseas students. UK degrees are highly valued.
The universities do not get to decide whether to take "anyone who is qualified". That is determined by government policy. It's the government that controls that, not the sector. University education in the UK is not unaffordable. The sector is heading towards bankruptcy because its income is very heavily determined by the government, and the government chooses to cut corners, as always.
Costs are higher than fees, when the price of going through university is generally regarded as too high already. I set out what I think are the options for a sustainable university sector
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
We have choices. I would choose (3). What is your choice? It could be something I missed.
Question: does the £9k amount to more than just the cost of the course? i.e. is there a cross-subsidy of research, etc? £9k seems preposterously expensive for a few lectures a week and membership of a nice library. If so, the *right* option might be to charge students a fair fee and fund research from other sources e.g. the state.
Universities currently lose money on the average home undergrad. Before the recent period in inflation, universities made a small margin on home undergrads that helped subsidise research, although the much bigger margins are in postgrad teaching and overseas students. However, the fee level has not changed, despite inflation, so now home undergrads lose money.
So, summarising a few of the early bits ás I understand them.
At 2016/17 prices, the full costs to the universities of providing degrees per student per year (I presume some elements are funded out with tuition fees):
- Around £8800 for write on paper degrees - Around 15-30% more for degrees with consumables budgets (STEM, but also art, design, archaeology etc. etc.) - Double for medicine
The split is in somewhat technical accountancy categories but for the paper based subjects is something like:
30% staff costs and overheads 20% buildings and running costs 30% central student facing costs (libraries, IT including teaching IT, admissions, welfare, students unions, but afaict additional bursaries are the main cost. A lot dictated by statute) 20% central university running and "sustainability adjustment".
Even if it is includes a myriad of things, those central costs do seem a chunky percentage.
The financial situation is apparently even worse than previously reported.
Incidentally; what would this mean for the (what feels like) millions of student flats that have been built in city centres up and down the nation? Are some developers going to be worried?
Could they be repurposed as city centre accomodation to help with the property shortage we currently have 🤔
Some have been built with repurposing in mind, many have not and so would be way too big for most families
Incidentally, today is another crucial day for Assange. The High Court are to consider whether he can appeal (again).
You've got to admire his legal team. Even Donald Trump hasn't dragged things out for this long and he's had a much more corrupt favourable judicial system to work with.
It appears the Iranians are having some trouble finding their president's helicopter
What do you think's really going on? A simple accident is most likely I assume.
Probably that, its mountain territory, weather reportedly wasn't great and the Iranians dont have the greatest servicing, not a good combination. Turkiye has sent a recon UAV with useful search tech perhaps indicating that Iran hasnt got the best gear to carry out SAR, particularly where its reported weather conditions are not conducive, and that they still cant find the helicopter many hours afters its been lost.
At this stage, its not looking good.
Given that they're the best of enemies, that's nice (and good diplomacy) by the Turks.
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31 · 1h Student visas are already down nearly 30%, and I would say between 10 and 20 universities are going to get into deep trouble. Another 10 to 20 will follow rapidly. Imagine sending a further signal that you want the numbers down... (1/2)
We could do with a fundamental restructuring of FE in this county. Clearly I don’t want there to be a collapse of institutions (that serves no-one) but we could do with moving away from the New Labour model of degrees for all.
All want degrees (or many do). It's aspirational, which is supposed to be good. People with degrees, including many in this board, saying other people shouldn't have them is a poor look.
But yes higher education does need restructuring. To be specific undergraduate education needs to be a lot, lot cheaper. Education factories in other words, efficiency two year degrees, longer semesters and more part time degrees. Anyone who starts talking about Oxbridge, world rankings etc is self serving
Perhaps “degrees for all” was a bad choice of words. I believe that we need to look at making sure all qualifications are high quality and that everyone has the chance to access them. Where I am not convinced, is that a university degree in the traditional academic sense is appropriate for all trades, professions and wants/needs of young people. We need to move away from elitist interpretations of universities needing to be the places to go to get on in life, and see that there is better careers advice and more flexible pathways for the future workforce.
I agree with everything you say but that doesn't address the affordability issue. The problem is we can't afford 50% of young people going to university at current costs and prices. Employability is fine. In general graduates can find jobs more easily than non graduates. The cost isn't fine.
So that gives us three choices I think:
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
3 seems obviously the right answer to me but that will need radical changes to universities. They need become Premier Inns (where the bed and shower are better anyway) and no longer pretend to be the Savoy.
I am taking about undergraduate education. Postgraduate is a different requirement entirely.
As I was saying...
Ex-ministers warn UK universities will go bust without higher fees or funding: Vice-chancellors suggest fee rise of £2,000 to £3,500 a year, but others say that is ‘politically impossible’
Vice-chancellors and former ministers are warning that the cash crisis facing universities is so serious that the next government will have to urgently raise tuition fees or increase funding to avoid bankruptcies within two years.
They said the state of university finances was more dire than revealed in last week’s report by the Office for Students, which forecast 40% of England’s universities would end this year in the red.
Vice-chancellors said that increases of between £2,000 to £3,500 a year for each student would be needed.
The UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight, and a major driver for innovation and growth. We are never going to improve productivity by reacting to everything with an attitude of managing down.
For the reasons I set out above I don't think, at the undergraduate level, that the UK should pretend to have a "world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight".
It should aim to educate anyone who is qualified, and could benefit from it, to a decent standard and at an affordable cost. Something the sector is utterly failing to do and so it's heading towards bankruptcy.
It's not pretending that the UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight. We do have a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight. That's true in terms of research and it's true in terms of our ability to attract fees from overseas students. UK degrees are highly valued.
The universities do not get to decide whether to take "anyone who is qualified". That is determined by government policy. It's the government that controls that, not the sector. University education in the UK is not unaffordable. The sector is heading towards bankruptcy because its income is very heavily determined by the government, and the government chooses to cut corners, as always.
Costs are higher than fees, when the price of going through university is generally regarded as too high already. I set out what I think are the options for a sustainable university sector
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
We have choices. I would choose (3). What is your choice? It could be something I missed.
Question: does the £9k amount to more than just the cost of the course? i.e. is there a cross-subsidy of research, etc? £9k seems preposterously expensive for a few lectures a week and membership of a nice library. If so, the *right* option might be to charge students a fair fee and fund research from other sources e.g. the state.
Universities currently lose money on the average home undergrad. Before the recent period in inflation, universities made a small margin on home undergrads that helped subsidise research, although the much bigger margins are in postgrad teaching and overseas students. However, the fee level has not changed, despite inflation, so now home undergrads lose money.
So, summarising a few of the early bits ás I understand them.
At 2016/17 prices, the full costs to the universities of providing degrees per student per year (I presume some elements are funded out with tuition fees):
- Around £8800 for write on paper degrees - Around 15-30% more for degrees with consumables budgets (STEM, but also art, design, archaeology etc. etc.) - Double for medicine
The split is in somewhat technical accountancy categories but for the paper based subjects is something like:
30% staff costs and overheads 20% buildings and running costs 30% central student facing costs (libraries, IT including teaching IT, admissions, welfare, students unions, but afaict additional bursaries are the main cost. A lot dictated by statute) 20% central university running and "sustainability adjustment".
Even if it is includes a myriad of things, those central costs do seem a chunky percentage.
The financial situation is apparently even worse than previously reported.
Incidentally; what would this mean for the (what feels like) millions of student flats that have been built in city centres up and down the nation? Are some developers going to be worried?
Could they be repurposed as city centre accomodation to help with the property shortage we currently have 🤔
I watched a video this morning from someone who goes around the country looking at near-empty shopping centres. He bemoans this change; and I can see why. Change is bad, and empty shops are mostly soulless and depressing.
But I cannot see why this cannot be used as a regeneration: change shops into residential accommodation - which many smaller ones were in the first place, anyway. But I fear councils are afraid of change, and will miss the business rates (which they are not getting anyway if the units are empty).
In Cambridge, there are plans for the emptying Grafton Centre to become a life sciences hub; and the nearby Beehive Centre to become... something I don't quite understand.
Councils need to become braver.
Couldn’t agree more.
Instead of moaning about the death of the high street reinvigorate it. Pedestrianise them and repurpose the buildings. Newcastle council under Nick Forbes seems to be quite good at that, there are a couple of life sciences hub. Other councils, like Durham and Gateshead, just wanted to blame central govt and did little aside, in the case of Durham, their favoured two or three towns.
On the university funding row, regardless of whether we have some dubious “universities” or not it would be politically bad if the Tories let them go bust.
Surely the Tories get this? Totemic of a broken country? One where they have been in government breaking it?
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31 · 1h Student visas are already down nearly 30%, and I would say between 10 and 20 universities are going to get into deep trouble. Another 10 to 20 will follow rapidly. Imagine sending a further signal that you want the numbers down... (1/2)
We could do with a fundamental restructuring of FE in this county. Clearly I don’t want there to be a collapse of institutions (that serves no-one) but we could do with moving away from the New Labour model of degrees for all.
All want degrees (or many do). It's aspirational, which is supposed to be good. People with degrees, including many in this board, saying other people shouldn't have them is a poor look.
But yes higher education does need restructuring. To be specific undergraduate education needs to be a lot, lot cheaper. Education factories in other words, efficiency two year degrees, longer semesters and more part time degrees. Anyone who starts talking about Oxbridge, world rankings etc is self serving
Perhaps “degrees for all” was a bad choice of words. I believe that we need to look at making sure all qualifications are high quality and that everyone has the chance to access them. Where I am not convinced, is that a university degree in the traditional academic sense is appropriate for all trades, professions and wants/needs of young people. We need to move away from elitist interpretations of universities needing to be the places to go to get on in life, and see that there is better careers advice and more flexible pathways for the future workforce.
I agree with everything you say but that doesn't address the affordability issue. The problem is we can't afford 50% of young people going to university at current costs and prices. Employability is fine. In general graduates can find jobs more easily than non graduates. The cost isn't fine.
So that gives us three choices I think:
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
3 seems obviously the right answer to me but that will need radical changes to universities. They need become Premier Inns (where the bed and shower are better anyway) and no longer pretend to be the Savoy.
I am taking about undergraduate education. Postgraduate is a different requirement entirely.
As I was saying...
Ex-ministers warn UK universities will go bust without higher fees or funding: Vice-chancellors suggest fee rise of £2,000 to £3,500 a year, but others say that is ‘politically impossible’
Vice-chancellors and former ministers are warning that the cash crisis facing universities is so serious that the next government will have to urgently raise tuition fees or increase funding to avoid bankruptcies within two years.
They said the state of university finances was more dire than revealed in last week’s report by the Office for Students, which forecast 40% of England’s universities would end this year in the red.
Vice-chancellors said that increases of between £2,000 to £3,500 a year for each student would be needed.
The UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight, and a major driver for innovation and growth. We are never going to improve productivity by reacting to everything with an attitude of managing down.
For the reasons I set out above I don't think, at the undergraduate level, that the UK should pretend to have a "world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight".
It should aim to educate anyone who is qualified, and could benefit from it, to a decent standard and at an affordable cost. Something the sector is utterly failing to do and so it's heading towards bankruptcy.
It's not pretending that the UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight. We do have a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight. That's true in terms of research and it's true in terms of our ability to attract fees from overseas students. UK degrees are highly valued.
The universities do not get to decide whether to take "anyone who is qualified". That is determined by government policy. It's the government that controls that, not the sector. University education in the UK is not unaffordable. The sector is heading towards bankruptcy because its income is very heavily determined by the government, and the government chooses to cut corners, as always.
Costs are higher than fees, when the price of going through university is generally regarded as too high already. I set out what I think are the options for a sustainable university sector
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
We have choices. I would choose (3). What is your choice? It could be something I missed.
Question: does the £9k amount to more than just the cost of the course? i.e. is there a cross-subsidy of research, etc? £9k seems preposterously expensive for a few lectures a week and membership of a nice library. If so, the *right* option might be to charge students a fair fee and fund research from other sources e.g. the state.
Universities currently lose money on the average home undergrad. Before the recent period in inflation, universities made a small margin on home undergrads that helped subsidise research, although the much bigger margins are in postgrad teaching and overseas students. However, the fee level has not changed, despite inflation, so now home undergrads lose money.
So, summarising a few of the early bits ás I understand them.
At 2016/17 prices, the full costs to the universities of providing degrees per student per year (I presume some elements are funded out with tuition fees):
- Around £8800 for write on paper degrees - Around 15-30% more for degrees with consumables budgets (STEM, but also art, design, archaeology etc. etc.) - Double for medicine
The split is in somewhat technical accountancy categories but for the paper based subjects is something like:
30% staff costs and overheads 20% buildings and running costs 30% central student facing costs (libraries, IT including teaching IT, admissions, welfare, students unions, but afaict additional bursaries are the main cost. A lot dictated by statute) 20% central university running and "sustainability adjustment".
Even if it is includes a myriad of things, those central costs do seem a chunky percentage.
The financial situation is apparently even worse than previously reported.
Incidentally; what would this mean for the (what feels like) millions of student flats that have been built in city centres up and down the nation? Are some developers going to be worried?
Could they be repurposed as city centre accomodation to help with the property shortage we currently have 🤔
I watched a video this morning from someone who goes around the country looking at near-empty shopping centres. He bemoans this change; and I can see why. Change is bad, and empty shops are mostly soulless and depressing.
But I cannot see why this cannot be used as a regeneration: change shops into residential accommodation - which many smaller ones were in the first place, anyway. But I fear councils are afraid of change, and will miss the business rates (which they are not getting anyway if the units are empty).
In Cambridge, there are plans for the emptying Grafton Centre to become a life sciences hub; and the nearby Beehive Centre to become... something I don't quite understand.
Councils need to become braver.
Couldn’t agree more.
Instead of moaning about the death of the high street reinvigorate it. Pedestrianise them and repurpose the buildings. Newcastle council under Nick Forbes seems to be quite good at that, there are a couple of life sciences hub. Other councils, like Durham and Gateshead, just wanted to blame central govt and did little aside, in the case of Durham, their favoured two or three towns.
I'm hopeful that the new Government legislation will have a positive impact.
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31 · 1h Student visas are already down nearly 30%, and I would say between 10 and 20 universities are going to get into deep trouble. Another 10 to 20 will follow rapidly. Imagine sending a further signal that you want the numbers down... (1/2)
We could do with a fundamental restructuring of FE in this county. Clearly I don’t want there to be a collapse of institutions (that serves no-one) but we could do with moving away from the New Labour model of degrees for all.
All want degrees (or many do). It's aspirational, which is supposed to be good. People with degrees, including many in this board, saying other people shouldn't have them is a poor look.
But yes higher education does need restructuring. To be specific undergraduate education needs to be a lot, lot cheaper. Education factories in other words, efficiency two year degrees, longer semesters and more part time degrees. Anyone who starts talking about Oxbridge, world rankings etc is self serving
Perhaps “degrees for all” was a bad choice of words. I believe that we need to look at making sure all qualifications are high quality and that everyone has the chance to access them. Where I am not convinced, is that a university degree in the traditional academic sense is appropriate for all trades, professions and wants/needs of young people. We need to move away from elitist interpretations of universities needing to be the places to go to get on in life, and see that there is better careers advice and more flexible pathways for the future workforce.
I agree with everything you say but that doesn't address the affordability issue. The problem is we can't afford 50% of young people going to university at current costs and prices. Employability is fine. In general graduates can find jobs more easily than non graduates. The cost isn't fine.
So that gives us three choices I think:
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
3 seems obviously the right answer to me but that will need radical changes to universities. They need become Premier Inns (where the bed and shower are better anyway) and no longer pretend to be the Savoy.
I am taking about undergraduate education. Postgraduate is a different requirement entirely.
As I was saying...
Ex-ministers warn UK universities will go bust without higher fees or funding: Vice-chancellors suggest fee rise of £2,000 to £3,500 a year, but others say that is ‘politically impossible’
Vice-chancellors and former ministers are warning that the cash crisis facing universities is so serious that the next government will have to urgently raise tuition fees or increase funding to avoid bankruptcies within two years.
They said the state of university finances was more dire than revealed in last week’s report by the Office for Students, which forecast 40% of England’s universities would end this year in the red.
Vice-chancellors said that increases of between £2,000 to £3,500 a year for each student would be needed.
The UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight, and a major driver for innovation and growth. We are never going to improve productivity by reacting to everything with an attitude of managing down.
For the reasons I set out above I don't think, at the undergraduate level, that the UK should pretend to have a "world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight".
It should aim to educate anyone who is qualified, and could benefit from it, to a decent standard and at an affordable cost. Something the sector is utterly failing to do and so it's heading towards bankruptcy.
It's not pretending that the UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight. We do have a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight. That's true in terms of research and it's true in terms of our ability to attract fees from overseas students. UK degrees are highly valued.
The universities do not get to decide whether to take "anyone who is qualified". That is determined by government policy. It's the government that controls that, not the sector. University education in the UK is not unaffordable. The sector is heading towards bankruptcy because its income is very heavily determined by the government, and the government chooses to cut corners, as always.
Costs are higher than fees, when the price of going through university is generally regarded as too high already. I set out what I think are the options for a sustainable university sector
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
We have choices. I would choose (3). What is your choice? It could be something I missed.
Question: does the £9k amount to more than just the cost of the course? i.e. is there a cross-subsidy of research, etc? £9k seems preposterously expensive for a few lectures a week and membership of a nice library. If so, the *right* option might be to charge students a fair fee and fund research from other sources e.g. the state.
Universities currently lose money on the average home undergrad. Before the recent period in inflation, universities made a small margin on home undergrads that helped subsidise research, although the much bigger margins are in postgrad teaching and overseas students. However, the fee level has not changed, despite inflation, so now home undergrads lose money.
So, summarising a few of the early bits ás I understand them.
At 2016/17 prices, the full costs to the universities of providing degrees per student per year (I presume some elements are funded out with tuition fees):
- Around £8800 for write on paper degrees - Around 15-30% more for degrees with consumables budgets (STEM, but also art, design, archaeology etc. etc.) - Double for medicine
The split is in somewhat technical accountancy categories but for the paper based subjects is something like:
30% staff costs and overheads 20% buildings and running costs 30% central student facing costs (libraries, IT including teaching IT, admissions, welfare, students unions, but afaict additional bursaries are the main cost. A lot dictated by statute) 20% central university running and "sustainability adjustment".
Even if it is includes a myriad of things, those central costs do seem a chunky percentage.
The financial situation is apparently even worse than previously reported.
Incidentally; what would this mean for the (what feels like) millions of student flats that have been built in city centres up and down the nation? Are some developers going to be worried?
Could they be repurposed as city centre accomodation to help with the property shortage we currently have 🤔
I watched a video this morning from someone who goes around the country looking at near-empty shopping centres. He bemoans this change; and I can see why. Change is bad, and empty shops are mostly soulless and depressing.
But I cannot see why this cannot be used as a regeneration: change shops into residential accommodation - which many smaller ones were in the first place, anyway. But I fear councils are afraid of change, and will miss the business rates (which they are not getting anyway if the units are empty).
In Cambridge, there are plans for the emptying Grafton Centre to become a life sciences hub; and the nearby Beehive Centre to become... something I don't quite understand.
Councils need to become braver.
There are simply too many shopping centres but the design of them is such that you can't convert them to residential use - Look at the Enoch Centre in Glasgow to see what you need to do - rebuilding is absolutely essential.
Then once you have decided which part of the overgrown shopping estates (one example, Middlesborough has 4 and none of them are doing well) you then need to work out how to solve it. Very cheap rents as the government proposes is 1 bit, knocking some down to introduce green space as Stockton has done is another and a lot can become housing.
But don't assume you can convert your average shopping centre or office block into housing - it doesn't make a pleasant space to live. There is someone in New York who makes their money converting old office blocks into accommodation - 1970s office blocks are just about convertable, the more modern massive open floors are not suitable as Windows don't exist. A windowless room is fine for a cheaper hotel in London for a day or 2 - it's no use for somewhere people permanently live.
It appears the Iranians are having some trouble finding their president's helicopter
Don’t fly helicopters in the mountains when it’s foggy - no matter who is the customer, and no matter how insistent they might be that you go.
(This one was probably military, so the pilot himself would have had little choice but to do what he was told to do).
I was once walking in deep clag on the Applecross peninsula when three army Pumas floated over at what felt like 10-15 metres. Perhaps the most impressive thing I've ever seen - it's tricky topography round there.
The other famous one, which I should have remembered, was the RAF Chinook that crashed into a foggy hill back in 1994, with a whole load of spooks and top brass on board. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Mull_of_Kintyre_Chinook_crash the military tried to put the blame entirely on the dead pilots, rather than look at wider cultural issues behind the accident or possible malfunction of the aircraft.
Yes it’s impressive to watch them flying at low level in poor weather, and they have to be trained to fly only on instruments rather than looking outside - but it’s blooming dangerous, and when it goes wrong it goes very wrong indeed. Modern aircraft have extensive terrain databases and avoidance technology which should prevent CFIT (controlled flight into terrain, yes they even have an acromym for it because it happens that often) accidents, but like every tool it needs to be used properly.
On the university funding row, regardless of whether we have some dubious “universities” or not it would be politically bad if the Tories let them go bust.
Surely the Tories get this? Totemic of a broken country? One where they have been in government breaking it?
Bernard Ingham on Tony Benn applies here(*).
Once you add those who think that there are too many universities full stop and those who want to cut immigration, whatever the consequences, it's a lot of Today's Conservative Party.
(*)For those who don't know the anecdote, Ingham was Benn's press secretary, and was asked why the minister had said something. His response was that the minister had said whatever it was because he was stark, staring mad.
It appears the Iranians are having some trouble finding their president's helicopter
Don’t fly helicopters in the mountains when it’s foggy - no matter who is the customer, and no matter how insistent they might be that you go.
(This one was probably military, so the pilot himself would have had little choice but to do what he was told to do).
I was once walking in deep clag on the Applecross peninsula when three army Pumas floated over at what felt like 10-15 metres. Perhaps the most impressive thing I've ever seen - it's tricky topography round there.
The other famous one, which I should have remembered, was the RAF Chinook that crashed into a foggy hill back in 1994, with a whole load of spooks and top brass on board. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Mull_of_Kintyre_Chinook_crash the military tried to put the blame entirely on the dead pilots, rather than look at wider cultural issues behind the accident or possible malfunction of the aircraft.
Yes it’s impressive to watch them flying at low level in poor weather, and they have to be trained to fly only on instruments rather than looking outside - but it’s blooming dangerous, and when it goes wrong it goes very wrong indeed. Modern aircraft have extensive terrain databases and avoidance technology which should prevent CFIT (controlled flight into terrain, yes they even have an acromym for it because it happens that often) accidents, but like every tool it needs to be used properly.
CFIT in a functional aircraft. Aircraft commander's fault. Every time.
On the university funding row, regardless of whether we have some dubious “universities” or not it would be politically bad if the Tories let them go bust.
Surely the Tories get this? Totemic of a broken country? One where they have been in government breaking it?
Bernard Ingham on Tony Benn applies here(*).
Once you add those who think that there are too many universities full stop and those who want to cut immigration, whatever the consequences, it's a lot of Today's Conservative Party.
(*)For those who don't know the anecdote, Ingham was Benn's press secretary, and was asked why the minister had said something. His response was that the minister had said whatever it was because he was stark, staring mad.
Whilst I don’t disagree, there is a death cult mentality about chunks of the Tory party. Voters do not want to live in a broken crumbling country where little works. The old argument about lower taxes just rings hollow - taxes are really high as everything goes to ruin.
As always the question is where the money is going…
On the university funding row, regardless of whether we have some dubious “universities” or not it would be politically bad if the Tories let them go bust.
Surely the Tories get this? Totemic of a broken country? One where they have been in government breaking it?
Bernard Ingham on Tony Benn applies here(*).
Once you add those who think that there are too many universities full stop and those who want to cut immigration, whatever the consequences, it's a lot of Today's Conservative Party.
(*)For those who don't know the anecdote, Ingham was Benn's press secretary, and was asked why the minister had said something. His response was that the minister had said whatever it was because he was stark, staring mad.
Universities just need to live within their means. We dont bail out businesses who cant, so why bail out universities ?
the cost of implementing post-Brexit border arrangements will cost at least £4.7bn after repeated delays in implementing new controls, according to a report by Parliament’s spending watchdog
On the university funding row, regardless of whether we have some dubious “universities” or not it would be politically bad if the Tories let them go bust.
Surely the Tories get this? Totemic of a broken country? One where they have been in government breaking it?
Bernard Ingham on Tony Benn applies here(*).
Once you add those who think that there are too many universities full stop and those who want to cut immigration, whatever the consequences, it's a lot of Today's Conservative Party.
(*)For those who don't know the anecdote, Ingham was Benn's press secretary, and was asked why the minister had said something. His response was that the minister had said whatever it was because he was stark, staring mad.
Universities just need to live within their means. We dont bail out businesses who cant, so why bail out universities ?
Without disagreeing with your basic point, one of the reasons that unis are getting into trouble is the government keeps telling them to do things then changing their minds leaving them out of pocket. As here over international student visas.
This is of course compounded by shockingly poor management and lack of oversight at the governance level. But the government manage HE almost as badly as they manage schools and that's saying something.
On the university funding row, regardless of whether we have some dubious “universities” or not it would be politically bad if the Tories let them go bust.
Surely the Tories get this? Totemic of a broken country? One where they have been in government breaking it?
Bernard Ingham on Tony Benn applies here(*).
Once you add those who think that there are too many universities full stop and those who want to cut immigration, whatever the consequences, it's a lot of Today's Conservative Party.
(*)For those who don't know the anecdote, Ingham was Benn's press secretary, and was asked why the minister had said something. His response was that the minister had said whatever it was because he was stark, staring mad.
Universities just need to live within their means. We dont bail out businesses who cant, so why bail out universities ?
Universities are not businesses. To fulfil their functions, universities have costs. The government is the main funder of universities, both directly and indirectly (e.g. by controlling student visa numbers). The government can’t control what universities do and how much income they get, and then wash their hands of the situation.
This could get very interesting - as in the Chinese curse .
The president was a man responsible for brutal repression at home, and fomenting war and conflict abroad. For his role in the death committee during the 1988 prosecution of political prisoners alone, he deserves to have toasty feet in Hell.
On the university funding row, regardless of whether we have some dubious “universities” or not it would be politically bad if the Tories let them go bust.
Surely the Tories get this? Totemic of a broken country? One where they have been in government breaking it?
Bernard Ingham on Tony Benn applies here(*).
Once you add those who think that there are too many universities full stop and those who want to cut immigration, whatever the consequences, it's a lot of Today's Conservative Party.
(*)For those who don't know the anecdote, Ingham was Benn's press secretary, and was asked why the minister had said something. His response was that the minister had said whatever it was because he was stark, staring mad.
Universities just need to live within their means. We dont bail out businesses who cant, so why bail out universities ?
Universities are not businesses. To fulfil their functions, universities have costs. The government is the main funder of universities, both directly and indirectly (e.g. by controlling student visa numbers). The government can’t control what universities do and how much income they get, and then wash their hands of the situation.
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31 · 1h Student visas are already down nearly 30%, and I would say between 10 and 20 universities are going to get into deep trouble. Another 10 to 20 will follow rapidly. Imagine sending a further signal that you want the numbers down... (1/2)
We could do with a fundamental restructuring of FE in this county. Clearly I don’t want there to be a collapse of institutions (that serves no-one) but we could do with moving away from the New Labour model of degrees for all.
All want degrees (or many do). It's aspirational, which is supposed to be good. People with degrees, including many in this board, saying other people shouldn't have them is a poor look.
But yes higher education does need restructuring. To be specific undergraduate education needs to be a lot, lot cheaper. Education factories in other words, efficiency two year degrees, longer semesters and more part time degrees. Anyone who starts talking about Oxbridge, world rankings etc is self serving
Perhaps “degrees for all” was a bad choice of words. I believe that we need to look at making sure all qualifications are high quality and that everyone has the chance to access them. Where I am not convinced, is that a university degree in the traditional academic sense is appropriate for all trades, professions and wants/needs of young people. We need to move away from elitist interpretations of universities needing to be the places to go to get on in life, and see that there is better careers advice and more flexible pathways for the future workforce.
I agree with everything you say but that doesn't address the affordability issue. The problem is we can't afford 50% of young people going to university at current costs and prices. Employability is fine. In general graduates can find jobs more easily than non graduates. The cost isn't fine.
So that gives us three choices I think:
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
3 seems obviously the right answer to me but that will need radical changes to universities. They need become Premier Inns (where the bed and shower are better anyway) and no longer pretend to be the Savoy.
I am taking about undergraduate education. Postgraduate is a different requirement entirely.
As I was saying...
Ex-ministers warn UK universities will go bust without higher fees or funding: Vice-chancellors suggest fee rise of £2,000 to £3,500 a year, but others say that is ‘politically impossible’
Vice-chancellors and former ministers are warning that the cash crisis facing universities is so serious that the next government will have to urgently raise tuition fees or increase funding to avoid bankruptcies within two years.
They said the state of university finances was more dire than revealed in last week’s report by the Office for Students, which forecast 40% of England’s universities would end this year in the red.
Vice-chancellors said that increases of between £2,000 to £3,500 a year for each student would be needed.
The UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight, and a major driver for innovation and growth. We are never going to improve productivity by reacting to everything with an attitude of managing down.
For the reasons I set out above I don't think, at the undergraduate level, that the UK should pretend to have a "world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight".
It should aim to educate anyone who is qualified, and could benefit from it, to a decent standard and at an affordable cost. Something the sector is utterly failing to do and so it's heading towards bankruptcy.
It's not pretending that the UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight. We do have a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight. That's true in terms of research and it's true in terms of our ability to attract fees from overseas students. UK degrees are highly valued.
The universities do not get to decide whether to take "anyone who is qualified". That is determined by government policy. It's the government that controls that, not the sector. University education in the UK is not unaffordable. The sector is heading towards bankruptcy because its income is very heavily determined by the government, and the government chooses to cut corners, as always.
Costs are higher than fees, when the price of going through university is generally regarded as too high already. I set out what I think are the options for a sustainable university sector
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
We have choices. I would choose (3). What is your choice? It could be something I missed.
Question: does the £9k amount to more than just the cost of the course? i.e. is there a cross-subsidy of research, etc? £9k seems preposterously expensive for a few lectures a week and membership of a nice library. If so, the *right* option might be to charge students a fair fee and fund research from other sources e.g. the state.
Universities currently lose money on the average home undergrad. Before the recent period in inflation, universities made a small margin on home undergrads that helped subsidise research, although the much bigger margins are in postgrad teaching and overseas students. However, the fee level has not changed, despite inflation, so now home undergrads lose money.
So, summarising a few of the early bits ás I understand them.
At 2016/17 prices, the full costs to the universities of providing degrees per student per year (I presume some elements are funded out with tuition fees):
- Around £8800 for write on paper degrees - Around 15-30% more for degrees with consumables budgets (STEM, but also art, design, archaeology etc. etc.) - Double for medicine
The split is in somewhat technical accountancy categories but for the paper based subjects is something like:
30% staff costs and overheads 20% buildings and running costs 30% central student facing costs (libraries, IT including teaching IT, admissions, welfare, students unions, but afaict additional bursaries are the main cost. A lot dictated by statute) 20% central university running and "sustainability adjustment".
Even if it is includes a myriad of things, those central costs do seem a chunky percentage.
The financial situation is apparently even worse than previously reported.
Incidentally; what would this mean for the (what feels like) millions of student flats that have been built in city centres up and down the nation? Are some developers going to be worried?
Could they be repurposed as city centre accomodation to help with the property shortage we currently have 🤔
I watched a video this morning from someone who goes around the country looking at near-empty shopping centres. He bemoans this change; and I can see why. Change is bad, and empty shops are mostly soulless and depressing.
But I cannot see why this cannot be used as a regeneration: change shops into residential accommodation - which many smaller ones were in the first place, anyway. But I fear councils are afraid of change, and will miss the business rates (which they are not getting anyway if the units are empty).
In Cambridge, there are plans for the emptying Grafton Centre to become a life sciences hub; and the nearby Beehive Centre to become... something I don't quite understand.
Councils need to become braver.
There are simply too many shopping centres but the design of them is such that you can't convert them to residential use - Look at the Enoch Centre in Glasgow to see what you need to do - rebuilding is absolutely essential.
Then once you have decided which part of the overgrown shopping estates (one example, Middlesborough has 4 and none of them are doing well) you then need to work out how to solve it. Very cheap rents as the government proposes is 1 bit, knocking some down to introduce green space as Stockton has done is another and a lot can become housing.
But don't assume you can convert your average shopping centre or office block into housing - it doesn't make a pleasant space to live. There is someone in New York who makes their money converting old office blocks into accommodation - 1970s office blocks are just about convertable, the more modern massive open floors are not suitable as Windows don't exist. A windowless room is fine for a cheaper hotel in London for a day or 2 - it's no use for somewhere people permanently live.
Shopping centres; yes. They are hard to repurpose (though it is being attempted - see the Grafton Centre here in Cambridge). But there are vast amounts of shops in our city centres that are empty or ill-used; many of which used to be housing.
It appears the Iranians are having some trouble finding their president's helicopter
Don’t fly helicopters in the mountains when it’s foggy - no matter who is the customer, and no matter how insistent they might be that you go.
(This one was probably military, so the pilot himself would have had little choice but to do what he was told to do).
I was once walking in deep clag on the Applecross peninsula when three army Pumas floated over at what felt like 10-15 metres. Perhaps the most impressive thing I've ever seen - it's tricky topography round there.
The other famous one, which I should have remembered, was the RAF Chinook that crashed into a foggy hill back in 1994, with a whole load of spooks and top brass on board. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Mull_of_Kintyre_Chinook_crash the military tried to put the blame entirely on the dead pilots, rather than look at wider cultural issues behind the accident or possible malfunction of the aircraft.
Yes it’s impressive to watch them flying at low level in poor weather, and they have to be trained to fly only on instruments rather than looking outside - but it’s blooming dangerous, and when it goes wrong it goes very wrong indeed. Modern aircraft have extensive terrain databases and avoidance technology which should prevent CFIT (controlled flight into terrain, yes they even have an acromym for it because it happens that often) accidents, but like every tool it needs to be used properly.
CFIT in a functional aircraft. Aircraft commander's fault. Every time.
Oh indeed, a perfectly serviceable aircraft hitting the ground is always basically the fault of the person in charge of flying it - but often there’s wider issues behind the pilot f***ing up, and it’s important to learn those lessons and not put undue pressure on them to complete the mission when not fighting an actual war.
It’s one of many cultural differences between military and civvie thinking.
On the university funding row, regardless of whether we have some dubious “universities” or not it would be politically bad if the Tories let them go bust.
Surely the Tories get this? Totemic of a broken country? One where they have been in government breaking it?
Bernard Ingham on Tony Benn applies here(*).
Once you add those who think that there are too many universities full stop and those who want to cut immigration, whatever the consequences, it's a lot of Today's Conservative Party.
(*)For those who don't know the anecdote, Ingham was Benn's press secretary, and was asked why the minister had said something. His response was that the minister had said whatever it was because he was stark, staring mad.
Universities just need to live within their means. We dont bail out businesses who cant, so why bail out universities ?
Without disagreeing with your basic point, one of the reasons that unis are getting into trouble is the government keeps telling them to do things then changing their minds leaving them out of pocket. As here over international student visas.
This is of course compounded by shockingly poor management and lack of oversight at the governance level. But the government manage HE almost as badly as they manage schools and that's saying something.
The government does that with other businesses too, volatility is one of the issues every business faces. The universities face perhaps more government inteference, but thats just their domain same as say a water company or electricity, neither of which are particularly well run either.
On the university funding row, regardless of whether we have some dubious “universities” or not it would be politically bad if the Tories let them go bust.
Surely the Tories get this? Totemic of a broken country? One where they have been in government breaking it?
Bernard Ingham on Tony Benn applies here(*).
Once you add those who think that there are too many universities full stop and those who want to cut immigration, whatever the consequences, it's a lot of Today's Conservative Party.
(*)For those who don't know the anecdote, Ingham was Benn's press secretary, and was asked why the minister had said something. His response was that the minister had said whatever it was because he was stark, staring mad.
Universities just need to live within their means. We dont bail out businesses who cant, so why bail out universities ?
Universities are not businesses. To fulfil their functions, universities have costs. The government is the main funder of universities, both directly and indirectly (e.g. by controlling student visa numbers). The government can’t control what universities do and how much income they get, and then wash their hands of the situation.
Actually they are, they are education businesses.
Often very badly run businesses except for the top bananas who rate and pay themselves very highly.
On the university funding row, regardless of whether we have some dubious “universities” or not it would be politically bad if the Tories let them go bust.
Surely the Tories get this? Totemic of a broken country? One where they have been in government breaking it?
Bernard Ingham on Tony Benn applies here(*).
Once you add those who think that there are too many universities full stop and those who want to cut immigration, whatever the consequences, it's a lot of Today's Conservative Party.
(*)For those who don't know the anecdote, Ingham was Benn's press secretary, and was asked why the minister had said something. His response was that the minister had said whatever it was because he was stark, staring mad.
Universities just need to live within their means. We dont bail out businesses who cant, so why bail out universities ?
Incidentally, your second sentence - we bailed out the banks...
This could get very interesting - as in the Chinese curse .
The president was a man responsible for brutal repression at home, and fomenting war and conflict abroad. For his role in the death committee during the 1988 prosecution of political prisoners alone, he deserves to have toasty feet in Hell.
On the university funding row, regardless of whether we have some dubious “universities” or not it would be politically bad if the Tories let them go bust.
Surely the Tories get this? Totemic of a broken country? One where they have been in government breaking it?
Bernard Ingham on Tony Benn applies here(*).
Once you add those who think that there are too many universities full stop and those who want to cut immigration, whatever the consequences, it's a lot of Today's Conservative Party.
(*)For those who don't know the anecdote, Ingham was Benn's press secretary, and was asked why the minister had said something. His response was that the minister had said whatever it was because he was stark, staring mad.
Universities just need to live within their means. We dont bail out businesses who cant, so why bail out universities ?
Universities are not businesses. To fulfil their functions, universities have costs. The government is the main funder of universities, both directly and indirectly (e.g. by controlling student visa numbers). The government can’t control what universities do and how much income they get, and then wash their hands of the situation.
Actually they are, they are education businesses.
Under the Education Reform Act 1988 and the Charities Act 2011, they are not businesses.
On the university funding row, regardless of whether we have some dubious “universities” or not it would be politically bad if the Tories let them go bust.
Surely the Tories get this? Totemic of a broken country? One where they have been in government breaking it?
Bernard Ingham on Tony Benn applies here(*).
Once you add those who think that there are too many universities full stop and those who want to cut immigration, whatever the consequences, it's a lot of Today's Conservative Party.
(*)For those who don't know the anecdote, Ingham was Benn's press secretary, and was asked why the minister had said something. His response was that the minister had said whatever it was because he was stark, staring mad.
Universities just need to live within their means. We dont bail out businesses who cant, so why bail out universities ?
Incidentally, your second sentence - we bailed out the banks...
Yes and we shouldnt have, that was a bad decision. Arent we meant to be learning the lessons ? Or some other mindless platitude.
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31 · 1h Student visas are already down nearly 30%, and I would say between 10 and 20 universities are going to get into deep trouble. Another 10 to 20 will follow rapidly. Imagine sending a further signal that you want the numbers down... (1/2)
We could do with a fundamental restructuring of FE in this county. Clearly I don’t want there to be a collapse of institutions (that serves no-one) but we could do with moving away from the New Labour model of degrees for all.
All want degrees (or many do). It's aspirational, which is supposed to be good. People with degrees, including many in this board, saying other people shouldn't have them is a poor look.
But yes higher education does need restructuring. To be specific undergraduate education needs to be a lot, lot cheaper. Education factories in other words, efficiency two year degrees, longer semesters and more part time degrees. Anyone who starts talking about Oxbridge, world rankings etc is self serving
Perhaps “degrees for all” was a bad choice of words. I believe that we need to look at making sure all qualifications are high quality and that everyone has the chance to access them. Where I am not convinced, is that a university degree in the traditional academic sense is appropriate for all trades, professions and wants/needs of young people. We need to move away from elitist interpretations of universities needing to be the places to go to get on in life, and see that there is better careers advice and more flexible pathways for the future workforce.
I agree with everything you say but that doesn't address the affordability issue. The problem is we can't afford 50% of young people going to university at current costs and prices. Employability is fine. In general graduates can find jobs more easily than non graduates. The cost isn't fine.
So that gives us three choices I think:
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
3 seems obviously the right answer to me but that will need radical changes to universities. They need become Premier Inns (where the bed and shower are better anyway) and no longer pretend to be the Savoy.
I am taking about undergraduate education. Postgraduate is a different requirement entirely.
As I was saying...
Ex-ministers warn UK universities will go bust without higher fees or funding: Vice-chancellors suggest fee rise of £2,000 to £3,500 a year, but others say that is ‘politically impossible’
Vice-chancellors and former ministers are warning that the cash crisis facing universities is so serious that the next government will have to urgently raise tuition fees or increase funding to avoid bankruptcies within two years.
They said the state of university finances was more dire than revealed in last week’s report by the Office for Students, which forecast 40% of England’s universities would end this year in the red.
Vice-chancellors said that increases of between £2,000 to £3,500 a year for each student would be needed.
The UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight, and a major driver for innovation and growth. We are never going to improve productivity by reacting to everything with an attitude of managing down.
For the reasons I set out above I don't think, at the undergraduate level, that the UK should pretend to have a "world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight".
It should aim to educate anyone who is qualified, and could benefit from it, to a decent standard and at an affordable cost. Something the sector is utterly failing to do and so it's heading towards bankruptcy.
It's not pretending that the UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight. We do have a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight. That's true in terms of research and it's true in terms of our ability to attract fees from overseas students. UK degrees are highly valued.
The universities do not get to decide whether to take "anyone who is qualified". That is determined by government policy. It's the government that controls that, not the sector. University education in the UK is not unaffordable. The sector is heading towards bankruptcy because its income is very heavily determined by the government, and the government chooses to cut corners, as always.
Costs are higher than fees, when the price of going through university is generally regarded as too high already. I set out what I think are the options for a sustainable university sector
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
We have choices. I would choose (3). What is your choice? It could be something I missed.
Question: does the £9k amount to more than just the cost of the course? i.e. is there a cross-subsidy of research, etc? £9k seems preposterously expensive for a few lectures a week and membership of a nice library. If so, the *right* option might be to charge students a fair fee and fund research from other sources e.g. the state.
Universities currently lose money on the average home undergrad. Before the recent period in inflation, universities made a small margin on home undergrads that helped subsidise research, although the much bigger margins are in postgrad teaching and overseas students. However, the fee level has not changed, despite inflation, so now home undergrads lose money.
So, summarising a few of the early bits ás I understand them.
At 2016/17 prices, the full costs to the universities of providing degrees per student per year (I presume some elements are funded out with tuition fees):
- Around £8800 for write on paper degrees - Around 15-30% more for degrees with consumables budgets (STEM, but also art, design, archaeology etc. etc.) - Double for medicine
The split is in somewhat technical accountancy categories but for the paper based subjects is something like:
30% staff costs and overheads 20% buildings and running costs 30% central student facing costs (libraries, IT including teaching IT, admissions, welfare, students unions, but afaict additional bursaries are the main cost. A lot dictated by statute) 20% central university running and "sustainability adjustment".
Even if it is includes a myriad of things, those central costs do seem a chunky percentage.
The financial situation is apparently even worse than previously reported.
Incidentally; what would this mean for the (what feels like) millions of student flats that have been built in city centres up and down the nation? Are some developers going to be worried?
Could they be repurposed as city centre accomodation to help with the property shortage we currently have 🤔
I watched a video this morning from someone who goes around the country looking at near-empty shopping centres. He bemoans this change; and I can see why. Change is bad, and empty shops are mostly soulless and depressing.
But I cannot see why this cannot be used as a regeneration: change shops into residential accommodation - which many smaller ones were in the first place, anyway. But I fear councils are afraid of change, and will miss the business rates (which they are not getting anyway if the units are empty).
In Cambridge, there are plans for the emptying Grafton Centre to become a life sciences hub; and the nearby Beehive Centre to become... something I don't quite understand.
Councils need to become braver.
I agree with this in principle - indeed very strongly agree. This is currently being done in Nottingham with the Broadmarsh regeneration (although in that case they have completely demolished and rebuilt as the old shopping centre/car park/bus station were not fit fo purpose at all) and is being done in Newark with the old M&S site.
My only concern with this is it has an adverse effect on other businesses if the council are not clear about rules they are enforcing/not enforcing.
So in Newark, Castlegate has always had large numbers of pubs and bars. Recently some of the retail properties have been converted to residential and those new residents have now forced the council to ban live music from some of the pubs because of the noise. These are from establishments that have been very well regarded for their live music for decades (certainly since I was a youth). This further damages what is left of the town centre businesses.
On the university funding row, regardless of whether we have some dubious “universities” or not it would be politically bad if the Tories let them go bust.
Surely the Tories get this? Totemic of a broken country? One where they have been in government breaking it?
Bernard Ingham on Tony Benn applies here(*).
Once you add those who think that there are too many universities full stop and those who want to cut immigration, whatever the consequences, it's a lot of Today's Conservative Party.
(*)For those who don't know the anecdote, Ingham was Benn's press secretary, and was asked why the minister had said something. His response was that the minister had said whatever it was because he was stark, staring mad.
Universities just need to live within their means. We dont bail out businesses who cant, so why bail out universities ?
They were, just about, given the government cap on what they can charge, and government encouragement to get overseas students to make the finances add up.
What we have here is a government U turn causing horrible financial problems for universities. Given that government actions are the cause of the problem, "just live with it" isn't entirely on.
Another data point- Buckingham University, which is entirely private, currently charges 25k for two year degrees. One assumes that, as a business, they aren't wasting money. In any case, they mostly (only?) run the sort of subjects that are cheap to teach.
On the university funding row, regardless of whether we have some dubious “universities” or not it would be politically bad if the Tories let them go bust.
Surely the Tories get this? Totemic of a broken country? One where they have been in government breaking it?
Bernard Ingham on Tony Benn applies here(*).
Once you add those who think that there are too many universities full stop and those who want to cut immigration, whatever the consequences, it's a lot of Today's Conservative Party.
(*)For those who don't know the anecdote, Ingham was Benn's press secretary, and was asked why the minister had said something. His response was that the minister had said whatever it was because he was stark, staring mad.
Universities just need to live within their means. We dont bail out businesses who cant, so why bail out universities ?
Universities are not businesses. To fulfil their functions, universities have costs. The government is the main funder of universities, both directly and indirectly (e.g. by controlling student visa numbers). The government can’t control what universities do and how much income they get, and then wash their hands of the situation.
And this is the reality. Free Market foamers may say "they're a business". But they are not free top act as such. They have to dance to the government's tune - which is hard to do when the government keeps changing radio station.
Government either needs to free universities from its policies - tuition fee caps, international student restrictions - or fund them properly to meet those caps. Saying "you must do LOTS whilst we give you little" only works for a short time until the money runs out. Same with councils.
Are Tories really that bad at business? Or maths for that matter? Whatever happened to them?
On the university funding row, regardless of whether we have some dubious “universities” or not it would be politically bad if the Tories let them go bust.
Surely the Tories get this? Totemic of a broken country? One where they have been in government breaking it?
Bernard Ingham on Tony Benn applies here(*).
Once you add those who think that there are too many universities full stop and those who want to cut immigration, whatever the consequences, it's a lot of Today's Conservative Party.
(*)For those who don't know the anecdote, Ingham was Benn's press secretary, and was asked why the minister had said something. His response was that the minister had said whatever it was because he was stark, staring mad.
Universities just need to live within their means. We dont bail out businesses who cant, so why bail out universities ?
I was about to write something about the increase in non-academic staff over time, and the universities increasing the size of their own administration to match their income - but it does actually appear that they’ve been cutting these in recent years, around 15% down from 2019. There’s still nearly as many admins as academics though.
On the university funding row, regardless of whether we have some dubious “universities” or not it would be politically bad if the Tories let them go bust.
Surely the Tories get this? Totemic of a broken country? One where they have been in government breaking it?
Bernard Ingham on Tony Benn applies here(*).
Once you add those who think that there are too many universities full stop and those who want to cut immigration, whatever the consequences, it's a lot of Today's Conservative Party.
(*)For those who don't know the anecdote, Ingham was Benn's press secretary, and was asked why the minister had said something. His response was that the minister had said whatever it was because he was stark, staring mad.
Universities just need to live within their means. We dont bail out businesses who cant, so why bail out universities ?
Universities are not businesses. To fulfil their functions, universities have costs. The government is the main funder of universities, both directly and indirectly (e.g. by controlling student visa numbers). The government can’t control what universities do and how much income they get, and then wash their hands of the situation.
Actually they are, they are education businesses.
Under the Education Reform Act 1988 and the Charities Act 2011, they are not businesses.
On the university funding row, regardless of whether we have some dubious “universities” or not it would be politically bad if the Tories let them go bust.
Surely the Tories get this? Totemic of a broken country? One where they have been in government breaking it?
Bernard Ingham on Tony Benn applies here(*).
Once you add those who think that there are too many universities full stop and those who want to cut immigration, whatever the consequences, it's a lot of Today's Conservative Party.
(*)For those who don't know the anecdote, Ingham was Benn's press secretary, and was asked why the minister had said something. His response was that the minister had said whatever it was because he was stark, staring mad.
Universities just need to live within their means. We dont bail out businesses who cant, so why bail out universities ?
Universities are not businesses. To fulfil their functions, universities have costs. The government is the main funder of universities, both directly and indirectly (e.g. by controlling student visa numbers). The government can’t control what universities do and how much income they get, and then wash their hands of the situation.
Actually they are, they are education businesses.
Under the Education Reform Act 1988 and the Charities Act 2011, they are not businesses.
Fools are easily fooled by ponzi schemes, if you believe that bollox , I have a nice bridge going a begging.
On the university funding row, regardless of whether we have some dubious “universities” or not it would be politically bad if the Tories let them go bust.
Surely the Tories get this? Totemic of a broken country? One where they have been in government breaking it?
Bernard Ingham on Tony Benn applies here(*).
Once you add those who think that there are too many universities full stop and those who want to cut immigration, whatever the consequences, it's a lot of Today's Conservative Party.
(*)For those who don't know the anecdote, Ingham was Benn's press secretary, and was asked why the minister had said something. His response was that the minister had said whatever it was because he was stark, staring mad.
Universities just need to live within their means. We dont bail out businesses who cant, so why bail out universities ?
I was about to write something about the increase in non-academic staff over time, and the universities increasing the size of their own administration to match their income - but it does actually appear that they’ve been cutting these in recent years, around 15% down from 2019. There’s still nearly as many admins as academics though.
On the university funding row, regardless of whether we have some dubious “universities” or not it would be politically bad if the Tories let them go bust.
Surely the Tories get this? Totemic of a broken country? One where they have been in government breaking it?
Bernard Ingham on Tony Benn applies here(*).
Once you add those who think that there are too many universities full stop and those who want to cut immigration, whatever the consequences, it's a lot of Today's Conservative Party.
(*)For those who don't know the anecdote, Ingham was Benn's press secretary, and was asked why the minister had said something. His response was that the minister had said whatever it was because he was stark, staring mad.
Whilst I don’t disagree, there is a death cult mentality about chunks of the Tory party. Voters do not want to live in a broken crumbling country where little works. The old argument about lower taxes just rings hollow - taxes are really high as everything goes to ruin.
As always the question is where the money is going…
Some to middlemen, and some because something-for-nothing (which has been the story voters have voted for for most of my lifetime) is always followed by nothing-for-something.
On the university funding row, regardless of whether we have some dubious “universities” or not it would be politically bad if the Tories let them go bust.
Surely the Tories get this? Totemic of a broken country? One where they have been in government breaking it?
Bernard Ingham on Tony Benn applies here(*).
Once you add those who think that there are too many universities full stop and those who want to cut immigration, whatever the consequences, it's a lot of Today's Conservative Party.
(*)For those who don't know the anecdote, Ingham was Benn's press secretary, and was asked why the minister had said something. His response was that the minister had said whatever it was because he was stark, staring mad.
Universities just need to live within their means. We dont bail out businesses who cant, so why bail out universities ?
Without disagreeing with your basic point, one of the reasons that unis are getting into trouble is the government keeps telling them to do things then changing their minds leaving them out of pocket. As here over international student visas.
This is of course compounded by shockingly poor management and lack of oversight at the governance level. But the government manage HE almost as badly as they manage schools and that's saying something.
Chances are Rishi will give them a final shafting before he leaves office, in order to hold on to a couple of extra seats.
A government which actively encouraged universities to recruit more overseas students, as a substitute for keeping funding in line with inflation, is kicking that prop away.
A party which is little more than an over sixties lobby group is not fit for government.
On the university funding row, regardless of whether we have some dubious “universities” or not it would be politically bad if the Tories let them go bust.
Surely the Tories get this? Totemic of a broken country? One where they have been in government breaking it?
Bernard Ingham on Tony Benn applies here(*).
Once you add those who think that there are too many universities full stop and those who want to cut immigration, whatever the consequences, it's a lot of Today's Conservative Party.
(*)For those who don't know the anecdote, Ingham was Benn's press secretary, and was asked why the minister had said something. His response was that the minister had said whatever it was because he was stark, staring mad.
Universities just need to live within their means. We dont bail out businesses who cant, so why bail out universities ?
Universities are not businesses. To fulfil their functions, universities have costs. The government is the main funder of universities, both directly and indirectly (e.g. by controlling student visa numbers). The government can’t control what universities do and how much income they get, and then wash their hands of the situation.
Actually they are, they are education businesses.
Under the Education Reform Act 1988 and the Charities Act 2011, they are not businesses.
If it walks like a duck .....
It doesn’t walk like a duck, it doesn’t sound like a duck, it isn’t a duck.
On the university funding row, regardless of whether we have some dubious “universities” or not it would be politically bad if the Tories let them go bust.
Surely the Tories get this? Totemic of a broken country? One where they have been in government breaking it?
Bernard Ingham on Tony Benn applies here(*).
Once you add those who think that there are too many universities full stop and those who want to cut immigration, whatever the consequences, it's a lot of Today's Conservative Party.
(*)For those who don't know the anecdote, Ingham was Benn's press secretary, and was asked why the minister had said something. His response was that the minister had said whatever it was because he was stark, staring mad.
Universities just need to live within their means. We dont bail out businesses who cant, so why bail out universities ?
Universities are not businesses. To fulfil their functions, universities have costs. The government is the main funder of universities, both directly and indirectly (e.g. by controlling student visa numbers). The government can’t control what universities do and how much income they get, and then wash their hands of the situation.
And this is the reality. Free Market foamers may say "they're a business". But they are not free top act as such. They have to dance to the government's tune - which is hard to do when the government keeps changing radio station.
Government either needs to free universities from its policies - tuition fee caps, international student restrictions - or fund them properly to meet those caps. Saying "you must do LOTS whilst we give you little" only works for a short time until the money runs out. Same with councils.
Are Tories really that bad at business? Or maths for that matter? Whatever happened to them?
Crudely, the Brexit Mentality happened to them. This isn't about the rights or wrongs of EU membership, but the approach taken. Denying tradeoffs, demanding that the other party in the conversation should just do what we want. Promotion of feels over arithmetic. That sort of thing.
I wondered about mentioning the echoes with what's happening to councils. Lumber them with the costs of social care whilst taking away their ability to increase revenue. Then, as social care costs move towards 100% of possible income, getting cross as everything else is cut in desperation.
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31 · 1h Student visas are already down nearly 30%, and I would say between 10 and 20 universities are going to get into deep trouble. Another 10 to 20 will follow rapidly. Imagine sending a further signal that you want the numbers down... (1/2)
We could do with a fundamental restructuring of FE in this county. Clearly I don’t want there to be a collapse of institutions (that serves no-one) but we could do with moving away from the New Labour model of degrees for all.
All want degrees (or many do). It's aspirational, which is supposed to be good. People with degrees, including many in this board, saying other people shouldn't have them is a poor look.
But yes higher education does need restructuring. To be specific undergraduate education needs to be a lot, lot cheaper. Education factories in other words, efficiency two year degrees, longer semesters and more part time degrees. Anyone who starts talking about Oxbridge, world rankings etc is self serving
Perhaps “degrees for all” was a bad choice of words. I believe that we need to look at making sure all qualifications are high quality and that everyone has the chance to access them. Where I am not convinced, is that a university degree in the traditional academic sense is appropriate for all trades, professions and wants/needs of young people. We need to move away from elitist interpretations of universities needing to be the places to go to get on in life, and see that there is better careers advice and more flexible pathways for the future workforce.
I agree with everything you say but that doesn't address the affordability issue. The problem is we can't afford 50% of young people going to university at current costs and prices. Employability is fine. In general graduates can find jobs more easily than non graduates. The cost isn't fine.
So that gives us three choices I think:
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
3 seems obviously the right answer to me but that will need radical changes to universities. They need become Premier Inns (where the bed and shower are better anyway) and no longer pretend to be the Savoy.
I am taking about undergraduate education. Postgraduate is a different requirement entirely.
As I was saying...
Ex-ministers warn UK universities will go bust without higher fees or funding: Vice-chancellors suggest fee rise of £2,000 to £3,500 a year, but others say that is ‘politically impossible’
Vice-chancellors and former ministers are warning that the cash crisis facing universities is so serious that the next government will have to urgently raise tuition fees or increase funding to avoid bankruptcies within two years.
They said the state of university finances was more dire than revealed in last week’s report by the Office for Students, which forecast 40% of England’s universities would end this year in the red.
Vice-chancellors said that increases of between £2,000 to £3,500 a year for each student would be needed.
The UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight, and a major driver for innovation and growth. We are never going to improve productivity by reacting to everything with an attitude of managing down.
For the reasons I set out above I don't think, at the undergraduate level, that the UK should pretend to have a "world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight".
It should aim to educate anyone who is qualified, and could benefit from it, to a decent standard and at an affordable cost. Something the sector is utterly failing to do and so it's heading towards bankruptcy.
It's not pretending that the UK has a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight. We do have a world-leading university sector, punching far above our weight. That's true in terms of research and it's true in terms of our ability to attract fees from overseas students. UK degrees are highly valued.
The universities do not get to decide whether to take "anyone who is qualified". That is determined by government policy. It's the government that controls that, not the sector. University education in the UK is not unaffordable. The sector is heading towards bankruptcy because its income is very heavily determined by the government, and the government chooses to cut corners, as always.
Costs are higher than fees, when the price of going through university is generally regarded as too high already. I set out what I think are the options for a sustainable university sector
1. Increase the fees so only the wealthy can afford them 2. Limit the numbers and subsidise these 3. Reduce the cost so more people can go to university who are qualified and could benefit from it
We have choices. I would choose (3). What is your choice? It could be something I missed.
Question: does the £9k amount to more than just the cost of the course? i.e. is there a cross-subsidy of research, etc? £9k seems preposterously expensive for a few lectures a week and membership of a nice library. If so, the *right* option might be to charge students a fair fee and fund research from other sources e.g. the state.
Universities currently lose money on the average home undergrad. Before the recent period in inflation, universities made a small margin on home undergrads that helped subsidise research, although the much bigger margins are in postgrad teaching and overseas students. However, the fee level has not changed, despite inflation, so now home undergrads lose money.
So, summarising a few of the early bits ás I understand them.
At 2016/17 prices, the full costs to the universities of providing degrees per student per year (I presume some elements are funded out with tuition fees):
- Around £8800 for write on paper degrees - Around 15-30% more for degrees with consumables budgets (STEM, but also art, design, archaeology etc. etc.) - Double for medicine
The split is in somewhat technical accountancy categories but for the paper based subjects is something like:
30% staff costs and overheads 20% buildings and running costs 30% central student facing costs (libraries, IT including teaching IT, admissions, welfare, students unions, but afaict additional bursaries are the main cost. A lot dictated by statute) 20% central university running and "sustainability adjustment".
Even if it is includes a myriad of things, those central costs do seem a chunky percentage.
The financial situation is apparently even worse than previously reported.
Incidentally; what would this mean for the (what feels like) millions of student flats that have been built in city centres up and down the nation? Are some developers going to be worried?
Could they be repurposed as city centre accomodation to help with the property shortage we currently have 🤔
I watched a video this morning from someone who goes around the country looking at near-empty shopping centres. He bemoans this change; and I can see why. Change is bad, and empty shops are mostly soulless and depressing.
But I cannot see why this cannot be used as a regeneration: change shops into residential accommodation - which many smaller ones were in the first place, anyway. But I fear councils are afraid of change, and will miss the business rates (which they are not getting anyway if the units are empty).
In Cambridge, there are plans for the emptying Grafton Centre to become a life sciences hub; and the nearby Beehive Centre to become... something I don't quite understand.
Councils need to become braver.
I agree with this in principle - indeed very strongly agree. This is currently being done in Nottingham with the Broadmarsh regeneration (although in that case they have completely demolished and rebuilt as the old shopping centre/car park/bus station were not fit fo purpose at all) and is being done in Newark with the old M&S site.
My only concern with this is it has an adverse effect on other businesses if the council are not clear about rules they are enforcing/not enforcing.
So in Newark, Castlegate has always had large numbers of pubs and bars. Recently some of the retail properties have been converted to residential and those new residents have now forced the council to ban live music from some of the pubs because of the noise. These are from establishments that have been very well regarded for their live music for decades (certainly since I was a youth). This further damages what is left of the town centre businesses.
It'll be interesting to see how the Broadmarsh Centre redevelopment works. I used to know it fairly well, and it felt there was noting but shops as you walked from the station to the Victoria Centre.
On the university funding row, regardless of whether we have some dubious “universities” or not it would be politically bad if the Tories let them go bust.
Surely the Tories get this? Totemic of a broken country? One where they have been in government breaking it?
Bernard Ingham on Tony Benn applies here(*).
Once you add those who think that there are too many universities full stop and those who want to cut immigration, whatever the consequences, it's a lot of Today's Conservative Party.
(*)For those who don't know the anecdote, Ingham was Benn's press secretary, and was asked why the minister had said something. His response was that the minister had said whatever it was because he was stark, staring mad.
Universities just need to live within their means. We dont bail out businesses who cant, so why bail out universities ?
On the university funding row, regardless of whether we have some dubious “universities” or not it would be politically bad if the Tories let them go bust.
Surely the Tories get this? Totemic of a broken country? One where they have been in government breaking it?
Bernard Ingham on Tony Benn applies here(*).
Once you add those who think that there are too many universities full stop and those who want to cut immigration, whatever the consequences, it's a lot of Today's Conservative Party.
(*)For those who don't know the anecdote, Ingham was Benn's press secretary, and was asked why the minister had said something. His response was that the minister had said whatever it was because he was stark, staring mad.
Universities just need to live within their means. We dont bail out businesses who cant, so why bail out universities ?
I was about to write something about the increase in non-academic staff over time, and the universities increasing the size of their own administration to match their income - but it does actually appear that they’ve been cutting these in recent years, around 15% down from 2019. There’s still nearly as many admins as academics though.
When talking about admin staff we need to be careful - remember one of the issues in the NHS is a lack of admin staff so expensive consultants have to do their own paperwork inefficiently
On the university funding row, regardless of whether we have some dubious “universities” or not it would be politically bad if the Tories let them go bust.
Surely the Tories get this? Totemic of a broken country? One where they have been in government breaking it?
Bernard Ingham on Tony Benn applies here(*).
Once you add those who think that there are too many universities full stop and those who want to cut immigration, whatever the consequences, it's a lot of Today's Conservative Party.
(*)For those who don't know the anecdote, Ingham was Benn's press secretary, and was asked why the minister had said something. His response was that the minister had said whatever it was because he was stark, staring mad.
Universities just need to live within their means. We dont bail out businesses who cant, so why bail out universities ?
On the university funding row, regardless of whether we have some dubious “universities” or not it would be politically bad if the Tories let them go bust.
Surely the Tories get this? Totemic of a broken country? One where they have been in government breaking it?
Bernard Ingham on Tony Benn applies here(*).
Once you add those who think that there are too many universities full stop and those who want to cut immigration, whatever the consequences, it's a lot of Today's Conservative Party.
(*)For those who don't know the anecdote, Ingham was Benn's press secretary, and was asked why the minister had said something. His response was that the minister had said whatever it was because he was stark, staring mad.
Universities just need to live within their means. We dont bail out businesses who cant, so why bail out universities ?
I was about to write something about the increase in non-academic staff over time, and the universities increasing the size of their own administration to match their income - but it does actually appear that they’ve been cutting these in recent years, around 15% down from 2019. There’s still nearly as many admins as academics though.
When talking about admin staff we need to be careful - remember one of the issues in the NHS is a lack of admin staff so expensive consultants have to do their own paperwork inefficiently
Non-academic staff includes a lot more than admin. Lab technicians, caterers, security, marketing (to meet the Government's demands), and so on.
On the university funding row, regardless of whether we have some dubious “universities” or not it would be politically bad if the Tories let them go bust.
Surely the Tories get this? Totemic of a broken country? One where they have been in government breaking it?
Bernard Ingham on Tony Benn applies here(*).
Once you add those who think that there are too many universities full stop and those who want to cut immigration, whatever the consequences, it's a lot of Today's Conservative Party.
(*)For those who don't know the anecdote, Ingham was Benn's press secretary, and was asked why the minister had said something. His response was that the minister had said whatever it was because he was stark, staring mad.
Universities just need to live within their means. We dont bail out businesses who cant, so why bail out universities ?
Incidentally, your second sentence - we bailed out the banks...
Comments
(This one was probably military, so the pilot himself would have had little choice but to do what he was told to do).
But if the IRGC think he was behind this, he's likely to suffer an unfortunate accident himself.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/627597.stm
Are UK wages too low, (and taxes too high) in order for the full commercialisation of student loans and finance to take place ?
The main source of UK debt right now is property but that does mean you live, or at least have an asset here.
If universities could charge what they like, and the loans fully commercial (No repayment threshold) would students flock en masse to the USA or Aus post graduation as staying in the UK wages would simply be too low for realistic repayments of the 100k student loan debt on top of rents or whatever ?
Internally it'd surely send everyone to London or Cambridge new developments even more then is the case now ?
Pilots call this get-there-itis, and resisting it is specifically trained on command courses. It’s very common in charter and VIP operations, and obviously the military where you do what you’re told or else. Airlines are mostly very good with it, and accept that sometimes a Captain needs to use his judgement to deviate from the planned trip, even if it costs money and causes inconvenience.
See also the death of the president of Poland in 2010. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smolensk_air_disaster a classic example, where they flew into a thunderstorm because the President had important presidenty things to do, and diverting elsewhere was going to be frowned upon by the top brass.
Another one was the helicopter that crashed into a crane in Vauxhall in 2013 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vauxhall_helicopter_crash He was on his way to pick up a customer and get caught out by deteriorating weather, but pressed on anyway rather than diverting until it was too late - even when the customer was happy to reschedule.
But I cannot see why this cannot be used as a regeneration: change shops into residential accommodation - which many smaller ones were in the first place, anyway. But I fear councils are afraid of change, and will miss the business rates (which they are not getting anyway if the units are empty).
In Cambridge, there are plans for the emptying Grafton Centre to become a life sciences hub; and the nearby Beehive Centre to become... something I don't quite understand.
Councils need to become braver.
You've got to admire his legal team. Even Donald Trump hasn't dragged things out for this long and he's had a much more
corruptfavourable judicial system to work with.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cw4478wnjdpo
Instead of moaning about the death of the high street reinvigorate it. Pedestrianise them and repurpose the buildings. Newcastle council under Nick Forbes seems to be quite good at that, there are a couple of life sciences hub. Other councils, like Durham and Gateshead, just wanted to blame central govt and did little aside, in the case of Durham, their favoured two or three towns.
Surely the Tories get this? Totemic of a broken country? One where they have been in government breaking it?
Then once you have decided which part of the overgrown shopping estates (one example, Middlesborough has 4 and none of them are doing well) you then need to work out how to solve it. Very cheap rents as the government proposes is 1 bit, knocking some down to introduce green space as Stockton has done is another and a lot can become housing.
But don't assume you can convert your average shopping centre or office block into housing - it doesn't make a pleasant space to live. There is someone in New York who makes their money converting old office blocks into accommodation - 1970s office blocks are just about convertable, the more modern massive open floors are not suitable as Windows don't exist. A windowless room is fine for a cheaper hotel in London for a day or 2 - it's no use for somewhere people permanently live.
Yes it’s impressive to watch them flying at low level in poor weather, and they have to be trained to fly only on instruments rather than looking outside - but it’s blooming dangerous, and when it goes wrong it goes very wrong indeed. Modern aircraft have extensive terrain databases and avoidance technology which should prevent CFIT (controlled flight into terrain, yes they even have an acromym for it because it happens that often) accidents, but like every tool it needs to be used properly.
Once you add those who think that there are too many universities full stop and those who want to cut immigration, whatever the consequences, it's a lot of Today's Conservative Party.
(*)For those who don't know the anecdote, Ingham was Benn's press secretary, and was asked why the minister had said something. His response was that the minister had said whatever it was because he was stark, staring mad.
As always the question is where the money is going…
the cost of implementing post-Brexit border arrangements will cost at least £4.7bn after repeated delays in implementing new controls, according to a report by Parliament’s spending watchdog
This is of course compounded by shockingly poor management and lack of oversight at the governance level. But the government manage HE almost as badly as they manage schools and that's saying something.
It’s one of many cultural differences between military and civvie thinking.
NEW THREAD
My only concern with this is it has an adverse effect on other businesses if the council are not clear about rules they are enforcing/not enforcing.
So in Newark, Castlegate has always had large numbers of pubs and bars. Recently some of the retail properties have been converted to residential and those new residents have now forced the council to ban live music from some of the pubs because of the noise. These are from establishments that have been very well regarded for their live music for decades (certainly since I was a youth). This further damages what is left of the town centre businesses.
For a four year degree that totalled around about 18k but I was able to pay it all off before I was 30.
That "9%" extra tax hurt a lot whilst I had it coming out my income. I was glad to clear it shortly after I bought my first home.
What we have here is a government U turn causing horrible financial problems for universities. Given that government actions are the cause of the problem, "just live with it" isn't entirely on.
Another data point- Buckingham University, which is entirely private, currently charges 25k for two year degrees. One assumes that, as a business, they aren't wasting money. In any case, they mostly (only?) run the sort of subjects that are cheap to teach.
Government either needs to free universities from its policies - tuition fee caps, international student restrictions - or fund them properly to meet those caps. Saying "you must do LOTS whilst we give you little" only works for a short time until the money runs out. Same with councils.
Are Tories really that bad at business? Or maths for that matter? Whatever happened to them?
https://www.hesa.ac.uk/news/17-01-2023/sb264-higher-education-staff-statistics
https://www.theguardian.com/education/article/2024/may/19/ex-ministers-warn-uk-universities-will-go-bust-without-higher-fees-or-funding
...Last week, the Migration Advisory Committee reported that the graduate visa, which allows international students to stay in the UK for up to three years after completing a course, should be left alone. But the prime minister is said to be still considering further restrictions to bring international student numbers down...
A government which actively encouraged universities to recruit more overseas students, as a substitute for keeping funding in line with inflation, is kicking that prop away.
A party which is little more than an over sixties lobby group is not fit for government.
I wondered about mentioning the echoes with what's happening to councils. Lumber them with the costs of social care whilst taking away their ability to increase revenue. Then, as social care costs move towards 100% of possible income, getting cross as everything else is cut in desperation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YR5pmC0innQ
It'll be interesting to see how the Broadmarsh Centre redevelopment works. I used to know it fairly well, and it felt there was noting but shops as you walked from the station to the Victoria Centre.
The current clampdown is for “ election year “.
After that with social care imploding and other sectors badly effected the visa requirements will be changed .