Why do our most prestigious and wealthiest Unis accept so many international students ?

Cambridge is due to record a £53m deficit for the last year, with an internal report claiming that “there is no clear understanding of what has happened” to the University’s finances.

Isn’t it a bit odd that no one knows what’s happened to the finances? I mean surely there are records of investments, and income and outgoings from land and property, plus annual outgoings for the running of the university?

The problem with using Cambridge as an example is that it is no way representative of the UK higher education system as a whole.

You said that your were "continuing from the suggestion that it's not clear why universities are broke" which does imply that you think because Cambridge doesn't know, nobody else does. The fact is that the funding model for Cambridge is very different to other universities so how things work there and what they do and don't know is irrelevant to other universities.

You can't extrapolate. I didn't extrapolate; I said, "I note that Cambridge doesn't understand why it's broke, it's unclear where its money has gone". I also stated I was looking at this university because I'd previously referred to their published tutorial-teaching costs.

One of the issues set out in a historical analysis of universities is that the UK went for a "uniquely expensive" model of expanding higher education after the 1940s - the Oxbridge medieval model of the Studium Generale was taken as the blueprint for all universities, including the redbricks and plate glass universities, and later the 1992+ polytechnics when converted to universities.

Even before the First World War, universities (other than Oxbridge, which was different) were largely funded by either the state or local authorities, fees making up well under half of universities' income, unusually between a quarter and a third. The University Grants Committee from 1919 carried this pattern on until 1989, and its abolition.

So the complexity discussed, the running of an institution which is essentially not just a community but a town of 20,000 or 30,000 people, as set out above, arises from not having different layers of institutions, doing and attempting different things. In that sense the UK is an outlier in international higher education terms.

Other developed countries appear to have a far greater variety of universities or tertiary education facilities; in the USA for example, the Ivy League pattern and campus idea is not replicated across the entire sector. It looks as if part of the financial issue arises from trying to run a champagne university structure (with all the elements mentioned above) on beer funding for a massively expanded student body?

Furthermore, the prestige of the residential model, as shown by the campus universities, meant that universities not only had to pay for a great expansion of university staff, and for expensive laboratories and libraries, but also for student accommodation and social, welfare and sporting facilities. As many critics have pointed out, this was a luxury version of the mass university, reflecting the image and prestige of Oxford and Cambridge.

www.historyandpolicy.org/policy-papers/papers/university-fees-in-historical-perspective

I don't think that Cambridge finances work in the same way as other universities as their money mostly comes from investments which obviously haven't done well recently. You can't extrapolate and say that because they aren't clear on what has happened nobody is.

A levels are more specialised that the basic US school qualifications and, according to the British Council, are similar to the American Advanced Placement courses which are themselves equivalent to first-year courses of America's four-year bachelor's degrees.
If American students go to a university in Scotland (most of which I believe have a four year course) they do a first, more general, year which would make up for any shortcomings. The Scottish system is more like that in the US and American students are possibly better fitted to their courses than the three year degrees which are more common in the rest of the UK.

@LondonLawyer I appreciate that you acknowledge the complexity but you also haven't been particularly receptive to people challenging your perceptions.

I also think you can't use Cambridge to represent the whole sector.
Most universities know exactly what has happened to their finances. In fact, my Vice Chancellor is currently delivering talks to staff outlining our financial situation in great detail. And i know the same is happening elsewhere.

I started this sub-conversation by saying, "It also makes me think university finances are a very complicated issue. Why are they all broke?" So the kick-off was that it is a very complicated issue. Cue several posts about how people don't understand it's a very complicated issue...

However, continuing from the suggestion that it's not clear why universities are broke, and continuing with Cambridge as that's where I took the initial teaching figures from, I note that Cambridge doesn't understand why it's broke, it's unclear where its money has gone.

Cambridge is due to record a £53m deficit for the last year, with an internal report claiming that “there is no clear understanding of what has happened” to the University’s finances.

“The Board has sought explanations for the deficit over and above the explanations applicable to all Higher Education institutions. However, worryingly this has not been fully traced to source, with the result that there is no clear understanding of what has happened, or why,” the report states.

The board laid part of the blame for the projected deficit on a major increase in administrative staff since 2016. The number of non-academic contracts rose 29 per cent to 5,875 over that period, it said.

You didn’t deserve it. And again, my apologies.

No worries @Weepixie

Just to add - I’m very sorry my post sounds so snippy Serenity.

I didn’t say it was. In fact I didn’t comment at all except to say the figures I found quoted 1in 6 are American

Anything else is on you and the original poster.

Exactly. We all understand that.

So it’s puzzling that so many otherwise switched on and intelligent people can’t grasp the same thing about universities.

And just because I’ve been a Latin a hospital, I wouldn’t presume to tell experienced medicos that their informed knowledge and experience about the NHS is rubbish, because they differ from my occasional encounters with a doctor.

But the equivalent happens on so many HE threads on MN.

The figures I found quoted 1 in 6 are American
But that doesn't mean they got their place purely because they were wealthy and American.

The figures I found quoted 1 in 6 are American.

Haven't read the full thread. But from way way over the world, it's the same the world over. International students = big income for the unis.

Lots of parents have some or all of those things!

Int students pay more

A friend worked in a university admissions department and said that they had certain courses which were purely designed to attract rich international students with spaces filled completely by them. This was a red brick uni which had incorporated some other higher educations institutions into it and the courses created weren't at the main campus or were they things that that university would traditionally have offered. Like others have said, it subsidises everyone else.

Nevertheless, parents are perfectly entitled to eg have an opinion about the quality of feedback on an essay from a TA or Associate Lecturer and can see for themselves when it is rubbish and feel aggrieved on behalf of their child.

Not sure what this has to do with university finances or international students but if a student has a complaint about the quality of teaching or feedback there are policies and procedures in place should the student wish to complain.

Unless you also have a PhD, have taught undergraduates, are very well acquainted with the subject your (adult) child is studying, and have an honest picture of the extent to which your child engaged with the module and support available whilst writing the essay, can you really ‘see for yourself’ that feedback is rubbish?

I don't doubt that most people have a weak grasp of the organisational structure of a university.

Nevertheless, parents are perfectly entitled to eg have an opinion about the quality of feedback on an essay from a TA or Associate Lecturer and can see for themselves when it is rubbish and feel aggrieved on behalf of their child.

@whyschoolwhy I couldn't agree more.
It's probably why I get quite defensive of the HE sector. I know that the vast majority of staff go above and beyond for the students.
We just happen to be doing it in very challenging circumstances.

I suppose what I find particularly grating is the assumption that is often present on mumsnet threads about HE, that universities are screwing over UK students and only care about money. The institution where I work is very far from perfect and there are frequently decisions made that leave me tearing my hair out, but the one thing I can say with absolute certainty is that the needs of students are always taken into consideration - in fact they are always prioritised over everything else. And tbh, that's UK students in particular (I say this as someone who works mostly with overseas students).