AIBU to think that for £3,000 per term...

[OneHandFlapping]

DS should get more than 40 hours of lectures and 24 hours of tutorials at university?

If he went to a private school, he would get 25 hours of lessons a week for a similar sum.

Why exactly are we now paying unis such massive tuition fees? I imagine they make a profit on students now, which seems wrong.

Okay my interesting thought. If Scotland votes Yes in the referendum will that mean that UK students can then be educated there as EU students rather than the present cost?

If Scotland votes Yes in the referendum will that mean that UK students can then be educated there as EU students rather than the present cost?

I don't think you quite get the point -- a pity, after several very informed posters have spent time & energy trying to explain.

A single undergraduate at a British University costs at least £9k a year to educate (in my Humanities subject, UGs cost pretty much bang on the current top fee, in Medicine, it's nearer £15k). That's what it costs.

Before, English & Welsh taxpayers were paying for it. It still costs £9k pa and some.

80% of the public funding for University teaching has been withdrawn, cut, taken away, axed, nada. It still costs £9k pa and some. The remaining 20% subsidises the STEM subjects (science & technology).

So now, the cost falls to the student, to pay back when s/he graduates & earns more than £21,000 pa.

See this site for what a really good deal the loan system is -- better than the current one, a far, far better for part-time students, who can now get loans (previously they couldn't).
www.moneysavingexpert.com/students/student-loans-guide

I has always cost what it cost: the cost is now apoportioned to each student, rather than paid out of general taxation revenue.

That is a POLITICAL decision, not a matter of universities being run badly, or inefficiently, or staff not knowing what they're doing.

Work out who the "enemy" is if you don't like paying University fees! Clue: it's not the universities.

I work for a university and can assure you that they are not making a profit. The fees charged barely cover costs. Calling them tuition fees is also a bit misleading. Think about all the other overheads that need to be paid for e.g staffing (admin, domestic services, IT to name a few). There also needs to be investment in services and resources. So there is a lot more to it than you might immediately think

dh is a uni lecturer and the way i understood it was the yearly fees for attending uni haven't actually increased, the government subsidy has been cut, meaning the students themselves now pick up the bill for the shortfall. uni's do not make a profit.

TheCollieDog - you were incredibly rude! Yes I do understand, and actually have been saving for years for my kids to go to Uni as I knew the system was unsustainable.

However in the case of Scotland, their funding system, and charging higher fees to English students (as opposed to eg. French) could only be justified under EU law because England and Scotland are the same country; if we separate then from my understanding there is no reason they can fund English students differently, although they may have to exploit a loop hole such as the one Ireland used to charge a supplementary fee.

Universities need to get better at fund raising, and ensure that their "product" is highly thought of; that means not devaluing it. I have heard horror stories of lectures being pressurised to inflate grades, and to overlook unethical behaviour. I would not want my children to waste their time at such Universities. On the other hand not every high skilled career needs an Oxbridge style degree, and for some roles degrees from other places give a much better training.

On the subject of fund raising, Oxford and Cambridge have always built a much closer relationship with their graduates than many other places. The University where I obtained my first degree was very dismissive when I suggested it might raise more funds if it invited its alumni back 5 or 10 years after graduation rather than 20 years (even charging for the privilege as Oxford colleges usually do now). I do remember talking to a Canadian graduate who explained how even a small annual donation from her old University raised a lot of money, due to everyone paying and the large number of graduates.

The big problem is that maybe even £15,000 a year is too little for a degree. I have also found students from other countries who were horrified that our government subsidised the production of graduates, and then at the end of their studies there were not suitable careers for them.

"I have also found students from other countries who were horrified that our government subsidised the production of graduates"

Most of the students from other countries that I know have been really comfortable on the grants that their government gives them to study overseas.

Weeps at "getting rid of superfluous buildings", having spent yet another day crammed into a tiny office with 3 other people, half the size of the previous office I had to myself in my last (non-University) job.

mummytime
In the US, government funded student debt runs to trillions of dollars - its not just the UK that is kicking the can down the road.

whats this about distance learning production lines? if it wasnt for distance learning a lot of people wouldnt get degrees, and mostly they do get to talk about stuff with other people, the same way we are discussing stuff now?

and with open uni I have had online tutorials and used virtual classroom software to talk to other people in my tutor group and my tutor etc.....

nailak, the quality of distance learning depends on the university's approach. OU are top-class professionals in the area, and I am not surpised that they deliver fabulous distance learning courses. However, I have worked in universities that had a strong conviction that distance learning was a cheap and quick way to make some cash. These places think they can do distance learning by simply making existing lecturers write up some manuals, stick them online and open a couple discussion forums. These kinds of courses make everyone miserable: The students are not engaged as the learning environment is poorly set up. I have seen courses where hardly anyone contributed to the online discussions and precious few showed up for online tutorials. The academics hate it because they are saddled up with a load of boring and unrewarding work. The department does not make that much money in the end as academics end up doing essentially monkey work instead of applying for grant money. But the department and university management remains deeply convinced that this is the way to do distance learning.

Distance learning costs when it is done properly. The OU cost 5K for a degree. This is far less than traditional degree and the learning materials at the OU is top notch. For some courses the OU has summer schools or tutorial days where students get to interact with staff. I feel its sad that the OU has lost all governant funding.

I know I'm going back somewhat in the discussion but this:

And LeggyBlonde, any private commercial enterprise with overheads of £40k per head would soon be in administration (unless it was a bank)

Struck me as utter nonsense. All law firms work on the premise that to be of any use a fee earner needs to bill 3 x their annual salary per year - a third to pay for them self, a third to pay their share of infrastructure costs and a third as profit for the partners.

And op tuition really follows the same principle as the nhs prescription charge - you are aware the market value of every drug you are ever prescribed isn't equal to the prescription charge, right?

Universities were warned that tuition fees, especially with the huge hike to £9k a year, would turn students (and their parents) into consumers. My Mother's former boss, who had been a Permanent Secretary in Whitehall, told them this when he took up a Vice-Chancellorship on retirement.

I know universities haven't got any more money - tuition fees are barely replacing the money the government has withdrawn. But the senior management should have seen this coming. Instead they were too busy inflating their salaries and getting excited about turning themselves into businesses. Short-sighted feckers.

It's amusing, in a bleak kind of way, to see the academics on this thread competently marshalling evidence and making coherent arguments which is what academics are trained to do, after all! and to see all this accumulated knowledge having absolutely no perceptible effect whatever on the OP.

Because if she "imagines" that universities are making a profit on students, then obviously they must be making a profit on students. Right? Right. Don't let those pesky facts get in the way of a good moan.

I think I need now.

Could someone please point me in the direction of these superfluous buildings? I would love to have a room available for lectures that have to be rescheduled in times of flu epidemices or bad weather (I made it in during the snows last year, students didn't), also not to have to step into the corridor whenever my colleague has a counselling session with a student, and not to be expected to do all the unavoidable overtime at home because there is no space in the office. Even the admissions and pastoral officers have to share around ours, meaning that colleagues either get to earwig very sensitive information or spend a lot of their time stepping into the corridors. The OP says there are superfluous buildings. Could she please send some of them our way?

cory the OP isn't interested in facts or information from those of us working in HE. And if we point this pout, we're called "impolite."

The OP (and some other posters here) are being VVU.

Could I just post to say that I have found this thread very interesting and informative, and to thank some very well informed posters for making it so.

Hoping I'm one of them... thanks for this, PropositionJoe. I think universities need to get the message out that all of us are trying to put across here.