UK universities in trouble - why not add VAT to tuition?

[80smonster]

UK universities are in trouble, apparently many could close, why not charge VAT on tuition fees (for those that are financially viable)? Bridget Phillipson says they are autonomous institutions and won’t be given a public bail out - they should rely on their own resources:
https://www.theguardian.com/education/article/2024/aug/09/english-universities-face-autumn-tipping-point-as-financial-crisis-looms

YABU - don’t add the VAT
YANBU - add the VAT

One of the advantages of training and working as a medic is exactly that. You move around a lot and see all segments of society.

Without being outing - money can go further in some of these towns as I found when I lived and worked there.

This is about uni graduates and how the sector can be remodelled to work for them. A uni graduate from Gateshead or Berwick should (SHOULD) be able to command a decent salary in a Newcastle role, enough to pay rent in a houseshare, commute in and save a deposit.

Degree is about time to think and personal development so squeezing into two years won't be beneficial.
Problem for parents at the moment is that they have to pay maintenance costs for uni and pay house deposits so kids still dependent whereas parents could be independent of their parents from 18 in a job or uni.
Charging vat would mean government would give it back to uni in a grant for unis
Extra 20 percent on loans would make cost of uni too much risk which is why can't raise tuition
So we cant risk vat on unis. It's different from private schools as they are not necessary whereas graduates are.

Tuition fees would be the same but maintenance etc would be 1 year less and time out of full time work would be less too.
It would take the overall cost from circa £70k to circa £45k. And an extra year to commence full time worm

On the other hand - less time to have fun at uni and mature.

How is a year of maintenance £25k less?

Without being outing - money can go further in some of these towns as I found when I lived and worked there.

If you're working in the first place or earning a professional salary.

You don't seem to appreciate that for many families, saving for a child's education is just not possible. And culturally is not the norm.

Going to university isn't the norm so if a young person chooses that path there are far more barriers and obstacles you navigate- culturally, financially, educationally......

According to gov.uk, tuition fees for an accelerated course is just over £11k. Max maintenance is £13k (living away from parents in London). So that is £48k for 2 years (approximately).

@newmummycwharf1 The IFS did research on grad salaries. Doctors get the best return on their degrees. They all get jobs in their field (yes, I know some issues right now) but overall they do well.

Then they looked at Economics. Salaries way higher for LSE grads - Wolverhampton at the bottom. Significantly lower. Therefore Wolverhampton grads are not getting value for money but won’t be paying much back in loans either. So does this matter? Uni employs people teaching this subject, tariff is presumably low and no doubt deprived dc attend the uni! But for what outcome? Who is actually benefiting? Mostly the lecturers. I think some of these dc at low tariff unis really would be better off working and doing part time courses. Or, if they have great A levels, go somewhere much better.

Neither do I believe dc should be going to uni if they get less than CCC at A level. I don’t care who they are! Deprived or not. We somehow see HE as a social service. It should not be. It needs to drive the country forward whether through research, working for employers or working for the (bloated) state. We need to be clear about what a grad job actually is and what it’s not. Then adjust training and degrees accordingly. Just letting unis expand is no longer feasible or affordable. They have highly paid executives. They are paid to sort out their enterprises. As in business, if you don’t you merge or close.

Talking about university graduates - so they have gone to uni and they are in a graduate role. Of course they are working.

For the parents - yes they should save for their kids. For those on low incomes (threshold determined by government), they should get grants - not loans. Said that multiple times.

So if you are talking about parents without any work or minimal/casual work - their kids would get grants and graduate without debt. That would also remove some of the barriers to aiming high and aspiration from those communities- which is what we all want

Completely agree with this. Uni is for academic pursuit and some specific vocational training. And I agree medics do well (relatively) - the BMA rates are the same nationally, so whilst the money may not stretch far in London, it is a bounty in the North

The problem is employers now ask for a degree for everything - even when one is not required for the role and pay peanuts to someone that has gone and gotten a degree. That needs to stop!

Neither do I believe dc should be going to uni if they get less than CCC at A level. I don’t care who they are! Deprived or not.

Do you believe in contextual offers?

So if you are talking about parents without any work or minimal/casual work - their kids would get grants and graduate without debt. That would also remove some of the barriers to aiming high and aspiration from those communities- which is what we all want

Introducing grants is not suddenly going to make young people aspire to go to university or apply to an elite university. It's not that simple.

There’s no reason unis couldn’t merge. Durham has a campus outside Middlesbrough. (Is it at Stockton?)

No they don't and haven't for many years.

It won't but it is reduces the barrier. There are many challenges and barriers. Whilst in med school, I helped lead widening participation programmes. So very aware of difficulties people from undeserved communities (at least in London inner cities) face aspiring to these sorts of futures. And the barriers will be different in various communities but money is a big one. Culture is another

Nevertheless - in simple terms - we want anyone with the academic ability and interest to maximise their potential. For some, that will be via University. Everyone contributes to that goal - government (via policy and investment), society (via taxes), parents (by careful planning of their resources). That is not where we are as a country but we can get there

Some unis are already closing courses and some will sadly close since government will not bail them out. Foreign students may decide they are better valued elsewhere given the racist attitudes that seem to be pervasive (even if government policy changed). So change is coming whether we like it or not

Yes, and the courses they close will be the ones that are not making money. These are not necessarily the courses people on MN think are "useless" degrees.

“Neither do I believe dc should be going to uni if they get less than CCC at A level. I don’t care who they are! Deprived or not. “

So bright people aren’t allowed to have shit happen to them, illness,etc.

I thought we’d established tuition fees wouldn’t change.

It does - based on the government website. Nevertheless, there are savings to be made by accelerating but there is a trade-off in maturity and experience

The courses will not necessarily be cheaper to run if they are condensed into two years. More staff may need to be employed to do that and not just academic staff.

@wombat15 I think too many people think a degree is a continuation of school. It is in some countries but here it’s meant to be a much more in depth experience. Two years will seem second rate. There’s a reason Buckingham University doesn’t feature in the top 100 unis here. Students should use uni time wisely to explore new sports, interest clubs and develop soft skills. Spend time working or volunteering. Apply for internships. Travel. 2 years will seem degree “lite” when compared with rigorous 3 or 4 year courses, so might not be valued. If it was a great idea, it would have been done.

Yes, intensive courses will not be popular with students and given they will involve extra staff will probably loose rather than make money for universities.

And the universities are left with a c. 6k shortfall for delivering the same tuition. Plus they will need to hire more staff to do the work undergraduate teaching staff currently do in the vacation periods.

I think posters with their ideas for savings or how things should be done are completely underestimating how much universities have already looked at and have been cutting costs. They have already made a lot of redundancies too. I appreciate some people don't think it is a problem if they shut because "there are too many" but the great majority have already been there under a different name for decades and if they shut it will have a huge impact on the economy not only in terms of unemployment but there will be a reduction in skilled workers.

@wombat15 They were there as teacher training colleges, colleges of HE, or colleges of agriculture etc. The plate glass unis were 50s and 60s. The polys were 60s. Yes some art colleges were older but they all became unis from 1994, hence the name. After ww2 we only had 22 universities. Clearly we don’t want to go back to that but well in excess of 122 is too many. The middle sector for advanced learning is not big enough and part time study has been squeezed. I would like to see study realigned to work and part time. So apprenticeships but back to a job with day release. Then employer and employee work together on education and training.

Not entirely true.
I work at an ex-poly but we trace our roots back to the 1870's.

We're not some Johnny come lately brand new university teaching irrelevant courses.