So uni fees are going to increase?

[nearlylovemyusername]

University sector calls on Labour to raise tuition fees to ‘stabilise the ship’ (ft.com)

Given paywall, the essence it this:

"One former university vice-chancellor said the fact that Labour had acknowledged the sector was “in crisis” indicated that Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer and Phillipson, who have not ruled out a tuition fee increase, were likely to act.

“The short-term pain of putting up fees could be blamed on the Tory inheritance . . . and then traded against a transition to a better deal for young people, which Labour can deliver before next general election,” he said."

So it won't be limited by VAT on PS, uni fees will be up, potentially significantly and repayments for higher earning grads will go up much more - this is what artical says.

I don’t want to digress too much but to stay competitive internationally speaking I really think we do have to make it a prime Government aim to keep & incentivise young talent, across the board (whoever their parents are should not matter in any shape or form). I read the foreign press and there is real acknowledgment of a higher skills shortage in other countries and the importance of nurturing the young.

I am not personally comfortable with a whole lot of unis going bankrupt and academics losing their jobs potentially, just like I am not comfortable with a whole lot of private school teachers losing their jobs either. I really feel very passionately that we must as a society respect teaching and learning and thought, as a matter of principle.

I was reading that Mossbourne (highly accomplished Sixth Form) in London benefit from careers input from one of the London livery companies and I would like for all poorer children to have that kind of opportunity. I think often poorer children are misguided by either school or parents and end up in debt following a wrong uni course, and that should be prevented, at all cost. Careers and uni guidance is vital. I paid for my DC to do aptitude tests, for example. I think all children should have that kind of opportunity.

" so they are definitely buying those places."

No, they aren't because they get the same offers as UK students, they just pay higher prices.

They do bring in extra funding and subsidise the UK places though, so we should really be grateful. They also don't get the places at the expense of UK students.

I'd also add that the US system is very biased towards socio-economic advantage, something like 70% of Harvard students come from the top 20% of household incomes.

This isn't against the students that get in but, the academic scores, extra curriculars and community work needed to develop a full profile for application is much harder to achieve if you don't come from a relatively advantaged background.

What about language proficiency? There is definitely a problem with foreign students meeting the requirements for language but not being able to follow lectures.

Not at the top unis.

You have to have a IELTS 7 at least to get in, and they can remove your place ( having charged you the full fee) if they think you have been fraudulent on application.

https://www.varsity.co.uk/news/26848#:~:text=For%202024%2C%20environmental%20impact%20and,is%20for%20governance%20at%2037.9.

Yes thank you @boys3. Governance sounds poor.

They will need to look at what Manchester and Imperial and MIT and Berkeley are doing to get better scores next time. Hopefully a big wake up call for them to stop dithering!

I do not know how I feel about them having to build a green endowment fund vs aiming to get poorer students in/widening participation? Is there a conflict?

“I'd also add that the US system is very biased towards socio-economic advantage, something like 70% of Harvard students come from the top 20% of household incomes.“

I think Harvard are smart. They let the top ones in who are rich and pay top bucks and then those rich people leave cash to the uni when they die which then supports the poorer students getting in. You really need a cross section for it to work long term and for the uni to stay at the top of its game. Rich people open doors and help with careers etc as well.

And because of their cash, Harvard is removed from too much Government interference as well. Which means they can put the long term survival and competitiveness of the uni first, without politicians constantly meddling in their affairs for their own goals.

Or, it continues privilege, whilst they get money they don't have the "best" students.

Harvard does get government interference, see the Supreme Court case from last year.

Suprisngly those who complained about affirmative action were not so keen to see the data that the "affirmative action" for white students which is called legacy/deands list, which means that 35% of white student's wouldn't have got in on their academic merits, is a lot larger than that for black/Hispanic students.

But then, this hasn't been ordered to be stopped by the government.

@alladinzane - are you referring to the court case brought by Asian students for discrimination?

In the real world it isn’t all about pure academic achievement. It’s about movers and shakers. Plenty of rich kids are inherently bright but lazy because they are rich and did not work as hard at school. Being rich can also work against you. Parents not insisting on hours of homework etc. One would assume Harvard admissions do actually know what they are doing?

It wasn't brought by Asian students, it was paid for by a right wing group on their behalf.

Funnily enough the SC didn't rule that legacy, which advantages white students incredibly over all others, had to be changed.

"In the real world it isn’t all about pure academic achievement. It’s about movers and shakers. "

Right, and a degree from Harvard gives people a credibility they wouldn't have had without it. Harvard sets its academic levels for people who aren't legacy higher.

". Plenty of rich kids are inherently bright but lazy because they are rich and did not work as hard at school."

And as the evidence shows they still get into Harvard despite that, however its no longer allowed to make allowances for other things.

". Being rich can also work against you."

Rarely.

Harvard also give some priority to atheletes, Children of staff, donors as well? So if legacy admissions goes, then the rest will have to as well?

Obviously it is very different here. There are no rowing scholarships to Oxbridge are there? Although we are seeing them now in some comps in London, which is fascinating.

In any event, if legacy admissions are challenged further in the US, it won’t be a problem for Harvard as they have already amassed a 50 billion endowment which will just keep growing anyway. It will be more of an issue for smaller players trying to get there too so that they can then support those scholarships.

Just like positive discrimination is no longer legal, less of an issue for those institutions that have already managed to build a diverse student body. Talented children from ethnic minorities also do not want to feel out of place so to some extent, the unis need to get to a certain level to attract those applications in the first place.

International fees for most courses in the uk are £40k plus per year.

what is your source for that figure@Araminta1003

HESA data published just last month as I’ve both linked earlier in the thread and provided a breakdown for every Uni shows international tuition fees as just under £11 billion for the most recent year reported. HESA also publish detailed international student numbers for each individual university. If most courses were as per your figure it would be upwards of £25 billion tuition fee income from international students alone.

some courses at the elite end undoubtedly do charge that £40k (or more), but at the overall level?

However if I’m missing something more than happy to see that.

The staff and athletes aren't the same as overwhelmingly favouring one ethnic grouping over another.

35% of white undergraduates, is more than the entire number of black undergraduates.

I wouldn't call the schools in London that are getting students into ivies standard comprehensives either, NCS and others are highly selective.

Oh I'd also add, that at the OFSTED outstanding North London school where I was in charge of uni applications before my current job, there is utterly no way we'd have had any sort of budget for flying in experts for US university applications as NSC etc seem to have been.

With the Tories there appear to be some schools that have special allowances/access to funds/the ability to spend money differently than others.

There is a state school famous for its Oxbridge applications success in South London which is a great example of this. It spends a good whack of its pupil premium money on specialist Oxbridge advisors for the school. Thing is, you don't get pupil premium for 6th form ( or didn't back then), and this school only took 25% of its own year 11 into the 6th form and sucks top performers from schools across the borough/London into it.. Other schools would not have got away with this allocation of funds.

@boys3 https://www.varsity.co.uk/comment/27344 - there were loads of articles on this back in April. It was concentrated on the elite uni places. The discussion here was about the elite unis in the Russell group. Medicine at Cambridge for international students next year is 67k. Engineering/Compski etc close to 40k now. When I said 40k on average, you do need to take into account living costs as well! International students cannot live for free here either.

www.undergraduate.study.cam.ac.uk/international-students/international-fees-and-costs

“With the Tories there appear to be some schools that have special allowances/access to funds/the ability to spend money differently than others.

There is a state school famous for its Oxbridge applications success in South London which is a great example of this. It spends a good whack of its pupil premium money on specialist Oxbridge advisors for the school. Thing is, you don't get pupil premium for 6th form ( or didn't back then), and this school only took 25% of its own year 11 into the 6th form and sucks top performers from schools across the borough/London into it.. Other schools would not have got away with this allocation of funds.”

@Alladinzane - some of us think of this as healthy competition amongst schools for the top students, which in turn give those students a choice. Some of us do not want others interfering too much. Especially not a short termist Government, which they all are. Some of us trust those in actual education, whether primary/secondary or higher to know far more than any Government Minister of the day who will play to whatever is currently in fashion or wokeism or to the media playbook.

State schools in UK are state funded but largely run by Academies now. They are essentially semi private, in my opinion.

I do not think politicians should keep interfering so much.

I think it is a good thing that a few London comprehensives now have rowing scholarships and that some of the talented poorer kids can make it to Harvard potentially on those scholarships. Good for them! Gives everyone some aspiration.

Medicine is very expensive as is engineering, the costs for non-lab courses are significantly often lower than 40K ( about 29 i think).

However there is a cap on the number of overseas students who can study medicine in the UK and this is limited to 7%. The BMAT/UCAT scores needed by international students are far higher than UK students in order to be considered and the competition for places even after that is fierce. Overall there are about only 665 places for international students. This is probably lower because some newer providers don't accept international applicants at all.

International students who are self funded have to come from families that can afford not only UK course fees, but also living costs in the UK, international flights and typically, have substantial USD savings. If you work out who that is from most countries, clearly they are going to be very privileged, except for those funded by their own Governments.

The costs per annum are much higher than most UK private schools. Ergo, who is the most privileged?

These schools are allowed to do this specifically because they get extra funds or are allowed to spend differently from other schools.

" some of us think of this as healthy competition amongst schools for the top students, which in turn give those students a choice"

It's not really healthy, it's not competitive when you consider the above. My state school would not have been allowed to spend PP money on schemes that wouldn't benefit PP students directly.

"Some of us trust those in actual education, whether primary/secondary or higher to know far more than any Government Minister of the day who will play to whatever is currently in fashion or wokeism or to the media playbook."

So then you shouldn't approve of what's been allowed to happen in certain academy schools. There are certainly different standards applied where someone/something is in favour.

"I think it is a good thing that a few London comprehensives now have rowing scholarships and that some of the talented poorer kids can make it to Harvard potentially on those scholarships. Good for them! Gives everyone some aspiration"

1. Why would a comp need a rowing scholarship?
2. The schools that are hitting the Ivy success are not comps, they're highly selective.

No one argued otherwise?

Will still be cheap as chips when you’ve paid 30 grand a year for private school.

Indeed.

https://www.mca.mossbourne.org/rowing-academy/

Rowing is healthy. Good for discipline and health.

I would love to see many comps develop sports excellence. It would really help the obesity crisis.