Why is university so expensive?

[Zazedonia]

Can anyone explain why university costs so much (and will cost more when the fees cap is removed or loosened)? Many students have very little contact time, and much of it is in big lecture halls. Why does university cost a similar amount to private school, which provides so much more?

[disquisitiones]

Ok, so the OP wants a two tier university system in which the upper tier provides university degrees comparable with those from the rest of the world and the lower tier cheaper option effectively offers a couple of extra years of school education.

But what would be the point of the latter? What useful skills would the students on such courses offer to employers beyond those already offered by A level students?

Note that vocational courses offered in post 92 universities (which are often very highly valued) need to be taught by those who also have research/industrial expertise (rather than by people who only teach) and often cost quite a lot to run because of facilities and equipment required. Think of Automotive Design at places such as Coventry. So such courses would certainly not be the category of "school education", and could not reduce their fees accordingly.

[HeadDreamer]

I don't think there is any point engaging with the OP. She's clearly not see any value in a university education. Or in self directed learning. Or being mentored by a world leader in a field. Lets just have another 3 years in an institution being spoon fed knowledge by a teacher?

[disquisitiones]

BTW the idea of university courses charging fees which are correlated with the earning prospects of graduates has been floated. In particular, David Willetts was quite keen on top universities taking over their own student loan books and setting any level of fees they thought they could recover.

But having widely varying fees has many dangers. A typical graduate from the course I teach could earn far more than me within a few years from graduation - should we set high fees for the course accordingly, thereby completely putting off graduates from this course becoming academics, teachers, lowly paid research scientists for the public sector?

Masters courses already charge fees which are correlated with graduates' incomes. Masters courses in financial mathematics, economics etc are accordingly extremely expensive, and very few graduates from these courses go into academia or public sector research.

[HeadDreamer]

thereby completely putting off graduates from this course becoming academics, teachers, lowly paid research scientists for the public sector?

It will also put off children from disadvantaged backgrounds from doing the course.

[disquisitiones]

It will also put off children from disadvantaged backgrounds from doing the course.

Yes, it probably will, although the evidence post 2012 higher fees doesn't completely support this. (I.e. the number of students from disadvantaged backgrounds has still grown.)

And most likely along with much higher fees there would be more scholarships for those from very disadvantaged backgrounds. So the real losers could well be those whose income isn't quite low enough to qualify for the scholarships.

[MultishirkingAgain]

A typical graduate from the course I teach could earn far more than me within a few years from graduation - should we set high fees for the course accordingly, thereby completely putting off graduates from this course becoming academics, teachers, lowly paid research scientists for the public sector?

We're going to look back in 20 years (if we survive) and see how a neo-liberal government wrecked a world-class education system.

[SeekEveryEveryKnownHidingPlace]

We're going to look back in 20 years (if we survive) and see how a neo-liberal government wrecked a world-class education system

YY, a thousand times.

[disquisitiones]

I think the fee issue is also ultimately related to the housing problem in the UK.

House prices are ludicrously high, so many people spend a disproportionate fraction of their net income on housing. This means that they are very resistant to decreases in their net income, and almost all parties are promising to not increase or even to decrease taxation. (Relative to many neighbouring countries we pay much lower tax, but very few people feel well off as they have to pay much more for housing.)

But without appropriate rates of taxation we cannot properly finance universities, schools,... We have ducked out of facing the university funding issue by passing the burden of paying for today's universities to graduates paying more tax over the next twenty or thirty years.

There has been very little thought given to the fact that in twenty years time we are going to have a graduate workforce who are paying a marginal rate of 9% for their education, and therefore they will not have the spending power/the capacity to pay extra tax for what may be needed in 20 years time.

Meanwhile many of those graduates who are currently 45-50+, who benefitted from free university education and much cheaper house prices, are arguably under-paying tax relative to those who graduated more recently. Those who are 55-60+ are also retiring on final salary pension schemes which are ludicrously generously relative to what those of us in our 30s or 40s can ever expect.

[Zazedonia]

I don't have an axe to grind against universities, I'm simply interested in why university costs so much, and whether anything could be done about that, as the government moves towards graduates bearing the full cost (at some universities there is already very little financing by government, and some universities have made it clear that they would like to charge a lot more (I suspect they will soon be allowed to do so)). I went to a good uni myself, and would love my children to have that opportunity, but the very high cost is very off-putting for families who don't have much money, and in the knowledge that the child might well not move on to high paid employment, and would already be struggling to afford somewhere to live. Personally, if this country stays in the EU (fingers crossed but not looking hopeful at the moment) I will be seriously recommending that my DCs travel abroad for a less expensive education from a globally recognised institution.
I don't like the idea of what I suspect the Tories are headed for, quite possibly intentionally - the elite institutions charging £20K and becoming the preserve of private school pupils, while the bottom of the pile charge £6K and are solely filled by the poor. However, I do question whether universities which are not known for their research and are at the bottom of the league tables need to or can warrant charging as much. And does every undergraduate course really require teaching by world leading research academics? People on this thread are focusing on the top universities, which are in the minority. What about a standard course on librarianship, or a language course which focuses on language rather than literature? Those kinds of courses are not so different from being at school.

[MultishirkingAgain]

Well, I'm not sure about the retirement thing -- academic salaries now in comparison with what they were when I started 25 years ago, are proportionately higher. And certain benefits (eg maternity leave) are much better. So there is the potential for greater accumulation of a pension. I've been really hit by the changes to the occupational scheme we have to join, and I have far less time to make that up now.

But I agree, in terms of housing, the buying power of academic salaries (along with most salaries) is reduced.

[fidel1ne]

And undergraduates don't need 1 to 1s with top academics

Why not?

[MultishirkingAgain]

Those kinds of courses are not so different from being at school.

And yet you say you have a degree ....

[Zazedonia]

You are seriously saying that a student taking librarianship at one of the former poly's needs 1 to 1s with a top research academic?
There is a big difference between doing that kind of course and doing a maths degree at Oxford - may sound snobby, but it's true.
And I suspect that the average student doing an undergraduate maths degree at Oxford would learn just as well if taught by bright but not world leading junior academics.

[titchy]

'some universities have made it clear that they would like to charge a lot more (I suspect they will soon be allowed to do so))'

They won't be allowed to any time soon. So it's a moot point really.

[fidel1ne]

You are seriously saying that a student taking librarianship at one of the former poly's needs 1 to 1s with a top research academic?
There is a big difference between doing that kind of course and doing a maths degree at Oxford - may sound snobby, but it's true.

No, I'm not differentiating. (Is librarianship an UG subject?)

I just found your sweeping statement a bit worrying and sad.

Some UGs on some courses might arguably benefit more than others on other courses but I don't want to be the snob that decrees where the line is.

I think individual seminars are good for everyone. I think top research academics benefit from contact with the student body. I'm sure their time is better spent on 3rd years etc but that's not what you said.

[JeanneDeMontbaston]

I suspect that the average student doing an undergraduate maths degree at Oxford would learn just as well if taught by bright but not world leading junior academics.

Might be true. But, um, how would this work long term?

Your bright but not world-leading junior academics at Oxford include the people who need to go on to be bright, world-leading academics, surely? The people who are doing amazing, ground-breaking research all started somewhere. If you use the junior academics to teach absolutely everything, they will not have time to do any research, and within a fairly short time, you will end up with a dearth of up-and-coming academics to do the groundbreaking stuff, won't you?

(Bitter, me? Nah.)

[disquisitiones]

But Jeanne OP does not acknowledge that universities have another raison d'etre, beyond teaching, so probably doesn't care if Oxford has world leading academics in research.

(And as Multishirking always says research and teaching actually go hand in hand, so I don't believe for a moment that students would get the same education without having exposure to world leading academics. Actually the fact that world leading academics have to teach, instead of buying themselves out of all teaching, is a big strength of UK universities over many international universities.)

And while complaining that UK universities at the lower end are over-charging she intends to send her children to universities in Europe, which receive far more than £9k per student.

[MultishirkingAgain]

Paid for by the citizens of that EU country via their taxes.

[fidel1ne]

Zaz would you like it if polytechnics came back?

[Lilymaid]

You are seriously saying that a student taking librarianship at one of the former poly's needs 1 to 1s with a top research academic?
Current list of UG and PG courses in "Librarianship"
Not many "poly's" (sic) and mainly postgraduate courses (I felt I must defend my profession!)

[fidel1ne]

Interesting Lily. Only UG In WAles, Scotland or Germany.

I admit to being vague on the subject but I know someone who spent three years trying to get a place on the competitive UCL MA, so presumably quite arduous and academic?

[Zazedonia]

I think that I would like to see a return of polys as polys, yes.
And yes I would like my DCs to go to a decent uni if possible, as they are both academic, and I do think that both unis and polys should be financially supported by the government. Which would mean that those who are earning £150K per year contribute more to their upkeep than those who are earning £40K per year.
Apologies if am I wrong about librarianship - based on a friend who studied it at a former poly, a very unacademic young woman who sailed through the course on almost no work.
And why not have those who do some research but are not top researchers and do a lot of teaching, and those who do a lot of research and are top researchers and only teach where that will make a real difference to the students, the latter being paid more? It does happen already, but it seems only at some universities (or maybe just at the one that I know).

[Zazedonia]

Just looking at the first entry on the librarianship course list, Aber runs a distance learning BSc. Probably not a lot of 1 to 1 with top academics on that course.

[disquisitiones]

And why not have those who do some research but are not top researchers and do a lot of teaching, and those who do a lot of research and are top researchers and only teach where that will make a real difference to the students, the latter being paid more?

How would this actually save any money?

Currently many academics are paid relatively low salaries (£30-£40k) and expected to produce top research as well as do a lot of teaching. A relatively small fraction of academics are professors on higher salaries; they are all expected to do a lot of research, a lot of teaching and a lot of management/administration.

Historically most UK academics did not progress beyond the (low) ranks of lecturer/senior lecturer before they retired but this was unsustainable: one cannot block career progression, or there is absolutely no motivation for strong performance.

How would you hire top researchers for a department in which the vast majority of people are not research active: why would they want to go there rather than going to top US or European institutions? how would they create a research group around themselves if all their colleagues were only teaching in a high school manner?

(And just to say yet again good teaching is strongly correlated with research. Do you really want prospective doctors to be taught by people who haven't been keeping up with the current medical research? How are you going to produce the next generation of world leaders in research if students are taught by teachers instead of researchers?)

[Zazedonia]

You can have 2 different job roles for academics:

1. those who do a lot of research, are expected to publish in good publications, etc, and do some teaching.
   
2. those who do a lot of teaching, but are expected to do some research, without as much pressure to publish in prestigious publications.
   
   This means that academics can play to their strength. You can pay the same to both if you wish, or may find that you can pay less to those in job role 2. Those who don't produce the right quantity or quality of research in job role 1 can move to job role 2 if there is space and their teaching is of sufficient quality.
   
   This is already being done, though perhaps not in your universities.
   
   I also don't really believe that posters on here think that being taught by top academics is either feasible (they don't have many top academics) or necessary on many courses in the less academic universities. In practice, academics in those institutions will be paid less and will be more teaching focused. Those institutions rely more on student fees and less on research income.