How strikes are affecting students

[Pigsnkids]

Young people are selecting their 2018 university choices now but may not be aware of the impact the current lecturers strike is having on the amount of tuition students are receiving, how access to facilities are restricted and how exams are being disrupted. My elder daughter, an undergraduate, received only one in three of her lectures last term, and my friend's daughter turned up to find her exams had been cancelled and would be reinstated at short notice. While the NUS is asking the students to support the lecturers, many young people are losing valuable tuition which they have paid for. Most of us have felt uneasy at the vast debts they are incurring, which it is estimated will take 30 years to pay off, and now we find they are not receiving what they have paid for and don't seem to have any consumer protection or recompense. The contracts they have signed deem the universities not liable for strike action yet negotiations have been going on for over a year. Whatever your thoughts on the pension issue - ask potential universities what they intend to do to resolve the situation and how they will ensure your child gets the education they are paying for. This is such a shame for our young people starting out on their careers. Alternatively, suggest a gap year.

They are enticed - universities are actively competing for students by making promises. Don't tell me they aren't.

My daughter, and her friends, all had the same experience. She had 5 offers, two were unconditional, and included RG.

We had to start fielding the phone calls for her because they reached ridiculous levels - offering her the chance to speak to a current student, asking if she had any questions, did she want to speak to a tutor, was she going to an applicant day... Then letters started arriving and post cards and the offers of bursaries. The picture was very clear - they were actively competing for students. When you went to open days and applicant days many universities compared themselves against other unis " if you come here we will provide x, other universities will only give y".

This hard sell is clearly designed to influence students. In every talk that we attended the students were told the number of contact hours, and the ratio of lectures and seminars.

I understand that university is an opportunity and that it isn't a simple transaction ie I give you money, you give me a degree but it should be that they provide what they have advertised that they would. So, if you come here we will offer 3 lectures, one seminar and one tutorial per week for 24 weeks should mean exactly that.

Whether students decide to attend or whether they engage with independent study or even whether they graduate is not the argument.

With regards to pensions - yes I understand. It's the same argument that is happening in most companies. My husband has paid into his company pension for over 30 years. 5 years ago the terms were changed and they are just being consulted on another change. He will receive nowhere near what he was forecast 30 years ago. It is not right. It's an outrage and yet what is the answer? Are we all willing to pay more in tax to give public sector workers a final salary pension plus pay more for utilities to give their workers a FS pension plus pay more for goods to give manufacturing and retail staff a final salary pension? I am guessing the answer is no. If you tell me that you are happy to pay more in every aspect of your life to ensure that everyone receives the pension that they were offered 10 years ago then fair play to you. Most people however want their pension to pay out whilst simultaneously demanding their costs in every other aspect of their lives are kept down.

And I have used my vote to change the system. Charging for HE is abhorrent to me. We should have free, excellent HE that is actually worth something. Many students would be better served by doing a decent apprenticeship or getting workplace experience than by studying some of the subjects currently on offer at many of the lower ranked universities.

Graduates pay back the loan according to how much they earn. That seems reasonable to me. The alternative would be people who don't go to uni (such as my DS) paying for those who do.

The alternative would be people who don't go to uni (such as my DS) paying for those who do

I must say @quartermoon that that is probably the only positive point about the removal of public funding for undergraduate tuition - that given the class segregation of education (socio-economic advantage starts showing up as educational advantage from around the age of 3) it has always made me uneasy that all tax-payers have subsidised some of the privileged young people I've taught.

Of course, not all of my students are/were privileged or socio-economically advantaged, but those of us who teach in the elite universities particularly, can see everyday the privilege that can be bought for some undergraduates. Or even without buying educational advantage (via fee-paying schools for example) there is ample evidence of cultural and social capital, that freezes out all but the most talented and determined working-class children.

Graduates pay back the loan according to how much they earn.

Thing is though most of them won't get anywhere near to paying it back.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies think-tank says an estimated 83 per cent of graduates will not fully clear their debt within three decades.

Just to repeat that's 83%

The IFS also estimates that the current student cohort in England will collectively pay back less than 48 per cent of their total debt. Student debt has now reached £100bn since the system began in 1998, and is forecast to rise to £160bn by 2022.

(socio-economic advantage starts showing up as educational advantage from around the age of 3)

Absolutely agree raging . For all the hand wringing on this thread (and HE threads in general) some of which I may disagree with but pretty much all of which I can understand, our current wider system and lack of investment in, and value of, early years (eg pre-school) education and support is a far more fundamental problem.

our current wider system and lack of investment in, and value of, early years (eg pre-school) education and support is a far more fundamental problem

Some sociologists suggest there's more to it than that - the entrenched nature of the class divide, and the development of an oppositional working-class culture - well, oppositional to the values of middle class aspiration etc - Lynsey Hanley is good on this.

So education as a "way out" of working-class deprivation (not the right word but I'm typing at speed!) is a middle-class answer, but not necessarily one that is welcome in working-class culture.

Given the various political wars against the working class - for example, recently, the removal of the Community Fund for investment in areas with services under strain or affected by EU migration** - one can't really blame them! Much as I am committed to & comfortable in my upper middle cultural capital - I can absolutely see why others might reject my class culture.

** So no wonder those communities appear to be xenophobic bigots and voted for Brexit.

Agree with you raging. If you don't have to personally invest in your degree then you stop seeing it as a privilege and it becomes a right. The hardest working students I know are those that have to work in some way to support themselves. I accept that is a generalisation.

Do you not think though that the argument that this is a loan, only to be paid back once you start earning, and that lack of money is no barrier to HE, is all an illusion?

Many working class people that I know are very worried about incurring such large debts, such that they decide against going to university. There is no doubt that in the south east at least, loans fall short of covering living costs by a long way. The shortfall has to be made up, either by the student or their parents.

I wonder if more working class students went to university in the days of full grant rather than now?

With regards to the rights and wrongs of students paying rather than the tax payer - surely we all benefit from well qualified teachers, nurses, doctors, social workers etc.? These people, with maybe the exception of the minority of highly paid doctors, don't earn huge sums and yet they are currently paying for having acquired skills that benefit the rest of us. I can sort of seeing the argument with regards to degrees paving the way for more lucrative careers but certainly not for public service workers. So @quartermooninatencenttown do you think it is right for your son's teachers to have to pay for teaching your son? Maybe one way forward is to fully fund health and education degrees or pay the people who do these jobs far more in recognition of the graduate tax that they will be paying for the next 30 years in order to make our lives better.

Gosh there are so many Ill informed comments on this thread!!!

@quartermooninatencenttown The alternative would be people who don't go to uni (such as my DS) paying for those who do.

Your DS will receive the benefits of others’ university educations, so why shouldn’t he pay for them through taxation?

I wonder if more working class students went to university in the days of full grant rather than now?

No. More students from all socio-economic backgrounds now go to university. That includes those from the lowest.

No. More students from all socio-economic backgrounds now go to university. That includes those from the lowest.

But more students go to university now. Have the proportions changed? I would be genuinely surprised if money was not a barrier to many potential students. Yes, the loans are only paid back when you earn over a certain amount but the loans do not necessarily cover all costs. Even costs such as housing deposits have to be paid up front. They are not deferred to be met from future earnings.

The removal of grants is not some great leveller. Our income is above average and yet it has been a huge struggle to support our children through university. The fact that they will also have to pay back loans has not prevented us from having to use all of our savings and my husband from working 6 days a week to enable them to go (and yes, they have worked whilst studying. We just live in a very expensive part of the country and even student rents reflect this.)

Yes living loan based on parental income is a big issue.

https://www.ucas.com/file/86876/download?token=7pKtQ33G

(POLAR3 is a proxy for socio-economic class - not a great one but all there is.)

Applications from all quintiles increased about 10,000, but that represents a 50% increase in applications from those in the lowest group, and 15% from those in the most advantages group.

And of those applicants do we know how many went through to enrollment and most importantly how many graduated?

I know quite a number of students who applied to both university (as a fall back) and for graduate apprenticeship schemes (as their preferred option). If they were successful in being accepted onto an apprenticeship they then declined their university place. I am guessing that their initial application appears in statistics somewhere?

Without exception, everyone that I know who applied for a graduate apprenticeship did so because of financial reasons ie no fees and earning whilst studying even if there were many disadvantages eg 5 years studying as opposed to 3 at university, location or difficulty in finding accommodation. In other words had cost not been an issue they would have chosen to go to university.

I know it isn't a popular view but the fact is that the final salary pensions that my parents' generation retired on, the promise of which I started paying in for 30 years ago, are unaffordable. In the same way that savings and endowments and house values are not achieving the growth that our parents' generation enjoyed. As much as I stand to loose it does not seem right that I should demand these amounts at the expense of my children being saddled with debts until they are my age. As it stands, my son has just qualified as a teacher. His starting salary is £23000/year. Rent for 1 room in a shared house within commuting distance is £600/month or he could live back with us and commute - either a 2 hour drive each way, including on a toll road, or by train at a cost of nearly £7000 a year. There is no way that he can then save for his own home. It just seems wrong that we aren't fighting for a better future for our children rather than more money for us to retire on, at the expense of our already struggling children.

I know it isn't a popular view but the fact is that the final salary pensions that my parents' generation retired on, the promise of which I started paying in for 30 years ago, are unaffordable.

Academics no longer have final salary pensions.

And academics are amongst the most highly qualified people in the UK workforce. We swap low salaries for what we perceive as the benefits of the job: joy of teaching, relative autonomy in our research, and a secure retirement.

A starting lecturer’s salary is somewhere around the £32k mark. For this, they will have Bachelors, Masters, PhD plus several years - up to about 5 - after the PhD of precarious employment during which they are expected to produce single-authored scholarly book (in my field, Humanities discipline), plus have extended teaching experience and ideas for garnering externally-funded research.

It’s a big ask. And fewer and fewer people are prepared to take this route. I think there’ll be something of a crisis in about 5-8 years’ time in shortages of world-leading academic staff to teach the doctors, the teachers, the nurses, the engineers and so on whom we’ll need, particularly after the idiocy of Brexit.

As I understand it the top tier unis are breaking away form UUK and may look at having their own scheme which will be better (Oxford, Camb, Imperial.

In that way the truly world-class academic staff who provide the fabulous teaching and research will be better rewarded and the rest will find their own level.

This would make far more sense than paying an academic with a truly academic education and track record a similar salary and benefits to one at e.g. the University of Wolverhampton/ Wrexham/ Lincoln or wherever who may have scraped along the bottom of school, university and postgrad and is now an "academic" or member of staff at a low-ranking uni still allowed to charge £9250 to 18 year olds who know no better. The two don't compare.

Academics no longer have final salary pensions

Soupy- this kind of terse response isn't very helpful to your cause. I sincerely hope that most university staff (I think you are one?) have less high-handed attitudes to their students and the parents that (unfortunately) have to fund them.

Isn't the dispute basically about defined benefit vs defined contribution pensions so similar to the loss of final salary pension scheme almost all private sector workers have gone through?

I'm sure students and parents would be interested to understand more but, it doesn't really excuse strike action affecting students' education.

Let's hope that a truly independent body looks at this and that all strike action is stopped and staff undertake to accept its findings.

And that the high quality HE institutions support their staff and students, and thrive.

Isn't the dispute basically about defined benefit vs defined contribution pensions so similar to the loss of final salary pension scheme almost all private sector workers have gone through?

Academic pensions have already
lost the final salary pension scheme. It happened early in my career. This is about a further attack on pensions. I stand to lose almost 40% of my pension if this goes through. I make no apology for standing up and fighting against that. Perhaps private sector workers should do the same.

My students love me, thank you for your faux concern.

In Soupy’s defence, she has outlined the proposed changes to academic pensions at considerable length on other threads over the last few months. I imagine she’s getting tired of reiterating the details.

Academic pensions stopped being final salary pensions some years ago. Most academics accepted this pragmatically, on the basis that it was necessary to reform the scheme. I thought that the reforms would sort the issues and allow the scheme to continue on a stable footing - clearly I was naive. The new proposals (those which academics have rejected) go much further in the impact they would have. For example, I have just over 20 years left until retirement. Using the calculator produced by the union to estimate the likely impact, it appears that working for those 20+ years would give me an annual pension of around £6k.
And for context, I worked in business before moving into academia: that was 15 years ago and I still haven’t regained the salary that I gave up.

In that way the truly world-class academic staff who provide the fabulous teaching and research will be better rewarded and the rest will find their own level. This would make far more sense than paying an academic with a truly academic education and track record a similar salary and benefits to one at e.g. the University of Wolverhampton/ Wrexham/ Lincoln or wherever who may have scraped along the bottom of school, university and postgrad and is now an "academic" or member of staff at a low-ranking uni

As for the standards in UK universities, most departments will produce some research independently judged to be ‘world-leading’, and the majority of academics will produce at least some research independently judged to be ‘internationally excellent’. So the idea that there are academics who 'scraped along the bottom of school and university' (how would you get to postgrad level if you had only scraped along the bottom?!) is ill-informed and rude. How many of those posting on the thread are expected to be performing at an ‘internationally excellent’ level in order to be meeting expectations? It is exceptionally difficult to get an academic job these days, and if the brightest graduates are deterred from entering the profession by the poor pay, pension and workload, ultimately it is the students who will suffer.

DD has just text me to say the strikes are off.
Well, at least action is suspended
www.ucu.org.uk/strike-action

Yes we can eat next month!

I agree @Wimpling. If you're "scraping the bottom" at school, you're not going to get to university, if you're at the bottom of your university programme, you're not going to make it to postgrad level etc etc. I'm not an academic but I can see some of the logic being applied here is nonsensical!
I also agree that many, many academics would earn a better salary (and work shorter hours with less pressure) as a professional with the same level of education in their relevant field in the private sector. My partner is an IT professional and would take a significant pay cut (as well as other perks such as bonuses etc) if he decided to work in academia .

the University of Wolverhampton/ Wrexham/ Lincoln or wherever who may have scraped along the bottom of school, university and postgrad and is now an "academic" or member of staff at a low-ranking uni still allowed to charge £9250 to 18 year olds who know no better

@Primrosie this shows really nasty disrespect for academics. I can't believe you expect anyone to take your ignorant opinions seriously.

No-one I know in a permanent post was ever the one who 'scraped along.' Colleagues of mine at universities you name have 1st Class degrees from elite universities, and Masters & PhDs. They research, they publish, as well as teaching about double the load I teach.

You don't get into a PhD programme without being in the top echelon of your undergrad & Masters programmes. You sound envious & bitter, tbh.

Agree with @TheRagingGirl - we work damn hard to where we are. Lecturing positions are not easy to come by and certainly talking from own experience involve proving yourself in various insecure contract research jobs after spending 8 years in education (and working at the same time).

Lecturers are human too, we have the right to be annoyed. On a positive note at least there will be no disruptions to student exams re USS announcement.