Unis request to raise fees to insane levels

[FlakeSnow]

Fees for 2023 and 2024 are agreed to be £9250. Article below appears to be calling for increase in fees to circa £24k ie on par with overseas students.

Do anyone think this is a remote chance this will happen? My initial reaction is one of horror. (Not read beyond the paywall).

Times uni fees article

It may result in people who have no strong course preference opting for more "expensive" courses as they would be "better value"!

Maybe for some groups but I suspect this wouldn't be the case for disadvantaged students. The research into university choices leads me to believe that young people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds wouldn't choose the 'expensive' courses due to their attitudes around debt and the the perceived risk of higher education and future jobs.

calling them idiots is being kind! Hilarious, it’s the fault of remainers that people who voted leave were so stupid.
if you’re embarrassed you we’re one of those, then tough shit!

Even when they're explicitly told it will cost you the same in future income tax? Usually those with tighter budgets tend to spot a bargain faster than ones with looser budgets. The term "debt" is simply wrong, none of the financing involves "debt", it is future income tax deduction, actually not even that; it is potential future income tax above the set threshold.

I imagine the cost of organising all the different payment grades for courses would outweigh many of the benefits

Sorry if this is a thick question or has been covered upthread, and I really don't mean to be goady, but I genuinely don't understand how universities need 9k per student. I know there are libraries, counselling services, buildings, lecturers and support staff to pay for but 9k per student seems an awful lot when most students seem to get little more than a few lectures and a few pieces of marked work (obviously appreciate that STEM and some other subjects its a bit different).

9k per student is I believe just over 1/2 of what private schools cost annually and considering private schools have way smaller classer sizes and offer much closer teacher-student contact I just can't understand where the money goes.

Even when they're explicitly told it will cost you the same in future income tax?
Yep. There is evidence that some groups ( particularly those from w/c or low socioeconomic backgrounds view HE as a risk, a risk with no guaranteed tangible outcome. We already know that this influences course/career choice.

Usually those with tighter budgets tend to spot a bargain faster than ones with looser budgets. The term "debt" is simply wrong, none of the financing involves "debt", it is future income tax deduction, actually not even that; it is potential future income tax above the set threshold.

It doesn't matter. Some groups of society are inherently debt averse, culturally they don't get into debt and it doesn't matter that it's not debt in the traditional sense ( I spent years touring schools and colleges delivering student finance talks so I have a dozen different ways of explaining it!) it is still borrowing money so it viewed as a debt.

I recently did a large piece of research on university choices and spoke to hundreds of young people who were about to apply to university. They all speak about it as 'debt' ...that's the narrative.

This too......

I think a lot fewer people should go to university, but those who do should be properly supported to do it.

You don't need a degree to do most of the graduate entry jobs people end up in and way too many people with degrees are working in coffee shops etc.

Have degrees mean something rather than being something "everyone" has and then fund it properly.

The 50% target was always about masking youth unemployment, not for the benefit of graduates.

9k doesn't cover the cost of most degree programmes. Universities aren't making profits! They can't any way as they hold charitable status.
Universities need to cover the costs of:

Academic staff
Course management staff ( course admin, timetabling, systems managers etc)
Faculty/School management staff
Academic Skills support
Estates staff
Disability support staff
Wellbeing staff
Careers and Employability staff
Catering Staff
Placement teams
Marketing
Student recruitment
Student finance
Student records
Schools and colleges liaison
Librarians
IT support
Learning tech support
Sports centre/gym staff

Then there's the buildings, facilities, books, journal subscriptions, IT licences etc

I've probably forgotten loads too!

You don't need a degree to do most of the graduate entry jobs people end up in and way too many people with degrees are working in coffee shops etc.

This a myth. One of the biggest myths related to graduate employability in fact!!

They all speak about it as 'debt' ...that's the narrative.
Well it's also called "debt" on this thread, myself included. Doesn't mean that's right, when it's definitely wrong. So it looks like it's about a consensus of it being not worth correcting this fundamental mistake despite it doing quite a bit for widening participation.

I imagine the cost of organising all the different payment grades for courses would outweigh many of the benefits
I guess unis know best. It's somewhat puzzling when unis do exactly this for every single international student paying different fee blocks and have done for at least four decades, even when there were no home fees. I know because the 70s tax regime meant my parents paid non-residential fees for me, which incidentally were higher than home fees were 30 years later. My fees were on the highest block and different fees were charged for lab-based vs pencil and paper etc courses.

No what I mean is the employers don't need a graduate and if there were fewer of them, they'd have to go back to taking school leavers.

The job I did as a school leaver 35 years ago is only open to graduates now. I was there for the transition and trained many of the graduates, it didn't get the employer any better quality.

Well it's also called "debt" on this thread, myself included. Doesn't mean that's right, when it's definitely wrong. So it looks like it's about a consensus of it being not worth correcting this fundamental mistake despite it doing quite a bit for widening participation.

Erm no, universities invest a lot of time and money in educating people about the student finance system and this includes dispelling myths. But people still call it debt AND people still see it as debt. For some groups of society this is a tricky thing to reconcile with their cultural aversion to debt.

I guess unis know best. It's somewhat puzzling when unis do exactly this for every single international student paying different fee blocks and have done for at least four decades, even when there were no home fees. I know because the 70s tax regime meant my parents paid non-residential fees for me, which incidentally were higher than home fees were 30 years later. My fees were on the highest block and different fees were charged for lab-based vs pencil and paper etc courses.

International applications ( including recruitment and finance) are very different to home applications. Every single bit of the process is different - and international students look for different things when choosing a university and course. It's very difficult to make direct comparisons.

9k per student seems an awful lot when most students seem to get little more than a few lectures and a few pieces of marked work (obviously appreciate that STEM and some other subjects its a bit different).

The Humanity students are probably subsidising the Engineering students! Some courses are definitely much 'better value'!

International applications ( including recruitment and finance) are very different to home applications. Every single bit of the process is different - and international students look for different things when choosing a university and course. It's very difficult to make direct comparisons.

Ah perhaps the systems have become less flexible since the 70s. I was processed as a UK applicant until the final fees point, when I handed over a cheque. Unis have decades of experience of operating different fee blocks, however it seems better overall for them to stay with the same fees for say Philosophy and Dentistry.

I've probably forgotten loads too!

Some universities run bus services in their cities (Nottingham and Oxford [Brookes] are two that spring to mind).

A very major thing missing from the list was upkeep of laboratories. Apart from the campus labs for biological & chemical sciences, etc., there is also the need for access to very expensive equipment for physics, astronomy & so on, the massive computer and production facilities needed for engineering, covering travel and other costs of students on years abroad, and lots of other big costs.

As others have identified, there is a huge disparity between the cost of running an English degree and the cost of running a physics & astrophysics degree. The problem is, if you charge each student fees in line with what their course costs to deliver (once general overheads like libraries, support staff, sport facilities, etc., are accounted for) you end up with large differences in price that would deter some students from studying science & engineering in favour of cheaper courses.

Yes I know there are lots of overheads but the point is that most of what you mention would also be provided at a private school whereas universities have the benefit of huge student numbers and far, far larger class sizes.

So I still don't see how universities would need 9k per student (+ more from internationals) when they seem to generally provide WAY less teaching that schools. Certain courses of course are expensive (e.g. where there is a large practical and closely supervised element), but surely this would be offset by the large number of courses which are largely just lectures? Plus of course their other revenue streams e.g. renting out halls in the holidays.

Ah perhaps the systems have become less flexible since the 70s. I was processed as a UK applicant until the final fees point, when I handed over a cheque. Unis have decades of experience of operating different fee blocks, however it seems better overall for them to stay with the same fees for say Philosophy and Dentistry.

Maybe you are basing your knowledge of HE on what you experienced in the 70's? Things change..... student numbers, government policies, student demographics etc.

Of course! Apologies....I teach an education based subject!

Can you not see how schools and universities differ?

You seem the think bigger numbers make it easier for universities rather than the other way around?

One of my specialisms as an Admissions Tutor was international recruitment, and I did it very well. It's not been long since my term finished. I don't agree with this statement from @brookstar at all:

^International applications ( including recruitment and finance) are very different to home applications. Every single bit of the process is different - and international students look for different things when choosing a university and course. It's very difficult to make direct comparisons.^

I know @brookstar has done research, but our team dealt with thousands of international applicants, with the academic and other tricky questions passed to me (and some onwards from me). Home and International students share desires for high quality education, transparent standards, employability or readiness for further study, value for money, suitable local culture, networking potential, etc. Of course the details of what this means to an individual are interpreted through that person's background.

BTW I heartily applaud @brookstar for her partial list of hidden expenses universities must meet. As much as I criticise the greedy choices many made with the introduction of the £9250 cap, there is a great public misunderstanding around this that is making the current situation worse.

I don't think it's particularly moral, but to a degree this does work for us. We have very few overseas students from First World countries, as they can usually complete university more cheaply and efficiently (and sometimes for free) in their home countries, so the impetus to study abroad is not huge. I'm not saying we don't have any - just that the majority wouldn't follow that route. A huge percentage of overseas students come from what Donald Trump calls "sh*thole countries" - and their parents, benefactors and extended families are paying not only for their education, but also for their ticket out - giving them the ability to build lives in safer, more democratic countries. So we will have the benefit of these doctors / nurses / dentists here in the UK.

Of course there are differences and of course universities being bigger are harder to run, but they also have a considerably bigger income stream and far higher student to teacher ratios.

My experience of international admissions isn't based on research. I'm responsible for international admissions and international student experience for my faculty. I spend a lot of time speaking to potential international students.
I think you may have interpreted my post incorrectly ( or possibly it works differently at your university poetry?)

We deal with international applications separately (and differently) to home students. This includes how we market and promote course right through to processing the application. We do see difference in what international students look for and ask questions about during the application process and this can also vary greatly between markets.

I stand by what I said regarding the difficulty in making direct comparisons between the admissions processes for home and international students.

Of course there are differences and of course universities being bigger are harder to run, but they also have a considerably bigger income stream and far higher student to teacher ratios.

It's not that there are differences. They are different.
You can't make direct comparisons.