new gov policy of restricting student numbers in some degree courses

[justanotherdaduser]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66216005

Wondering how people feel about it?

I am unsure - in one hand, it feels needlessly prescriptive. People should be free to study what interests them without government's guiding hand

But also, not everyone signing up to such courses fully understand the degree outcomes.

Or, why should tax payers fund courses that are not good value for money? But by that logic, over time, we can lose many other valuable courses (IMO!)

Confused!

! yes indeed. How would that work I wonder?

I know that the two of my children who went to uni did so at least partly from a love of their subject and a wish to study it in greater depth than A level allowed. My DD certainly did not go for the life experience (just as well, as her time was utterly hacked about by Covid). DS2 is enjoying his sport as well. I am not sure if that counts as a negative here? Luckily he is studying a "useful" STEM subject, so phew.

I know that lots of DC are pushed towards uni when it may not be suitable, and I am not advocating that. I don't think anyone here is. But I would say that for most of the young people I know who have made or are making a success of their time at uni (and that's not loads - people don't always tell you do they?), it's been at least partly, if not mainly, about their love for the subject.

I have a friend whose son studies some complex film and animation stuff which he loves; another whose dd is in love with her forensic psychology course (and likes the uni experience less tbf), another whose dd adored her history course (oh dear) and may do a masters (double oh dear).

I would hesitate to extrapolate anything such as "most students think xyz" from these anecdata though.

All students receive a tax subsidy. That’s why there’s a gaping hole in the finances! The question is: should Winchester be offering an English degree at all? There’s evidence that English grads are, overall, low earners. So why do we want former colleges if HE to offer that degree? The subject is not a shortage one either in teaching - yet!

There are many students who feel they are sold a lie. I have some in my family. Promised that going to uni, any uni, and doing a course, any course, regardless of ability, was going to set them up for life. They end up with low level degrees in sub-standard courses, and working in bars, or retail, and dis-contented with life.

Not at all I think full funded places and grants which cover all living costs will benefit the poorest students . Cutting back on the less relevant courses could release funds for that. As regarding diversity free school meals and use of benefits could feed into the recruitment process. Going to university should be an active choice not some sort of holding position with booze and sex this delay entering the job market

You can do the booze , sex and finding yourself with out university’s help

Boris Johnson didn't study PPE - his degree (Classics-ish) would probably be on this list if it wasn't for the fact degree subject is irrelevant to future earnings when your degree is from Oxford and your family has all the connections

useful link above to house of commons paper which includes "Currently £20 billion a year is loaned to around 1.5 million students in England each year. The value of outstanding loans at the end of March 2023 reached £206 billion. The Government forecasts the value of outstanding loans to be around £460 billion (2021‑22 prices) by the mid-2040s.
The forecast average debt among the cohort of borrowers who started their course in 2022/23 is £45,600 when they complete their course. Forecast debt is expected to be lower for those starting in the reformed system from 2023/24 at £42,900. The Government expects that around 27% of full-time undergraduates starting in 2022/23 will repay them in full. They forecast that after the 2022 reforms this would increase to 61% among new students from 2023/24."

My oldest did the same course at Bristol as one of my other's who did it 13 years later. By the time of the more recent one there were double the number on the course because between those two dates the state lifted the cap on places for those with AAB grades I think it was as long as the university took the view there was space. So that also increased numbers too.

The quote above shows there are some very very bid costs. The Student Loans Co has sold off quite a fewo f the earlier loan books. I think it was to Erudio - there were lots of MN threads on Erudio at one point and I think the plan is to sell all of the loan book off probably at a loss to the state and leave the buyer to try to recover debt from the students.

All be a bit more Barrow & Furness then?

serious point though whilst the above parliamentary constituency has the lowest percentage going to Uni in the last full cycle at 16.3% it looks to have one of the largest percentages of under 19s taking up apprenticeships. Which given the local industry BAE and then Sellafield just up the road is perhaps not surprising.

I don’t think any future sales are in the pipeline @Xenia The Government alongside the budget in 2020 confirmed that it would not be making further sales of student loans. The reason being the change in the accounting treatment of student loans meaning that sales would now have new impacts on borrowing and net investment.

Policies can of course change again, however notwithstanding the accounting issues, such a policy becomes politically more difficult as time passes. Can’t see a Labour government taking a different stance on that.

the National Audit Office value for money assessment of the previous loan sales was….mixed at best is probably the best spin that can be put on it.

I think it should be re-emphasised that the Student Loans Company has no executive decision making powers. It simply does whatever the UK gov and devolved administrations tell it to do.

Another interesting thing in the HoL document was the difference in the latest average debt for students in each of the UK nations.

£47k England

£36k Wales

£24k Northern Ireland

£15k Scotland

Why would we not wish to send the message to black, less well off and disabled Dc that they can thrive anywhere that’s good. Why do they get the uni short straw? Why would we keep crap courses open just for them? This is no way to encourage social mobility.

These students don’t have to take the worst paying jobs. No wonder it’s such a struggle when the bar is set so low and the expectation is that they are on the worst courses which might close! We need to ensure that all students aim high. Not just over invested MN ones. Then the minority groups will thrive. Cutting courses where students don’t thrive will actually help.

I heard Amol Rajan talking yesterday about his parents wanting the very best for him. We need everyone thinking like this so we don’t find bright Dc not doing what they are capable of. That does not involve going to the lowest performing uni because that’s good enough. The way to succeed is to aim high.

Welsh and NI students are far more likely to stay at a home uni. They don’t go to England as much. Scottish students are heavily subsidised. Even those whose parents earn £1 m a year. It’s cost a lot, is poorly directed and the Barnett Formula is generous to Scotland in particular.

@TizerorFizz good to see you’ve been paying attention to my graphs on various threads.😀

you are quite right near 70% of students from NI go to either Queens or Ulster, and 60% of Welsh students attend a Welsh Uni. That, along with differing tuition fees and maintenance loans, pretty much explains the differentials.

Scotland no tuition fees for students (just the tax payer), so as you say we’d expect a much lower figure. Not surprisingly 96% of Scottish undergrads go to uni in Scotland.

Wales marginal difference in tuition fees £9,000 rather than £9,250 in England. Then grants can make up a fair part of the maintenance loan. And the max maintenance grant / loan is of course now higher than England.

Norther Ireland tuition fees much lower for an NI uni. £4630 in 22/23. But 9000 / 9250 for the 32% who go elsewhere. The maintenance loan is lower, £6,776 outside London and not living at home. So immediately constrained in terms of how much they can access for that as well.

And the higher the earnings the more tax paid on them. So it’s a win win for the tax payer

In this day and age of information, and given the mainy corporations hypothetically could the entire university be trimmed so it was the only essentially needed degrees for different professions.
Then have all other knowledge and roles combined with their role with x company and that company having their own training etc so it's on the company's themselves to train their staff ?

At the moment those medics would be better off in The City or Lidl which pays graduates extremely well

I think it's also worth remembering that universities aren't just for preparing students for companies. Research is still a major part of what they do, in all areas not just STEM (and, therefore, also producing potential researchers). It's like the debate about the purpose of school education, all over again. Some countries separate out research institutions from teaching ones more clearly than the UK; I don't know whether that would be helpful or not here.

the research unis do doesn’t benefit the students. It’s a target they are rated for.
research doesn’t improve teaching standards, and can often be an end in itself
research would be better done in some cases at arms length from universities , with maybe a visiting expert lecturing scheme set up

I agree. Lots of jobs should be done by non stem grads! We need bright enough minds for all sorts of work. Stem is not the only source of income for workers or for the country.

Overall doctors get the best return on their degrees financially. They retire early on generous pensions and top the earnings tables. They all get grad jobs. Few other degrees can compare. Yes others can earn more but with a very great variety of degrees. These people are of great benefit to society too. They pay a lot of tax and spend money!

I think the question I was trying to ask was; are universities teaching institutions which also do research, or vice versa? Because the current model isn't clear and that leads to a lot of tensions. I do agree that a clearer separation would be useful. The "university experience" and perceived purpose has changed very many times over the last (roughly) thousand years..!

Well what should they be judged on then?

Quality of teaching , contact hours, added value, student outcomes, relevance of course to society, student needs.
my DD dropped out of a course because of duplication of topics , she could have submitted the same essay to at least two subject teachers. It was badly thought out. That was an RG university, not one person from the uni contacted her for an exit interview to find out why the course didn’t suit. She’s now got a decent job and no debt.

If I was re-engineering universities, I would make degrees that would improve Society's technology, Science's, engineering etc, so humanity can begin building equipment for space

I don't agree with cutting courses in this way and turning higher ed into even more of a business. On the upside, though, does this mean there will be a scarcity of humanities graduates in future and we might suddenly find ourselves in demand?

Well what should they be judged on then?

The quality of the academic provision. Easy!

Pity OfS locked horns with QAA....

No rooms for historians, philosophers, linguists, artists, writers then? How sad. Not sure I wanna live in your society!