Some universities will go bust

[GinForBreakfast]

Reported in the Times today. It must be so worrying for students joining or returning in September/October.

My question is around the regulator, who knows where the issues are. What should they be telling students and when? It seems cruel, especially to young people, to withhold information. It has financial implications as well - people moving, paying deposits etc.

A new private school popped up in our area a few years ago. Owned by a Chinese company who saw a gap in the market because a couple had folded. I know a few teachers who got jobs there and couldn't get along with the business model of the parent company.

Does anyone think that foreign investors might take over failing universities?

Let us focus on what we're good at and we'll get more funding in!

Totally agree!!

Our current focus is on income generation rather than student numbers.
I could bring in a significant amount of income through CPD and short courses but the bureaucracy makes it challenging!

Graduations? (would this be the equivalent of roads though?)

I've really enjoyed those for my DCs. Three different languages as well. Borderline educational. Spectacularly good weather for all of them too though they do say that the sun shines on the righteous

But....................................they must cost a bit to organise and deliver. Not to mention all those robes, strange headgear, honorary doctorates. And the carbon footprint, all that needless travel and spending in the local economy. Perhaps best get rid.

Or perhaps not.

Yes it's so frustrating, we could bring in SO much third stream funding but we're all so overloaded with admin. Much of which is due to government micro management and endless new regulatory requirements.

Not you personally, but in general staff at uni's can't have it both ways.

On one hand you defend the system and don't believe you should look to change it, on the other hand you're not willing to have others suggest changes as that's telling you how to do your jobs.

The system has to change. undergraduates should not need to subsidise academics doing research - in a good uni, research should be subsidising teaching.

Stop trying to look for funding all over the place - simply look at how to teach undergraduates effectively and efficiently in the UK from the UK.

As I said right at the start of my contribution, a student only has one lecturer at a time and is shared by 100 students - the actual teaching cost is very low. Despite the high inefficiencies, less than 50% of what a student pays is actually spent on teaching them - the rest just needs to stop if there are no others to pay for it.

This is the type of transformation every private business has to do, and it doesn't seem to matter whether it's universities or the NHS, publicly funded institutions and staff cannot seem to adapt to the need for change.

If you spent 25 hours per week teaching 100 students in one lecture theatre, then you've met 90% of the purpose of undergraduates being at university.

Okay, pro-rata you may share in practice and apportion your costs - but that total cost to the student is one FTE and 1/100 of a lecture theatre. It's less than 2k! add on admin expenses as you've mentioned (say 10%) and there is nothing more to fund.

The rest is of course valuable, but only if someone is willing to pay - there is no crisis of teaching funding, students should be paying a lot less.

I don’t think anyone is saying don’t innovate/don’t change. Just that some of the suggestions such as have one lecturer per subject for the whole of the U.K. or cutting Essential staff is feasible.

There’s been a lot of cutbacks lately so ultimately the remaining staff will have to find ways to do work with less. However it is likely to impact the student experience. It’s a shame as a country we don’t seem to value education more, other countries do. 🤷‍♀️

I’m sure we could def do graduation ceremonies via Teams. I remember watching the Nottingham uni med students graduating early in lockdown with individuals in their bedrooms with bin bags round their shoulders. Was all streamed on YouTube and was very moving. Would certainly save some money.

As I said right at the start of my contribution, a student only has one lecturer at a time and is shared by 100 students - the actual teaching cost is very low.

Not that it actually works like this but you seem to forget about seminars, tutorials, assessments, marking and moderation.

You don't understand how universities work and how important the things that take place outside of a classroom actually are. This means your suggestions are absurd.

I would welcome change if what was actually being suggested was in any way sensible.

An interesting aside is that, as far as I am aware, no private provider who limits fees to the cap is making a profit. Some have gone bust, despite offering cheap as chips degrees, run commercially.

I don’t believe outsourcing is more expensive.

Why do think these functions are generally outsourced in the private sector?

in a good uni, research should be subsidising teaching

How? Research grants don't cover their own costs let alone cross subsiding other activity!

On one hand you defend the system and don't believe you should look to change it, on the other hand you're not willing to have others suggest changes as that's telling you how to do your jobs.

We are not defending the system and saying nothing needs to change, we are explaining why your specific suggestions are ignorant and absurd. Which is to be expected if you went to uni 25 years ago and don't work in the sector and are stubbornly refusing to accept the complexity of the system.

My university has 35,000 students, 8000 staff and revenue of £1 billion a year. The arrogance to think you know exactly how it should change, not knowing anything about the sector, is hilarious.

Cutbacks aren’t innovation. I think unis try and do too much. From discussions here it’s obvious. Of course CPD should be offered by unis. However private providers have stepped in first. It’s also not just unis that must follow regulations. Nearly every business has to. It’s not always welcome but this is what elected governments do! Always have. However, innovators find a way. That’s how agile companies make money.

If you spent 25 hours per week teaching 100 students in one lecture theatre, then you've met 90% of the purpose of undergraduates being at university.

You don't understand teaching practice or pedagogy do you?

I can't teach 100 students at a time in a lecture theatre because my subject needs smaller groups and a classroom set up so that groups can interact. Lots of subjects are taught best in smaller groups.

But Satsuma you're still putting all the expectation on the academic staff.

Innovative and imaginative initiatives spearheaded by vice-chancellors and their teams would be very welcome at this time if they help to retain jobs.

Universities have always had overseas students (for centuries!) and this is good for the economy. Getting in funding is also good for the economy as well as advancing subject knowledge which often benefits the wider public. Why take all of that away for the sake of change?

If you turn the clock back by giving every 100 students just one lecturer and no other kind of teaching, this will go against much of the recent research about how students learn and how students feel they have agency. It may also affect well-being. This isn't about not wanting to change, it's about knowing what we do well and what we could do even better.

I don't speak for everyone posting here who also works in a university- we are individuals and so are our students!

Maybe that subject isn't viable - what is it? Maybe its more vocational?

English, foreign languages, engineering, chemistry, maths, physics, social sciences, history, geography, biology, computer science, law, economics, economics, politics certainly can be taught very effectively in large groups.

One little multi-billion pound British company that was a university spin-out. Definitely need to stop university research; heaven forbid that we have any more companies like this contributing to the UK economy;

https://www.ukri.org/who-we-are/how-we-are-doing/research-outcomes-and-impact/bbsrc/exscientia-a-clinical-pipeline-for-ai-designed-drug-candidates/

Maybe that subject isn't viable - what is it? Maybe it's more vocational?.

It's viable and a growth area.

Just because you can teach hundreds of students together doesn't mean you should.
Some of us care about the student experience and quality of teaching.

I have no issues at all with any overseas students, but and its a big but - consider it a bonus, undergraduate funding of UK students is also subsidising research, and if university models are not currently working, they shouldn't;t be asked for more.

Why the need to retain jobs, we need the costs to be lower - the aim should be lower the number of people needed, not retain jobs!

Well, 25 years ago there weren't so many well being issues and the results were good - so I'm not saying there aren't better ways, but if they cost more, m maybe they are unaffordable and the old system produced good results anyway. I'd go as far as to say the results were better - as someone who employs graduates and has for many years, they are becoming more fragile and on average do not have the same depth as understanding as a generation ago - I suspect it is partially just how society has evolved, but in many ways being pandered to. so, rather than focus on agency, why not focus on reducing cost and consider that doing better - its a choice.

I hope you didn't think those numbers are impressive, that's quite a small organisation with very few customers.

It's not complex, it's a very simple business.

I deliver transformation in businesses and am very successful at it - and often meet people who believe their specific division or business is complex and special. (It never is, but those are the people who don't prosper).

25 years ago there weren't so many well being issues

On what basis do you make that statement? Do you have any evidence?

How many customers do you think a university with 35,000 students has? I hope you don’t think it is just 35,000.

But you don't seem to care about value for money or giving choice to students about which experience to take? So, yes you should if it gives good results (it does) and is much cheaper.

Remember when fees were first introduced they were mean to be between 3k and a maximum 9k. it was anticipated that only the top few institutions could really demand 9k, but all the greedy uni's decided they were worth the maximum - even the OU with no f2f (they used to have good summer schools) charges this.

We need fewer universities and fewer staff in them. The numbers raised by someone else were clear on this - only 1 billion in revenue for 8,000 staff. a reasonable benchmark would suggest 1,000 staff, upto a maximum of 2,000 staff for that level of revenue.

A third off the revenue of 1bn will come from students, so assuming a third of staff, this would be only 121k revenue per member of staff equating to around 13 students if fully dedicated.

You must see that is absurd, a reduction of staff by 75% is needed to make universities reasonably efficient, and in time this needs reducing by half again.

It's exactly the number of students paying fees. Sounds like 35,000. Do some people pay without being a student?