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.

There is no need to be aggressive. I work in the sector at a very senior level. I know a lot about university management. I have no “narrative”. I have agreed with other things you have said on the thread. But on this point what you have said about repaying you loan at a higher level and so premium earners at “charged” more is incorrect. Or potentially poorly explained if it isn’t what you meant to say.

I'm saying that you cannot reduce the picture into a single assertion. The answer is, "it depends". If you do work in SM in HE you will know how complex issues are too often reduced to over simplistic sound bites that are harmful to the sector as a whole.

Interesting early picture from UCAS on accepted applicants at undergraduate level

https://www.ucas.com/data-and-analysis/undergraduate-statistics-and-reports/statistical-releases-daily-clearing-analysis-2024

This hopefully links to the filter by university tariif (higher, medium or low), and should show the multiple filter options.

Whilst postgrads are a big part of the overall funding picture and of course not shown here, the undergrad aspect still perhaps shows some, alebit generalised, early pointers.

Well I got told yesterday that unless we get more students between now and start of term then my course will run at a loss for the first time ever. Clearing was quiet and we lost more than we gained. We rejected some due to results and about a significant number appear to have managed to get something else/better in clearing and walked. Had a few phone calls and accepted some via clearing. But not great.

@CormorantStrikesBack If you are short of people why didn't you retain all the people with offers and lower the grade requirements for clearing? (within reason)

Because lowering the entry tariff affects league table metrics, which affects future application levels.

This is how stupid HE has become.

@GinForBreakfast To be fair, Martin Lewis asserts that lower paid grads will pay more because the repayment period is now 40 years. However it’s definitely complex.

This could be leading to students being more choosy over courses. Some are perceived to lead to better paid jobs than others.

And I think it's the right thing to do, to make a carefully considered, personal decision about whether to go to university, for what course and future career prospects and aspirations.

Blanket assertions are not necessarily helpful to individual decision-making.

@GinForBreakfast We sing from the same hymn sheet!

@TizerorFizz and @GinForBreakfast so are you suggesting it isn't financially worthwhile to study health science subjects for example and that some of the departments should close? In this case how do you think the many NHS vacancies will be filled?

We did but we need to draw a line in the sand somewhere. So we will accept 96 when the course is normally 125 I think. But a numbers of offer holders were significantly below 96. We don’t want people who are going to potentially struggle on an academic, tough course. Maybe some of those below 96 just had a bad day on their A level exam day and would be ok on the course but we can only go on results.

@biarritz, no, that is the exact reason of what I am saying. I don't know how I can be more clear.

Young people need to make informed decisions about university, student loans and career prospects. The prospect of student loan debt should not deter people from going to university because repayments rates are linked to future earnings.

And yes, the course is a health care course leading to registration and the nhs. So we are providing a course which is needed. Bit will the university continue to run it at a loss? Who knows?

There’s probably an argument to be made that courses might need to amalgamate. Nearly every health practitioner didn’t have a degree 40 years ago. There are other ways to train people. We have just pushed it out to unis. Doesn’t have to stay that way. Many older people were hugely competent without a degree. Those days when the nhs was efficient!

It doesn't matter what the provider is called though does it - a polytechnic, a university, a school of nursing, a teacher training college. Still costs the same money.

Personally I wouldn't like to go back to the days of nurses and teachers not being graduate occupations.

Yes, I do wonder if it will end up moving over to a fully apprenticeship type model.

I'm a huge fan of the apprenticeship model and think it is appropriate for many careers and learners but it still needs to be paid for! Not talking about the teaching element but the resources that the employer needs to employ and support the apprentice. The NHS is currently struggling with this unfortunately.

Yes, there’s a few apprenticeship programmes at my uni. I’m not involved with them so not sure about details but I’ve heard people talking at work about how expensive they are to run. Maybe if all of nursing, etc goes back to apprenticeship they’ll also have to look at the actual apprenticeship model and see if it needs changing. But I can’t see anything changing for some time and I don’t think they’ll move away from degree apprenticeship and lower standards after making such a fuss about nursing being a graduate career.

Yes this is the issue. You can't have a student nurse just rock up to a hospital. They are highly trained professionals. They need to be trained, but there just aren't the resources or time to actually do that now. Instead of taking time away from an overstretched workforce it's .ore efficient to train them up in a setting and then have an element of work experience. It doesn't have to be University though and arguably doesn't have to be degree level.
The apprenticeship model does need yo be looked at, because it's hugely prescriptive and bearocratic but it's like that in part to stop smokers taking the piss and just getting cheap labour without providing training.

Healthcare was a lot simpler 40 years ago. Advances in anesthesia, surgery, diagnosis and treatment have changed the face of the profession radically, as has the type and complexity of machines, equipment, and drugs. People are living longer, and living with multiple and complex conditions. Nursing needs a level 6 qualification to ensure students have the depth and breadth of knowledge required to perform their jobs competently. If you just want a bed bath and a cup of tea, that’s what your healthcare assistant does for you.

My personal view is that too many people are going to university and getting into an average of £46,000 of debt. I think that many people including nurses, doctors, engineers, software developers, accountants etc. may be better prepared for work by doing a degree apprenticeship. The government should spend more money on this not universities. In fact, many big companies including KPMG, IBM, Santander, Barclays etc are offering degree apprenticeships and I think this is a much better route for students going into this type of career. The NHS is also offering nursing and doctor degree apprenticeships from this year and I would prefer government money to go this way rather than universities. Too many people are doing degrees that they hope will get them a graduate level job and the feel disappointed when it doesn't happen whilst being saddled with debt. Students feel they have no choice but to go to university and get a degree but things need to change so they have other options.

I also think university courses are bad value for money for students. The average course is 15 hours a week but you are being lectured in halls with 100 students for £9000 a year. In contrast, a private school costs an average £17,000 a year but you get 30 hours of tuition in classes of 20 with lots of extracurricular activities included. Compared to a private school, universities are not offering good value for students.

But I have colleagues who offer training and development workshops for £5k a day to groups of 20 in the workplace. £9k is good value.

Companies can afford expensive workshops. Students can't.

Does anyone have a behind the paywall link to the David Behan (OfS) interview in the Sunday Times?