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.

This argument didn’t work for the industrial towns in Wales and the North.

Around 47% of people go to university in Germany. Why can they do it and fund it and we can't? These are grant/loan conditions below. (Research is also funded by government,)

The BAföG is the main German state-sponsored student support scheme. Students enrolled in degree courses at a German university are entitled to receive a monthly stipend of up to 670 euro a month (the exact amount depends on various factors including the housing and health insurance situation of the applicant, as well as the income, savings, and assets of the applicant, and those of his/her spouse or parents; 50% of the stipend is awarded as a scholarship, and the rest as an interest-free loan). The duration of financial assistance is based on the standard period of study (Regelstudienzeit) for the chosen discipline.

That’s a fair point. I just don’t think most students will value it as highly as you do. Force the full cost onto students, and they will vote with their feet. Then what?
Orchestrating an orderly rationalisation of the university sector might be kinder to all involved.

@EmpressoftheMundane it's an interesting point about how much value students place on research informed teaching. Do you think that some institutions (such as Oxbridge and similar) should be dedicated to research only while the less prestigious universities, should be teaching only?

No. I think it’s society as a whole who benefits most from research and all the benefits it brings and is best placed to pay for it.

Individual students are making a more personal calculation and are more likely to be willing to pay for the bits of a university they most directly relate with and benefit from.

I do understand that we want research. I do understand that universities are a lot more than just undergraduate teaching. I just see a mismatching of objectives. Students aren’t the only beneficiaries, they are certainly not the direct beneficiaries of many things that universities do. Given that, I think they will baulk at paying for it all.

Ultimately society as a whole does pay for the research, most students (currently) don’t pay all their student loan back. Whether this changes as repayment terms change I don’t think has been shown yet?

The key question is are the students benefiting from their degrees? Or could they have got an equally well-paid job without a degree?
In fact, could they be disadvantaged by doing certain degrees and would three years of work experience have put them in a better position in the workplace.
Student debt has gone up at the same time as the value of a degree has gone down.
Companies now see a degree as less important than before and more companies are recruiting students directly after A-levels and saying they will train them and that a degree is not necessary.
I also don't think student debt should be subsidising research when it has no direct benefit for them.
I believe the EPSRC fully funds STEM research.
Other people have mentioned the impact on towns if universities close. However, I don't think that a town's prosperity should be built on young people's debt.
I really don't think university tuition fees should rise. Students should not have any more debt than they already have. If the government does raise tuition fees, I hope the public and students vote with their feet and choose not to go. I am pretty sure, the jobs many are going into after university will still be there even if the students don't have a degree.

In my opinion, universities need to cut back and provide much better value for money for students.
I also think it would be better if some universities that are wasting students money and time close.

That’s a fair point. I just don’t think most students will value it as highly as you do. Force the full cost onto students, and they will vote with their feet. Then what?

Will they?

When tuition fees increased from £3k to £9k we didn't see applications drop. In fact they've risen.

Undergraduate students might not initially value or appreciate the fact they are experiencing research informed teaching from experts in the field but they appreciate knowledgeable, experienced staff.

In my opinion, universities need to cut back and provide much better value for money for students.

What else can we cut back on?

I believe the EPSRC fully funds STEM research.

No. 80% the same as the other RCs.

When tuition fees increased from £3k to £9k we didn't see applications drop. In fact they've risen.

Correction: applications ROSE, and then in the past year or two they’ve been dropping. Which is of course one of the reasons this discussion is being had.

For what it's worth

Goldsmiths are in dire financial straits and struggling to stay afloat; I have just completed my degree there. There were 36 in my cohort and 9 in the current Y1 cohort, all taking the same course.

St Marys in Twickenham is in robust financial health; a family member has just finished their degree there.

Between us MNetters, we could probably list most unis and current knowledge of the financial situation of each, from current / recently graduated students

Correction: applications ROSE, and then in the past year or two they’ve been dropping. Which is of course one of the reasons this discussion is being had.

True. But that is not due to financial reasons.

Finance does not stop people applying to university. It changes their behaviour in terms of where they apply and what they apply to study.
The drop in home applications is primarily due to demographics. It's the drop in international students that is creating the biggest issues.

@Titchy Okay thanks for informing me.
I believe though that companies often completely fund STEM research.

@ElaineMBenes
OECD figures put the United Kingdom as the third most expensive (per head) higher education system in the world – above many countries with brilliant HE systems such as Canada, Norway, Japan, Finland, Germany.
Universities need to think about what undergraduate students need most and then cut back on the things that are nice but not essential e.g. expensive careers advice versus cheaper careers advice. Cheaper school careers advisors already make links with companies, get companies into schools for talks, arrange careers fairs, do one-to-one careers advice etc. I am not sure undergraduate students need more than this.
Universities could simplify admissions and the admin around this so that students are admitted based on actual A-level results. This should reduce the number of people employed in admissions. Scores could be used rather than grades to distinguish between students and a computer could match students to courses.
Universities could cut some research that has poor funding.
They could cut courses that do not improve students' job chances.
If some universities close, then others be able to fill courses, which currently don't have enough students.

@ElaineMBenes of course finance stops people applying to university, even if that number of people is very small.

Figures show the number of applications by 18 year old home students has dropped in the past two years. We can’t possibly know that that’s just down to “demographics”, and in fact there’s articles and research about how some students don’t think the debt is worth it.

I agree that the drop in applications by international students is the main factor.

@Runemum
The 'cheaper' school careers advice offered by schools is not the fix you think it is.
Schools based careers advisers as massively underpaid and undervalued.
I got my first school based careers adviser job 25 years ago and I regularly see jobs advertised with the same salary I was being paid back then! It's a disgrace.
We certainly shouldn't be advocating for university careers staff to be paid the same as school based staff- it should be the other way around!

Also, the job of a university careers consultant is very different to that of a schools based careers adviser. They develop curriculum, teach, develop and deliver programmes (some accredited) , do research and contribute to a number of the strategic KPIs of the university. They are often responsible for the graduate outcomes of an entire faculty. It's a far more complex job which requires a post graduate qualification and a salary which is commensurate with the role.

It's not just about making links with employers, in fact that is often not done by careers consultants but dedicated employer engagement teams.

I did some research recently with a large group of students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and who are considered first generation students.

Finance did impact their behaviour with regards university choice but the vast majority still felt that university was their preferred option. They were just more likely to choose a local university.

Universities could simplify admissions and the admin around this so that students are admitted based on actual A-level results. This should reduce the number of people employed in admissions. Scores could be used rather than grades to distinguish between students and a computer could match students to courses.

Post qualification applications gets looked at every few years.
Nobody has managed to find a way of implementing it which doesn't involve changing the structure of the school and university year. Exams would need to be moved or the start of university academic years would need to change.
Changing the start of the academic year would have implications for international students.

As for computers doing the bulk of the admissions work. Lots of universities already have a central, automated admissions process but you still need people to check qualifications and deal with non standard applicants and courses.

I believe though that companies often completely fund STEM research.

There is VERY LITTLE commercial funding to be bid for! Most is RCs, then charity, then philanthropy, then a few 'others' like private cos and government.

The (small!) drop in rate is a mix of post-Covid effect, media rhetoric and publicity around strike action and lack of money in the sector to support students.

Sure, it’s a small drop. My point was it’s foolish to make a categoric statement like “finance does not stop people applying to university”.

It’s surely not contentious to say that finance stops some people from applying, and indeed always has. I was the first person to go to university in my very large extended family on both sides. I know finance was the main prohibitive factor for those who would and academically could have gone to university in the generation above me, the same generation as me and now for some in the generation below me.

Not everyone has a local university to them that does the course they want to do that they can also get into, so living at home while attending uni to keep costs down isn’t feasible for all. Some people - however tiny the number - are going to go without. Because of finance.

I am not in any way arguing against the value of a university education. I was silently following this conversation and finding it very interesting, but joined in to point out that another statement (by the same academic) was somewhat incomplete or misleading.

@WriterOfWrongs it is not misleading to say that increasing tuition fees is not necessarily going to see large numbers of 18 year olds reject university or to point out that it didn't in the past.

Previous posters were adamant in their statements that higher fees will see people reject university in their droves. However, history tells us that's not true.

The trends found in the research suggest that finance does not stop people going to university but it does change their decision making behaviour.

Of course, there will be individuals who buck the trends but research is looking at patterns of behaviour.

I have researched university choice and the decision making behaviour of students very recently. Young people who are studying a level 3 qualification see university as a natural progression. It's just what you do. That was the pattern of behaviour across all social demographics. What did differ was the choice of university and the subject.
The results from this research doesn't mean that every single participant responded in the same way but that there were patterns that emerged that were significant enough to draw conclusions and make recommendations.
Finance was not seen as a barrier to university, young people in my study were very accepting of student debt. Tuition fees were rarely mentioned, other than as something not to worry about because they would get a loan. The worries were around living costs not fees.

University is cheap in Germany because the government subsidises it heavily.
The same way childcare is extremely cheap and child benefit is very high, because the government pays for it.
It's all about priorities.

it is not misleading to say that increasing tuition fees is not necessarily going to see large numbers of 18 year olds reject university or to point out that it didn't in the past

That’s not the comment or sentiment I meant was somewhat misleading or incomplete. As I would have thought was clear from my previous replies to you.

Your research sounds interesting & important. But you’re using it to state a fact and asserting authority without being able to show tangible proof. Which was something my own university & post grad education drilled into me NOT to do I believe you, but fee, I’ve known of at least one person on MN to lie about their expertise as an academic.

*typo: “fee” should be “fwiw”

The above is to @ElaineMBenes