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.

RG....best marketing exercise ever!

Absolutely agree!!

Online Lectures and even tutorials are one thing, but how would you do labs and practical seminars online?

How many times does it need to be said that Russell Group is just a marketing tag? There is such important work going on in all sorts of unis and ‘even’ ex polys, in all sorts of areas. If Plymouth didn’t carry out any research in its oceanography department we would know a vast amount less about the oceans, eg be missing seminal research on the whole threat around microplastics (and not, in fact have the word ‘microplastics’ which was coined there by the world-leading professor involved).

@delphigirl. The Plymouth research example is definitely the most convincing argument to me for research outside RG universities but I feel that such scientific environmental research should always be funded. However, research funding should be based on merit not student fees.

@Elainembenes I know that research led teaching can be bad because I went to an RG university and some lecturers were just not very good. Some were good. The ability to teach well has nothing to do with research.

Thanks, that’s a fair response @Runemum

RG....best marketing exercise ever!

And a fair bit of that excellent marketing has been done here on Mumsnet…

However, research funding should be based on merit not student fees.

It is. Research funding is applied for and awarded based on merit.
Student fees are not paying for research in the way you think it is.
Every research bid I've submitted has had to include costs for my time.

My contract states I get the equivalent of 1 day a week for scholarly activity (which can include research ) but the reality is I rarely get to use it because the student focused element of my role takes up more than my full time hours.

Any research bids I've been awarded have brought in additional income to my department which helps us subsidise the running of our degree programs.

I know that research led teaching can be bad because I went to an RG university and some lecturers were just not very good. Some were good. The ability to teach well has nothing to do with research.

This statement makes your suggestions even more nonsensical!
No, bring a researcher doesn't necessarily mean you're a good lecturer. However, working in a department which is conducting research means that staff will be conducting research informed teaching. This is what a university education should bring about!

Also, times have changed. It's not as easy to be a poor lecturer anymore. Student satisfaction is so important.
At my university all teaching staff have to have a PhD, be an active researcher and hold a teaching qualification. This is our way of ensuring that research informed teaching is also good quality teaching.

Although, we're not a RG university so what do we know 🙄🙄🙄
According to you we should scrap all of our research and leave it to the 24 RG universities. It would mean lots of subject areas would no longer have world leading research taking place but they mustn't be important subjects if the Russell Group don't do it 🤷🏼‍♀️🤷🏼‍♀️ (which is essentially what you're saying @Runemum )

However, research funding should be based on merit not student fees.

It is. Research funding is applied for and awarded based on merit.
Student fees are not paying for research in the way you think it is.
Every research bid I've submitted has had to include costs for my time.

My contract states I get the equivalent of 1 day a week for scholarly activity (which can include research ) but the reality is I rarely get to use it because the student focused element of my role takes up more than my full time hours.

Any research bids I've been awarded have brought in additional income to my department which helps us subsidise the running of our degree programs.

I know that research led teaching can be bad because I went to an RG university and some lecturers were just not very good. Some were good. The ability to teach well has nothing to do with research.

This statement makes your suggestions even more nonsensical!
No, being a researcher doesn't necessarily mean you're a good lecturer. However, working in a department which is conducting research means that staff will be conducting research informed teaching. This is what a university education should bring about!

Also, times have changed. It's not as easy to be a poor lecturer anymore. Student satisfaction is so important.
At my university all teaching staff have to have a PhD, be an active researcher and hold a teaching qualification. This is our way of ensuring that research informed teaching is also good quality teaching.

Although, we're not a RG university so what do we know 🙄🙄🙄
According to you we should scrap all of our research and leave it to the 24 RG universities. It would mean lots of subject areas would no longer have world leading research taking place but they mustn't be important subjects if the Russell Group don't do it 🤷🏼‍♀️🤷🏼‍♀️ (which is essentially what you're saying @Runemum )

My main point is that student fees should not rise.
Students are already getting into enough debt.
UK universities already spend more per head that most other countries.
Therefore, there needs to be a shake up of the system.
Ideas need to shared about how to limit student debt and how to offer cheaper post 18 alternatives.
I proposed an idea-less research at non-RG universities. If that is a no-goer, what about certain universities only doing research in specialist areas. Therefore, less of a scramble for funding.
I still hold that teaching quality is not related to research and probably won't be convinced otherwise so probably not worth arguing about.

I don’t agree with all of @Runemum ’s points but come on, she’d specifically said in the post of hers you were responding to here that she thinks some universities/academics should do LESS research, not none. She also said there (and I’m paraphrasing) should be a divide between those universities that focus on research and those that don’t. Which makes it bloody obvious she does NOT think
“the only purpose of university is to teach undergraduate students”.

I presume you teach your students the importance of reading comprehension?

Runemum, with her open sharing of ideas for change, is an easy target for someone who knows more about how universities are run to patronise, sneer or look down at. Doesn’t mean you have to do it though and distort the meaning of her words.

What is intended to be covered by student fees at a university?

So you get to shut down a discussion just because you don't agree? On something you have very limited experience?

Fine. But I know that being an active researcher in the subject that I teach makes me a better academic and lecturer. Engaging with other researchers in my subject and collaborating with them benefits my curriculum. My students are being taught and are engaging with the most up to date information. That benefits them even if they don't fully appreciate it.

Out of interest, if you don't thinks fees should rise and we've established that universities are now operating on a shoestring, where is the money going to come from?

And don't say stop research, or cut student services as they've been cut as much as they can.

What is intended to be covered by student fees at a university?

Apologies, I worded that very clumsily.
I meant that the current fees don't cover the cost of running a degree. If we just rely on uk fee income they run at a loss.
There isn't spare money left over to fund additional activities. Universities have to have multiple income streams.

@ElaineMBenes , I mean this gently, but is anyone of us in a position to judge our own performance objectively?

You are coming into contact now with the unvarnished opinions of the public who pay for universities through taxes and tuition. Many are exasperated and saying enough. Insisting you know better and everyone must cough up is not a great debating strategy.

I don’t agree with all of @Runemum ’s points but come on, she’d specifically said in the post of hers you were responding to here that she thinks some universities/academics should do LESS research, not none. She also said there (and I’m paraphrasing) should be a divide between those universities that focus on research and those that don’t. Which makes it bloody obvious she does NOT think
“the only purpose of university is to teach undergraduate students”.

Firstly, her earlier comments were purely focussed on UG students. Which is why I asked the question. She didn't respond.

The comments about only some universities focussing on research came later and she specifically suggested that only RG universities should do research leaving the rest to be specialist teaching institutions That is what I was responding to.

There is nothing wrong with my comprehension. Ironic that a post telling me off for being patronising is perhaps the most patronising one I've read today.

I mean this gently, but is anyone of us in a position to judge our own performance objectively?

I was taking about how I feel personally and offering up my experience, However, I do have years of course and module evaluations to support me.
But that's not the point I was making.

You are coming into contact now with the unvarnished opinions of the public who pay for universities through taxes and tuition. Many are exasperated and saying enough. Insisting you know better and everyone must cough up is not a great debating strategy.

Okay, a couple of things.
I agree that things need to change. Of course they do. I wouldn't disagree with that at all.
What I find exasperating is people who know very little about how universities and university funding works, telling those of us who are quite literally fighting for our jobs that we're doing it wrong.
How would you feel if people decided they were experts in your job despite having never done it? Wouldn't it get your back up a bit?

If I come across as tetchy it's because it's a shitty situation and we've tried absolutely everything to solve it. But without more money we're stuck and that will harm students as much as staff. Telling us to stop doing research or 'just run your careers service like schools do' is not helpful.

Insisting you know better and everyone must cough up is not a great debating strategy.

But the general public doesn't know a scooby-doo about how universities are structured, or financed. Or how research is funded. Or about fee limits. Or SLC funding. Or the societal benefit of the sector. Or about the UK's position in the world wrt to uni level education. Or the disadvantages of PQE. Or the pedagogy of teaching!

Those of us that have spend their working careers in the sector DO know a lot more. That isn't to say we don't agree things need to change - we at the sharp end are DESPERATE for things to change. The sector is a really unhappy place to work atm. We need change. But that change must be well informed and evidence led. And frankly that means experts analysing and evaluating. Not Josh's mum on MN.

I, assume the same as everyone else, can see that the NHS needs to change somehow - but I'm not arrogant enough to think I know how that can be done. I simply don't have that knowledge. But I do know a thing or two about HE funding.

But regardless of which of her points came later, you responded to both those points in the same post, so by that point in time would have seen that she didn’t think universities should only focus on teaching undergraduates. Your logic doesn’t logic.

And re my post being “perhaps the most patronising one you’ve read today” - duly noted

Thank you @titchy
Far more eloquent than I am as always!

* I know that research led teaching can be bad because I went to an RG university and some lecturers were just not very good. Some were good. The ability to teach well has nothing to do with research.*

Anecdote is not the singular of data.

We need change. But that change must be well informed and evidence led. And frankly that means experts analysing and evaluating. Not Josh's mum on MN

@titchy Well yeah, no shit, but context, innit, and it’s not either/or.

Experts are hopefully analysing and evaluating in professional forums. This is Mumsnet, where Josh’s mum is entitled, indeed encouraged, to debate and give her views on a whole range of topics, from Josh’s favourite underpants to car parking disputes to health issues to government spending. Regardless of her level of professional expertise on any of those. It would sometimes be lovely if only posters who professionally knew what they were talking about posted, but that’s not MN’s purpose or business model.

Indeed as a very long-time Mumsnetter I’ve seen and greatly appreciated many confidently-stated posts from you on a range of topics (and I’ve done the same myself). I’m assuming you’re not for example a geneticist AND a lawyer as well as a higher ed professional, although huge respect to you if you are

lol - no I'm not (but family members are )

In a debate it would be nice if Josh's mum said 'oh i didn't realise x, y, z - yes I can see that is an issue, what would help'. It's how people are able to contribute intelligently to the debate.

On MN everyone just digs further their already entrenched views. And let's be frank, the last Gov and the newspapers and other media are pretty anti-HE, so forums like MN could actually be hugely useful in demonstrating to the public what we're up against in the sector, and how valuable a sector it is.

We're also a pretty passionate lot those of us in the sector - we care immensely about it and the students we teach and the research outputs we yield.

There maybe could be a debate about the value of some research!? Who does it benefit? Society or the uni? It’s hardly all vital! Most research is, of course, very important but how much is self serving? Also RG - research led unis, plus a few others of course, still give their students an earnings advantage. There are also some courses which give students an economic advantage and enhance social mobility. Some courses don’t.

I think lots of us accept there are other opinions but as a country we always seek to get money for failing businesses from coal to steel to car makers to unis. If the current model doesn’t work, it needs to change. I’m sure all that valuable research will be of interest to other employers!

Those who are good at research bring in an awful lot of money through research grants. REF is complex. There are undoubtedly some lecturers who ought to be on teaching only contracts at most universities. Most universities would benefit from some form of restructuring in areas. Many senior academics are paid very large salaries (£150k plus) and hang around for way too long -we have staff in their late 70s who are clearly going to hang around for as long as they possibly can. Why wouldn’t you if someone is giving you £180k a year. Professional services teams are often flabby (marketing for example is often over staffed). HR teams are very risk averse and don’t like to push back against demands of the unions.

There is a lot wrong with university management however it’s a very complex beast and unless you work in university management you are highly unlikely to understand it.

Many senior academics are paid very large salaries (£150k plus) and hang around for way too long -we have staff in their late 70s who are clearly going to hang around for as long as they possibly can. Why wouldn’t you if someone is giving you £180k a year.

I'm not sure there are huge numbers of senior academics on this sort of salary. At the universities I've worked at you'd only get close to that salary if you were a pro vice chancellor or deputy vice chancellor.

None of our Dean's are on £150k.... more like £90-100k. A professor with no leadership responsibility wouldn't be getting that sort of salary.

Professional services teams are often flabby (marketing for example is often over staffed). HR teams are very risk averse and don’t like to push back against demands of the unions.

That used to be true but I think a lot of universities have reduced their PS staff over the last couple of years. We've lost huge numbers of marketing and admissions staff and I know they are struggling to find jobs as other universities are doing the same.
I'm genuinely worried about how few PS staff we have left.