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.

Is it really true that former polys are way behind? It's been years, surely in that time there has been staff churn, changes to courses etc.

@WriterOfWrongs - please do not descend into a bun fight with @TizerorFizz because that will kill the thread and the discussion. Older posters with conservative “c” values often get attacked on here, but the substance of what they actually say, can be insightful. There is a tendency to get too caught up in the narrative of the day in all professions.

I said yesterday I doubt Starmer’s Government will raise tuition fees. They won’t give NHS or kids with SEN or Schools more cash either so why would they treat unis any better? Some did not like that, but it is sort of stating the obvious.

I am interested in @ElaineMBenes point about poorer students. Richer students seem to be choosing unis as well now based on where they know some of their wider network is going and where they will enjoy the social scene. I can’t remember this being a thing many years ago when I was choosing a uni. I literally researched the course and went for the best option for me. These days I expect the price of local rents to be a very important factor in the decision making of poorer students, despite the maintenance loan. That would stand to reason.

@Araminta1003 I don't give a flying fig if someone is older with conservative views, that's not what I'm attacking at all. It's the way those opinions are expressed. Surely someone older and small 'c' conservative is able to polite and respectful and non-ableist, I presume you're not suggesting they're too old and conservative to be so?

Richer students seem to be choosing unis as well now based on where they know some of their wider network is going and where they will enjoy the social scene. I can’t remember this being a thing many years ago when I was choosing a uni. I literally researched the course and went for the best option for me. These days I expect the price of local rents to be a very important factor in the decision making of poorer students, despite the maintenance loan. That would stand to reason.

The most interesting thing (for me anyway!) that came out of my research was how young people chose a university and the complete lack of reference to using what is referred to in the sector as 'consumer information'. By consumer information I'm referring to league tables, graduate outcomes, rankings etc. Essentially the information they should be looking at. Not one student in my study referred to this information.
Location was the the deciding factor. They wanted a local university which was familiar to them and 'where there would be people like them'.
This research was specifically focussed on first generation students so may not be applicable to the student population as a whole.

But to get back to the discussion as you wish @Araminta1003 :

I said yesterday I doubt Starmer’s Government will raise tuition fees. They won’t give NHS or kids with SEN or Schools more cash either so why would they treat unis any better? Some did not like that, but it is sort of stating the obvious.

I'm not sure it is stating the obvious though. Raising tuition fees would mean raising the amount loaned, and if it's loaned, it gets paid back (well, at least some of it) by the students, not the institutions. That is not the same as in the NHS and education.

I was at a talk by (amongst others) a government minister on funding SEN in education the other day, and that minister was saying how they're going to fund certain initiatives to address the problem. The huge elephant in the room was, as another speaker pointed out, that there IS no money.

I don't think Starmer's government will raise tuition fees either, but IMO the motivation for that will be largely political. It would not be received well, even if it happens to be a practical and needed solution.

The most interesting thing (for me anyway!) that came out of my research was how young people chose a university and the complete lack of reference to using what is referred to in the sector as 'consumer information'. By consumer information I'm referring to league tables, graduate outcomes, rankings etc. Essentially the information they should be looking at. Not one student in my study referred to this information.
Location was the the deciding factor. They wanted a local university which was familiar to them and 'where there would be people like them'.
This research was specifically focussed on first generation students so may not be applicable to the student population as a whole.

Fascinating. Do you think this was in part so they could live at home and hence save on living costs? Or was that not a factor?

And was this because no one had told/showed them how to look up this sort of information? I know from my own research into a much younger age group that not all DCs or their families have the 'cultural capital' to know how to access this information for themselves, and I'm guessing that if you were focusing on first-generation students then their family backgrounds would mean they were less likely to be able to help their DCs. Or am I making too many assumptions there?

Personally I find it a bit sad that being with 'people like them' was so important – didn't university used to, in part, be about living away from home, meeting new people, gaining new experiences, challenging yourself when out of your comfort zone etc etc. All those sorts of things ultimately add social and geographical mobility because they make it less daunting for people to look at careers and jobs in other places around the country (or even abroad). Plus it means that you're more likely to have friends from a greater variety of locations and backgrounds.

Location was the the deciding factor. They wanted a local university which was familiar to them and 'where there would be people like them'.
This research was specifically focussed on first generation students so may not be applicable to the student population as a whole

I suspect the only area where it differs for non first generational students is the importance of a local location.

Do the top universities hire poorer students (who often need to work anyway) in their own universities to do significant outreach in their old school/areas both in person and online via social media campaigns?

Fascinating. Do you think this was in part so they could live at home and hence save on living costs? Or was that not a factor?

Cost was one factor. There was an acknowledgement that it would be cheaper to live at home. Interestingly, none of them had an issue with tuition fees.
Other reasons for staying local were caring responsibilities, part times jobs, friends and attending a university they were familiar with.

And was this because no one had told/showed them how to look up this sort of information? I know from my own research into a much younger age group that not all DCs or their families have the 'cultural capital' to know how to access this information for themselves, and I'm guessing that if you were focusing on first-generation students then their family backgrounds would mean they were less likely to be able to help their DCs. Or am I making too many assumptions there?
This was definitely a common factor. Lots of the young people said their parents were very supportive but not able to support them practically. Another interesting thing was that some of them had aunties/uncles/family friends who had gone to university as mature students. Now, mature student tend to go to their local institution. This was the university experience they were drawing upon.

Schools/Colleges also had a part to play here but that was more to do with how information was distributed.

Personally I find it a bit sad that being with 'people like them' was so important – didn't university used to, in part, be about living away from home, meeting new people, gaining new experiences, challenging yourself when out of your comfort zone etc etc. All those sorts of things ultimately add social and geographical mobility because they make it less daunting for people to look at careers and jobs in other places around the country (or even abroad). Plus it means that you're more likely to have friends from a greater variety of locations and backgrounds.

It can be a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy. It's really challenging to address too as you are often trying to tackle deeply ingrained ways of seeing the world.

Do the top universities hire poorer students (who often need to work anyway) in their own universities to do significant outreach in their old school/areas both in person and online via social media campaigns?

All universities have student ambassador schemes. Years and years ago when we had aimhigher there were specific schemes that employed students to go back to their old schools. This no longer exists.
Now the issues is funding....universities are having to cut back on lots of things and this is something that has been reduced at my institution. Student ambassadors are often employed to work on open days and they get the best feedback! But I've got a much smaller pool to draw upon this year.

didn't university used to, in part, be about living away from home, meeting new people, gaining new experiences, challenging yourself when out of your comfort zone etc etc.

It still is - for the confident middle class kids of uni-educated parents!

For first in family, just going to the local uni is a challenge, it's that far from their comfort zone.

So the middle class kids get further challenged by meeting new people and living away from home, the first in family don't benefit from that, and the middle class kids take that new confidence and experience of challenge to the interview room....

And to add to @ElaineMBenes 's point above, most (all?) universities have widening access departments that will do outreach. This includes recruiting and paying student widening access mentors. I worked as one while doing an MA as I was first-generation to go to university.

Absolutely! I started my HE career as a widening participation officer. I was first in family to go to university too.

I bloody loved that job!

I’ve actually been in charge of recruiting trainees and this blinkered view is nonsense. Plenty of great candidates from post 1992 institutions. I would never discount a candidate purely on which uni they went to.

The new Government have frankly admitted there is a huge black hole financially so there's no money to give, I'm personally dreading the budget next month.

Son is going back after a two year gap to do a masters. I'm glad that he now has a home, job and life away from university as well as being more mature. His COVID affected degree wasn't much fun

Personally I find it a bit sad that being with 'people like them' was so important – didn't university used to, in part, be about living away from home, meeting new people, gaining new experiences, challenging yourself when out of your comfort zone etc etc.

But different unis do have different vibes. I think objectively my DD would be vaguely considered middle class (uni educated parents, dad doing a professional job etc) but she didn't go to private school, didn't even go to the local grammar school. She hated Warwick on the open day, she said there were too many loud posh sounding kids with pushy parents asking the questions in the taster sessions and she didn't feel she'd fit in at all. She loved Keele because everyone, including other prospective students were really friendly and she absolutely felt at home.

I think, of all the ones she has visited she's liked Lancaster the most, fantastic facilities, lovely friendly people and a very flexible course structure. I just hope it doesn't go bust within the next 4 years! Although it sounds as though very few places are absolutely safe.

She hated Warwick on the open day, she said there were too many loud posh sounding kids with pushy parents asking the questions in the taster sessions and she didn't feel she'd fit in at all

That’s odd. Around 80% of Warwick undergraduate students are state school educated.

That’s odd. Around 80% of Warwick undergraduate students are state school educated.

Really? I thought last year 19.8% alone were from private school, then take out the overseas students, then take out the grammar school students. How many are from non-selective comps?

Ignoring the international undergrads; home non-selective state around 63% at Warwick, as compared with nearer 80% at Lancaster.

Again just home undergrads 50% at Warwick from either London or the South-East; around 17% at Lancaster. Over 40% of Lancaster home undergrads from the North West; just past 4% at Warwick.

International undergrads around 31% of Warwick undergrad total, Lancaster's figure not much less at 27%.

I suppose it does rather depend on what you regard “posh” to sound like.

Also, the big question is, why does it matter? Why not meet other people you aren’t familiar with? Why only want to be in your own bubble? State school will always be the biggest bubble. Although it’s clear some unis aren’t favoured by private schools and others are. The league table on these is what you might expect. I’ve no doubt people choose based on talk amongst friends. One of my DDs barely looked at course detail. Only partner unis in Europe!

Also, at my grammar, decades ago, many (all
my cruises) were first to uni in the family. Oxford was the nearest uni and no one went there! Everyone left home. You had to. I don’t see why this has changed for first in family etc now. We had local jobs, friends and local activities but they were left behind. Now the huge selection of unis has made it possible I guess - if you are in a city/large town. Maybe dc are less mature now too?

My DN gets full maintenance and bursary. She’s better off than the just about managing family who have 2 at uni. An extra £2,000 and never worked whilst at uni. Took cheapest hall. It probably is fair to say some dc are more risk averse but the poorest don’t need to work if they are savvy.

Personally I find it a bit sad that being with 'people like them' was so important – didn't university used to, in part, be about living away from home, meeting new people, gaining new experiences, challenging yourself when out of your comfort zone etc etc.

Though it still largely is this. The proportion living at home remains a relatively small minority at the overall level - although will vary by institution.

https://www.hesa.ac.uk/data-and-analysis/students/where-study#accommodation has overall numbers (in a nice graph) and a much more detailed table showing numbers for every uni

All those sorts of things ultimately add social and geographical mobility because they make it less daunting for people to look at careers and jobs in other places around the country (or even abroad). Plus it means that you're more likely to have friends from a greater variety of locations and backgrounds

I'm not quite so convinced that everybody used to go 100s of miles from home. There is clearly a (super) regional focus. Students from London - 45% go to a London Uni - and they do have a number of excellent local choices in the capital of course!; near to another 30% go to a uni in either the East of England or South East; that's 75% of students from London already accounted for. Barely 9% make it to a uni in Yorks and Humber; North West, North East, Scotland or NI.

When I (and many others on the thread) went in the 1980's, most think stayed within an hour of home. I'm a northerner, and one of a handful that went south.

Don't forget in those days around 10% went - from comprehensive schools like mine it would have been far less than 10% of my year group. The next 20% in grade terms, who these days would be local uni-bound, all left school for local work. So that 20%, the slightly less academically confident, these days have moved on a little - they're going to uni - they're recognising education as a good thing. I wouldn't call them less mature for choosing local uni rather than local work.

I think, of all the ones she has visited she's liked Lancaster the most, fantastic facilities, lovely friendly people and a very flexible course structure. I just hope it doesn't go bust within the next 4 years! Although it sounds as though very few places are absolutely safe.

Lancaster is one of the more financially secure universities. It has good overseas student numbers and strong China links. The Eden project work and its eco credentials and reputation also help. You don’t need to worry.

Not sure where “cruises” typo came from earlier!

We must have been an unusual group then for the 1970s. Friends (not cruises) went to Kent, Manchester. London, Nottingham, Sheffield, Liverpool, Brighton for art, and Leicester. All more than 1 hour. I don’t think anyone looked in great depth about any aspect of the course.Did they even give you that info? I’m trying to think if any of my friends’ parents had a degree. I don’t think so because you could get a perfectly good job without one and farmers and business owners didn’t need one.