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.

LOL... are a lot of the U.K. students "top notch"?

International students (just like international workers in the NHS) hold the system together. I'm glad international students are no longer bothering to come & the little englanders can fund the unis.

They need to get rid of random courses teaching no real skills or vocation...

But those students only paid the fees for a couple of years, while their families were using up far more resources-schools/health/housing so were a net cost to the tax payer even if they really did leave et the end of the course. Better that they don’t come at all.

A hood is the colours that hang down at the back of an academic gown indicating the institution and the degree conferred.

That's very helpful, thanks. I suppose I'd viewed it quite simplistically (my degree isn't in economics ) that the more people paying for a thing, the more profit would be generated if the overheads were controllable. I suppose they're not as controllable as I'd thought.

that the more people paying for a thing, the more profit would be generated if the overheads were controllable. I suppose they're not as controllable as I'd thought.

A huge part of the problem is that people are only paying for about two thirds of the thing and are generating more overheads.
There is no profit, just a huge deficit.

Do you think that the taxpayers got good value for their money from paying for your university education?

I've not thought about this before. I work in the arts/creative sector which is a solid contributor to the UK economy whilst average salaries in the sector are not particularly high. So maybe. No point in everyone being nurses if there's nothing for them to watch on the telly when they get home.

Could you have done your job without spending 3 years at Uni?

@GinForBreakfast In the context of the article - a bonnet? Anyway, clarity of English matters!

We had a massive expansion of the uni sector in the early 90s courtesy of the Comservatives. The cap on places offered was remained by the Conservativez in 2013. Cue huge numbers of student residences and massive pressure on rented housing.

MFLs are hard. Often low tariff unis just won’t get students taking these subjects. The country doesn’t produce students taking these subjects. Far too many unis offer law. At least 50% of lawyers have a law degree. Conversion costs and that isn’t always the best route for some. However the low tariff unis don’t get many into law jobs.

There was always an earnings premium with a degree but it’s half what it was. RG unis get better earnings premium. There does need to be a look at what degrees actually produce grads we need. Producing grads to take low level jobs wastes parental money and that of the state.

The BTEC route was good when far fewer were at uni. Us HNC holders could, of course, write an essay. Now people like me all go to uni. When 10% went, quite a few of us who didn’t go were quite bright. Now, with around 40% going, everyone like me is at uni!

@TizerorFizz I assume it was a weak attempt at a pun. WonkHE loves a pun.

You can't ask an individual person that question and then extrapolate across the value of HE as a whole. But generally, high participation rates in tertiary education are correlated with wealth, innovation, economic growth, social mobility etc. All good things. And the future of work will demand more, higher level skills, not less.

It's a long time ago, but I'd say as a first generation uni-goer from Not London, I don't think I'd be doing what I am now if I hadn't been to uni.

The creative sector is one that universities can train people in and, as you say, is a big contributor. You’re right that we need good technicians, designers, art directors and so on for our creative industries. Including TV.

What I question is whether sociology, criminology, psychology, international studies, political science and lots of other madey-up subjects do tired nurses any good when they get home!

What I question is whether sociology, criminology, psychology, international studies, political science and lots of other madey-up subjects do tired nurses any good when they get home!

Madey-up subjects!
I typed out so many responses to this which included expletives but I decided to keep it polite.
The subjects you listed (and others) do contribute hugely to society. I teach a vocational subject, it's a course that trains people to do an important and valuable job. The theoretical underpinning to the course and the job is taken from sociology, psychology and politics.

Well thank you for remaining polite.

But I can’t see any reason for backing down from ‘madey-up’. There are a lot of worthless courses being taught.

I can certainly agree that a well-educated population is a good thing. That’s why the core academic, rigorous subjects - history, English, foreign languages, STEM etc - should be prioritised and the others quietly shut down.

@Rummly just because you don't understand a subject doesn't mean it isn't rigorous or that it doesn't contribute positively to society. It's such a narrow minded view.

Let's take psychology as an example. Educational psychologists are in huge demand, particularly post Covid. Without psychology we don't have people going on to train as educational psychologists and supporting young people in schools.

I could give you literally dozens of examples of where studying a 'madey-up' subject is actually the foundation to something that is vital and valuable to society.

@Rummly
Which of the core "rigorous" academic subjects will help society to answer the following questions based on sound academic research rather than ideological posturing:
How do we tackle homelessness?
How do we create equality of opportunity?
Why are there so many people with poor mental health?
What is the impact of early access to internet and social media on the young?
What's the right balance between benefits and sanctions for people with low incomes?
Do children develop differently in single parent families vs dual parent families regardless of income or is the main problem just poverty?
How much impact does art and culture have on the improvement or worstening of social trends?

Are these questions simply not important to you because they don't affect you? Or would you rather not have rigorous academic research into these questions so that ideological solutions can't be challenged? Or should they just be a minor sub-discipine within one of your "pure" academic subjects?

I will admit that I have a particularly - and I’m willing to be persuaded, irrationally - low view of psychology. A great deal of it seems to me to be mumbo-jumbo and pseudo-medical vacuousness.

I’m probably wrongfully influenced by the TV and newspaper psychologists - or ‘experts in dressing up the bleedin’ obvious’ as they might be better described.

(Obviously I distinguish between psychology and psychiatry.)

Not a single one of those questions is better addressed by someone with a social sciences degree from an ex-poly rather than a graduate in a core subject from a good university.

Not a single one of those questions is better addressed by someone with a social sciences degree from an ex-poly rather than a graduate in a core subject from a good university.

As a social sciences graduate now doing research to answer one of those questions I beg to differ

Oh and my PhD ( from an ex-poly) specifically looked at one of those questions and my supervisors were specialists.
I couldn't get a specialist subject at another university.

*specialist subject team

Imagine in 2024 thinking it's better to study Classics than psychology or politics, as if we don't have endless complex challenges in our world that require in-depth knowledge in order to find solutions.

If nothing else, psychology and politics help explain why some people are ideologically opposed to education that does not promote their own worldviews. The 'return to classical liberal education' movement is heavily pushed by conservative/right wing types.

Exactly.

How do we reduce child poverty in the UK today?
Tell me how an expert on Livy, the Tudors, or Spanish linguistics will solve that problem.

People opposed to social science research usually just don't care about the problems that it's intended to help solve.

Yeah, Greek and Roman civilisation and literature, how pointless.

What a load of nonsense.

Everyone cares about those things.

But they’re problems that won’t be solved by social scientists.