Some universities will go bust thread 2

[GinForBreakfast]

Continuing as thread 1 has filled up.

There are many more options.

Why any “expert” thinks it’s just the student who is the customer is beyond belief! Parents pay. Employers recruit the product. We, as taxpayers, pay. It’s unbelievable that so called experts have such little knowledge. Most standard businesses have to make people redundant if they cannot sell their services or goods. Unis need to do exactly the same. It’s a bloated sector and let’s have that uni accommodation for homes - brownfield sites I think. Let’s have real change. Students living at home won’t need them.

Not a bloated sector. Fewer percentage of UK students than in European universities. Problem is some institutions with good branding absorbing large numbers of students, leaving others bereft. The problem is,therefore, the market. Anyway I know Tizerorfizz is just a wind up because the 'arguments' are so cartoonist and ignorant.

Exeter and Falmouth are two entirely different universities. No management/financial overlap. They simply share a campus.

? Exeter has a Falmouth campus. They offer reduced tariff. I’m not confusing that with the arts uni. However the whole 3 could amalgamate!

@Tizer, do you mean 'Penryn'? Exeter has a campus in Penryn, Famouth is an entirely different uni.

She means penryn

Why any “expert” thinks it’s just the student who is the customer is beyond belief! Parents pay. Employers recruit the product. We, as taxpayers, pay. It’s unbelievable that so called experts have such little knowledge.

Have any of us said that the student is the only 'customer'? No.
We're well aware that universities have a wide range of stakeholders. The majority of the conversation has been around student debt and student outcomes, so that's what we've responded to.

If you want to know about the work we do with parents or about our employer engagement strategy or anything else we do just ask! Engage in a discussion with us instead of telling us we're doing it all wrong or posting aggressively!

Most standard businesses have to make people redundant if they cannot sell their services or goods. Unis need to do exactly the same.

I'm not sure if you're choosing to ignore the fact that universities are not standard businesses or you just don't understand. We can sell our services and goods. But we're forced to sell them at a loss.
Why do you continue to ignore that fact.

It’s a bloated sector and let’s have that uni accommodation for homes - brownfield sites I think. Let’s have real change. Students living at home won’t need them.

I disagree that it's a bloated sector. That doesn't mean I don't think we need change.

“Those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and/or first generation students are more likely to attend a lower ranking, local university and to study subjects that are less likely to attract high salary graduate jobs. It doesn't mean their university experience is worthless though.
We know that white working class boys/men are less likely to attend to university and perform the worst in GCSEs.
Parental education, employment and attitude to education is key in understanding inequality.
We also know that the investment in raising aspirations and attainment needs to start when children are young, it's too late by the time they get to university.
Education across the board is poorly funded in the UK and the lack of structured careers education and guidance is abysmal.”

Agree with all of this!
But for the taxpayer continuing to fund poor outcomes for the first generation students you describe makes no sense.

So what is the solution? I think businesses also need to do more. They keep benefitting from highly trained graduates for free.

The uni sector works extremely well at the top level - top 30%. It works poorly at the bottom level so what is the alternative?
The courses need to be tailored to employment and the employers need to be more heavily involved. I think they should be made to use their ESG requirements, for example, to support education/training for poorer students. I think there has to be closer partnerships.

We are all paying for those who never pay their student loans back. They pay in terms of wasted time, unis pay in terms of wasted reputation etc etc., we all end up paying more tax.

The unis with the worst employment outcomes need to amalgamate and be helped by partnerships in the private sector and even civil service etc to create more job opportunities.
And quite honestly all this CRAPPY MARKETING of league tables in loads of different forms is immensely confusing as well. The modern day student has had to become a CONSUMER. Higher Education should not be consumption.

I have no clue what the answer to this is, but it seems that there are so many different ideas out there about what a university's purpose is (or, rather, purposes are).

Is it "for" society, employers, or the students? Should it produce cultural, academic, economic, or social benefits? And if the answer is "all of the above" then how do we deal with those situations where helping Purpose X also hinders Purpose Y?

Threads like these always seem to turn into people being very confident about their answers to these questions, and I wish I had that confidence about anything! But I'm painfully aware that my own wishy-washy views don't make for good management or policy.

But for the taxpayer continuing to fund poor outcomes for the first generation students you describe makes no sense.

I think you've put words in my mouth. First gen/disadvantaged students don't necessarily have poor outcomes. University can be a transformative experience for these students.
Their outcomes are often judged less favourably against their wealthier more advantaged counterparts because of how we measure positive outcomes. By using salary as a measure we're ignoring a whole load of other factors which mean a university has been worthwhile for an individual and society as a whole.

We need to look at 'distance travelled' which means how much has a student developed and progressed while at university. This is a more meaningful measure of positive outcomes when it comes to university.

And don't forget, careers such as nursing, teaching, social work are extremely valuable to society. They are graduate careers but they traditionally don't attract high salaries. They are female dominated, and as women are more likely to work part time this also impacts earnings. It's people (women ) in these careers who are probably less likely to pay back their student loans in their entirety. But would you consider a graduate working in one of these sectors as having a poor outcome?
I wouldn't.

The unis with the worst employment outcomes need to amalgamate and be helped by partnerships in the private sector and even civil service etc to create more job opportunities.

What do you mean by 'create more job opportunities'.

And how would merging two universities that have poor graduate outcomes help anyone?

All the focus on white working class males not necessarily 'winning' financially compared to their counterparts neatly sidesteps the fact that virtually all other groups do benefit (financially, but I'd be wiling to bet in many other ways) compared to their counterparts, including , but not limited to, : white working class females (in fact all females) those (male and female) from EM backgrounds, care experienced school leavers. The statistics are all avaiilable that a girl who embarks on a university career , who comes from a less affluent background , improves lifetime earnings and opportunities. Finances aside, health outcomes and life expectancy are best for university educated people, including white working class males. These things are good for the individual and the economy.

I do think there was a deliberate focus on the white working class male by the last government - it's a shame to see a female focused website drawn into being distracted by that.

Excellent point made there @Piggywaspushed I've noticed the emphasis on 'white working class males' as well and not just on this thread. As if all those with the best graduate outcomes (financially) at the top end aren't guess who? white males which is another point not mentioned often. They may lose out at the bottom overall white males do pretty well.

The IFS looks at money and some degrees won’t make the grad more than not having the degree. There are disappointed students who have not benefitted financially afterwards and their views matter, as do the views of parents and taxpayers who paid for them . For very many salary does matter or we would not have nurses striking for example. Even though their degrees produce relatively good financial outcomes. Doctors top the tree.

@Araminta1003 I agree with most of what you say. Merging reduces overheads. Any business knows this. It seems unis do not want to accept this to be more efficient and effective. The high earners want to keep it that way, and it’s not in their interests to merge.

If the taxpayer and parents are paying, students achieving little but having a nice time isn’t really what many want who are paying. Also many many firms will tell you that grads are not the finished article. Most will require a lot more input and training. Especially for professional roles. They would also rightly say they are paying corporation tax to help educate young people. What they might expect is value for money.

Yes, @PhotoDad it is difficult but the uni sector has grown like topsy, we aren’t world leaders in unis (except a few) and we have a shrinking tax paying population. Do we really think we can have more and more and more money spent when the tax paying population is shrinking? Economics - as we discussed elsewhere.

It could be the working class males grain to be plumbers, electricians and maintain gas alliances. Or drive trains! They might even earn a lot more and be very happy!

It seems unis do not want to accept this to be more efficient and effective. The high earners want to keep it that way, and it’s not in their interests to merge.

It also seems like some people do not want to learn or understand how universities actually work or the challenges we face. If I thought a merger was in the best interests of the students I'd say so.

I've recently been through a merger of two large faculties and I can safely say that it did not benefit the students or staff. It did save money but everything else has been a disaster. I can't see how merging two universities would be any better.

I'm definitely not a high earner by MN standards (and never will be if I stay working in education) but I do understand the sector.

Out of interest @TizerorFizz are you interested in understanding the sector at all or are you just here to shout 'you're all wrong' at anyone who works in HE?

Mergers are always a disaster initially, in most sectors, employees are pissed off etc and feel taken over - it takes time.

Obviously.

Not all working class males want to do this, and there isn't capacity for all of them.

But, you are proving my point. Other socio economic groups are available.

@Araminta1003 Yes, it takes time but mergers and take overs are normal business practice to reduce costs. We had 4 district councils in my county. Now we have one unitary authority. As does Cornwall. No doubt elsewhere. It’s not easy but of course it’s possible. Look at Jaguar Land Rover. Mini is now BMW. Look at BAe. Look at many banks and building societies. Do we really think unis could not work this out? Short term pain for long term gain. Some really good people might get released into industry!

There are sectors where we need more male workers to make things fairer for boys and create role models. Primary school teachers and social workers immediately springs to mind as well as more youth workers again.

For those at the back UNIVERSITIES ARE NOT NORMAL BUSINESSES!!!!!!!!!!!

Pretty sure you're just being wilfully ignorant now

You know who used to lead on initiatives like this? Universities!!!

Just because Boris Johnson and Farage types abuse their power and use the white working class male to their advantage, does not translate to there not being a problem.
We have a shortage of skilled labourers and bricklayers etc which directly impacts housing costs as there is an inability to build fast and well. If there is a will to encourage lots of building there has to be a concerted effort to lay the foundations for the skills via education.

Mergers are rarely mergers. They are takeovers dressed up as mergers. The stronger partner sooner or later asset-strips the weaker one. That matters less in banking than in HE. Remember, universities are exempt charities, they have charitable purposes, they are answerable to many governance and oversight processes and regulations. It's not as simple as "just merging".

I actually do think some form of closer cooperation / sharing etc. across some functions could improve efficiency. But none of that is really going to make a dent in the "problem" of funding HE. We want a champagne experience on a beer budget and we're not going to get it.