Some universities will go bust thread 2

[GinForBreakfast]

Continuing as thread 1 has filled up.

I agree @tortoise18 There is a complete misunderstanding in the academic world about how mergers could be beneficial. It’s come to a time when many universities need to think radically. Yes, get away from some measures of “success”. In fact better knowledge about employability really helps students decided which course. It does matter. We are spending money to have an educated workforce. Not an educated society claiming benefits.

In fact better knowledge about employability really helps students decided which course. It does matter. We are spending money to have an educated workforce. Not an educated society claiming benefits.

This is my particular area of expertise. What makes you think we are creating an educated society who are claiming benefits?
Employability is something universities do well, even if the Graduate Outcomes data doesn't always support this fully.

Why would a successful university merge with a less successful institution if that would impact their KPIs and metrics? Which wound then have a detrimental impact on reputation, recruitment and income generation?

I was celebrating with a former PhD student of mine earlier this week - they'd landed a job at a Chinese university that ranks (QS ranking) within the top 50 in the world - so I'm very pleased & proud.

But they were telling me of doing various interviews in China - most top-range universities look at the world ranking of the university from which they've graduated with their PhD. Luckily, mine's in the top 100 overall, and my department in the top 50, so my PhD student was OK. BUt this is the reality of rankings.

Most academics at the coalface of teaching & research (as opposed to senior managers) are hugely sceptical about the veracity and use of rankings.

But sadly, they do count.

QS rankings in particular are notoriously unreliable on account of the metrics they use and because they are quite easy to 'game'.

Also I thought the institution attended was much less relevant for PhDs where it's more to do with where the relevant research is being conducted and/or who is conducting it, ie your student will have been attracted either to you personally and your area of interest/expertise, or to the specific research your department is carrying out, or both. Is that not right?

Some international markets are VERY rankings sensitive.
We know that they can be 'gamed' and they are flawed but they are taken seriously by some people. So we are where we are.

China in particular is very rankings sensitive.

your student will have been attracted either to you personally and your area of interest/expertise, or to the specific research your department is carrying out, or both. Is that not right?

Well @thing47 up to a point ... there's very little about serious university teaching & research which is categorically right or wrong. Chinese students are attracted to my university & department often because we're visible in various rankings. And the CSC which gives out the money, is very aware of rankings.

Notwithstanding what @ElaineMBenes says about how they can be gamed.

I've been asked to participate in the QS ranking activity and yes, it could easily be gamed. It includes a metric for reputation. The REF got rid of that a few REF cycles ago, because of the way that "reputation" can be gamed and is highly dependent on individual's knowledge - broad or narrow - of universities world-wide.

Do you know something? Most graduates don’t work in academia! Most employers in this country are not looking at world ranking for universities. Many would barely know what they were. It’s all so inward looking.

I was saying “on benefits” as a tongue in cheek like, but we do know many students don’t think their degrees were worth it and they haven’t accessed better quality employment as a result of their degree. Some grad starting salaries have barely moved in 10 years and frankly, lots of employers don’t need graduates at all. It’s just a filtering mechanism. Universities do have graduates who are not getting decent jobs and the student feels short changed. The university does not.

I'm talking about PhD students.

Do you know something? Most graduates don’t work in academia!

Yes we bloody know that! You're so incredibly patronising.

Most employers in this country are not looking at world ranking for universities.
No, they aren't. But our graduates don't just go to work in the uk and many of our students come from places where they place a lot of value on rankings.

Many would barely know what they were. It’s all so inward looking.

Do you think universities are the ones that place such importance on metrics and rankings for the fun of it? Really?
You think we CHOOSE to do this?

I was saying “on benefits” as a tongue in cheek like, but we do know many students don’t think their degrees were worth it and they haven’t accessed better quality employment as a result of their degree. Some grad starting salaries have barely moved in 10 years and frankly, lots of employers don’t need graduates at all. It’s just a filtering mechanism. Universities do have graduates who are not getting decent jobs and the student feels short changed. The university does not.

The data shows us that going to university improves your career prospects. Obviously this is sector dependent and there are individual outliers but the graduate premium exists. Graduate are less likely to be unemployed and find jobs quicker if they do become unemployed.
The OfS has checks and balances to ensure that courses not meeting certain conditions (which includes graduate employment) are sanctioned.

And who are you blaming for graduate salaries? Is that our fault too?

The data shows that going to some universities helps and studying some subjects is a great investment, but the salary premium is getting smaller and smaller for the majority. The IFS says some courses do absolutely nothing for earnings and parents and students are not getting any value at all. They are completely out of pocket.

The university system is an echo chamber. Anyone talking about PHD students and outcomes is clearly talking about a rarified few. The vast majority of Uk based students work in the Uk. We all know many international students gl home, especially the Chinese. So we need to understand who we are actually talking about. The majority of uk students work and live here. By the time people go abroad, they have work and other qualifications behind them and are often going into shortage roles. So QS rankings will be of little consequence.

Graduate salaries reflect the need for and standard of graduate. Where they are not needed and it’s a filter, pay can be £25,000 a year in London. The pay of the average grad has barely moved in 10 years. It’s not a given a graduate gets a decent grad job at all and this largely points to too many of them. Not in all sectors of course but over expansion has continued and yes, the universities did this for themselves. The students are not the top priority.

@TizerorFizz you seem to forget that universities are not just there to teach UK undergraduate students. That's just one of their functions.

And as the UK UG market is not paying it's way financially, universities do need to focus more than ever on other income streams. This is where rankings matter. It is a fact that international students and universities place a great deal of importance on QS rankings.

Being a top 300 university or subject area is going help you attract more international students and other similarly ranked universities will be willing to collaborate with you either via research or developing partnerships and joint courses.
You might think this is inconsequential but it's actually a huge part of the HE landscape.

The data shows that going to some universities helps and studying some subjects is a great investment, but the salary premium is getting smaller and smaller for the majority. The IFS says some courses do absolutely nothing for earnings and parents and students are not getting any value at all. They are completely out of pocket.

My worry is that this is more a function of wider social mobility issues rather than a true measure of the value of a university.

Also, the research sometimes omits women, because they take career breaks for child rearing their data is too messy and is just left out!

Choosing to go to university is a decision based on very personal factors and circumstances, young people and their parents shouldn't rely on statements such as "universities are a waste of money" or "going to university is the only way to get on in life". Both will be true depending on the individual.

Also, I think we are reaching a tipping point in national sentiment towards universities which could accelerate the current crisis. I think the extent of the problems are starting to seep into the general public's consciousness.

I agree. This weeks WonkHE podcast discussed this.

@GinForBreakfast If you read research from the IFS, it’s absolutely not just about men! Plus it’s only the university sector that thinks the main reason for going to university is to feed expanding universities! It’s a great thing to get a degree for the majority but it’s a hugely expensive decision for many. MN HE thread is full of academics. It’s not full of employers. Neither is it full of the dc who cannot get grad level jobs with their degrees. Most of these people are not the hugely ambitious high achievers here. They do, however, exist in large numbers.

I don’t have an issue with international students being here but their data needs separating from uk student data. The idea that vast numbers of Uk based students start working abroad immediately after an undergraduate degree is not true. So ranking is purely a marketing tool which seems to be failing!

I don’t have an issue with international students being here but their data needs separating from uk student data.

It is. International students are not included in graduate outcome data and they are reported separately for recruitment purposes.

The idea that vast numbers of Uk based students start working abroad immediately after an undergraduate degree is not true.

Nobody has said that is the case have they?

So ranking is purely a marketing tool which seems to be failing!

Rankings are a marketing tool, just like being able to call yourself a Russell Group University is marketing tool. They're one of many and they are viewed differently by different markets. China is rankings sensitive so when I'm promoting my university in China our rankings are front and centre. Other markets are price sensitive so I talk more abut our fees and scholarships.

It's far too simplistic to say that rankings are failing as a marketing tool because their purpose is not just to 'market' to UK undergrads. In additional to appealing to some international markets they help us secure research funding, and collaborations with international universities.

A totalitarian state such as China is always likely to favour a rankings-driven approach over one more geared to the individual and what better suits them. Liberal democracies don't have.to follow suit.

Every metric.used by the QS rankings is more or lees dodgy, whether because there are significant doubts over sample size, or because they massively favour institutions which are strong in the sciences v the humanities, or because there's an unquantifiable element of 'you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours'.

i take the point that UK universities need to try to address funding gaps by attracting more students from abroad, they'll get no criticism from me on that score. But there's a dichotomy between the need to bring in finance, which overseas students provide, and what British students and British employers require from HE. I very much doubt that any British employer gives a fig about the QS university rankings, theyre going to consider the homegrown league tables, if anything, which still have their flaws but far fewer than QS.

So in essence we have to play the QS rankings game because China sets great store by it @ElaineMBenes? What about the US? They probably like QS because they do well in it, no doubt they'd be less keen if they didn't figure in the top 10 😁

Fuck me, that's all so depressing and must be for you too, I would imagine.

A totalitarian state such as China is always likely to favour a rankings-driven approach over one more geared to the individual and what better suits them. Liberal democracies don't have.to follow suit.

QS and other rankings are used worldwide and we do need to play the game if we want to compete internationally.
And if we want to recruit international students we need to understand their markets and what is important to them.

Every metric.used by the QS rankings is more or lees dodgy, whether because there are significant doubts over sample size, or because they massively favour institutions which are strong in the sciences v the humanities, or because there's an unquantifiable element of 'you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours'.

I completely agree. I lead on the QS strategy for my faculty and it's a frustrating part of my job for all of those reasons.

i take the point that UK universities need to try to address funding gaps by attracting more students from abroad, they'll get no criticism from me on that score. But there's a dichotomy between the need to bring in finance, which overseas students provide, and what British students and British employers require from HE. I very much doubt that any British employer gives a fig about the QS university rankings, theyre going to consider the homegrown league tables, if anything, which still have their flaws but far fewer than QS.

Which is why universities don't just focus on one league table. I lead on QS becuase my role is internationally focussed. My colleagues lead on graduate outcomes because they are employability experts. Our teaching and learning teams focus on NSS etc

Fuck me, that's all so depressing and must be for you too, I would imagine.

Indeed! Especially as I work in a subject area which is difficult to secure nominations and where my employer contacts are often discounted for bizarre reasons!

and we focus on QS becuase it's a worldwide ranking not just because of China....I was just using that as an example. Lots of countries are rankings focused.

https://thepienews.com/caps-chaos-and-a-sector-in-crisis-2024-in-review/

I have been reading the PIE. It seems to me that what happens in other countries is just as significant as what happens here in HE. So a far right German Government (or more likely coalition) may well mean a sudden up lift in Indian international students here, next year. A US Trump presidency may well translate to a ton of US international students with Democrats parents wanting their children to come here.

So, whatever happens, it is not actually going to be predictable or clear, as long as we rely on international students financing us. Which we do, to some extent.
As regards UK students, we simply need more & more high quality courses tailored to actual jobs that are sought after, like Computer Science, being the big cliche. Too many students here are having to chase the same highly sought after courses?

As regards UK students, we simply need more & more high quality courses tailored to actual jobs that are sought after, like Computer Science, being the big cliche. Too many students here are having to chase the same highly sought after courses?

I think the problem is that there are not enough high quality, highly paid jobs for the graduates that we produce. You only have to look at the problems that med graduates trying to get placements are having. And then we're surprised that so many choose to go abroad.

I've seen posters on a few threads recently saying that they know of loads of jobs being cut in IT. I think AI will also have a huge effect in the next few years.

“They are very highly complex institutions, which multitask - universities are part if driving growth and development, via research as much as teaching - more so, really.”

I think most people do understand that, fundamentally.
They just do not think it is the job of their kids to fund anything more than the teaching element? That is were the conflict is arising.