Some universities will go bust thread 2

[GinForBreakfast]

Continuing as thread 1 has filled up.

As I said students/parents have s right to decide how their money is spent. Ideology should not have an impact on how much they pay.

So you think you have the right to dictate how universities spend their money?
You have a choice as to whether you choose to go to university or not. You can choose a university that aligns with your wants and needs but you don't get to dictate how universities teach their courses.

When you go on holiday do you tell the hotel staff, the airline crew, the travel agent how to do their jobs? No, you choose an option that works for you.

We can't win though can we?
People see the £9k price tag and expect an exceptional student experience with all the bells and whistles.
Now we're being criticised for prioritising student experience and delivering teaching which draws on best practice and that as PROFESSIONALS we know works best for our students.

As for the whole 'back in my day' comments, really?! Things change and the HE system of the 90's is very different the HE system of 2025.

Parents/students as consumers do not want to pay more to widen other people's access to university. Parents/students want to pay for the service they receive. Just like any other goods or service.

The views on widening participation on this thread are abhorrent. So selfish.

As for paying for the service you receive. Great! Tuition fees should actually sit at around £15k. Start paying that and all our problems are solved

Same. Absolutely shocking.

@ElaineMBenes
Universities are in financial trouble.
Students/parents do not want to pay more.
UK Universities spend more per head than most other countries so they are overspending with parents/students money.
The question is not whether but where should they economise. One way is to have larger lectures and seminars.
Others ways are to spend less money on wellbeing or careers services or admissions.
Universities must make these decisions.

Exactly @ElaineMBenes .

and let’s face it in real terms todays undergrad fees in England are what £3,000 lower than ten years ago.

A lot of ignorance about widening participation. It’s absolutely essential and not in any way a factor in the issues facing the sector. My only concern around it is that intervention needs to happen at every level of education for it to be truly effective.

i do think (and I’ve said it in the previous thread) that there should be something around fitness to study. If you are so unwell you can’t engage with the course, you should choose a different option.

Many countries have much higher rates of modularity and ability to interrupt studies. I think that could help. Do six months at university, take a six month break to earn some money or get work experience, go back and do another six months. Normalise completing an undergraduate course over 4/5 years. Obviously not applicable to vocational courses like medicine.

We've economised on all of those things st my university.
Every single department is cut to the bone. We're barely able to provide an adequate service to the students we have.

We've removed 40% of modules from our curriculum, lost 15% of staff across all departments and services. We've closed courses and stopped offering extra support.
This year I've seen the highest number of complaints from applicants and students. Multiple complaints on the following:

-applications taking too long to process

• loss of seminar groups as we've moved to large lectures
• marking deadlines being missed
• lack of academic skills appointments
• lack of careers interview available
• general response time to emails is too long
• students feeling we've mis-sold the experience

All of this has come about since we were forced to cut costs significantly.

You can't have it both ways. Making the cuts you are suggesting is having a detrimental impact on student experience. We're struggling with just the basics at the moment.

The fact is that any student going to university in the current system will not have as positive experience as student did previously.
The sector has economised to the detriment of the students. There's no more slack in the system.

I didn't specifically mention private school, just middle class students (many if them come from state schools, which vary hugely). But, we know that mental health problems have exploded by a massive factor over the last 10 years, that is a statistical fact. It's the same demographic, but with a diagnosis now.

It is a problem that the lowest ranking universities have a high drop out rate. That is one of the reasons why WP work must be undertaken by better resourced higher ranking universities. It is not fair or genuinely inclusive to ask underprivileged people to take on debt for an education that they cannot actually leverage.

Until a couple of years ago, I was all for shrinking higher education. However, the AI revolution absolutely terrifies me and I believe that we are going to be hugely vulnerable as a population if we are not (or a significant number of us) educated to understand the technology, its social and economic implications, and what it means to be human. Of course we do everything far too belatedly this country, so I'm not optimistic we will get to grips with any of this until it's far too late.

Also the disparity between some universities is immense.

Where dd studies apparently they have £500 million cash deposits, billions of assets and a healthy income. They don’t seem to be making cuts that I’m aware of and are certainly investing in new buildings. I feel as confident as I can that her course staff won’t be getting decimated. But other places are losing money hand over fist.

Totally agree with this - we are a WP-type institution, and the first in families are brilliant at making the most of the opportunity. The rest can’t attend regularly or submit work on time because of their MH issues (around 15% of our young UGs cite MH as a disability, another 10% have some other sort of disability).

The current lot were teens during COVID, and are, anecdotally at least, so much needier than pre-COVID cohorts.

Edited add: I do agree with some sort of fitness to study, and parents and teachers here do need to communicate that to their students/offspring. Unfortunately schools are measured on progression to HE so have a vested interest in getting their students to uni, even though they may not be ready. Part time study at a local uni should definitely be encouraged for those who post on MN asking for a uni with good MH/ASD/whatever support, with the possibility of moving elsewhere at Level 5 if the YP can manage successful study independently.

History basically. As a general rule, the older the university the more inherited wealth they have accumulated.

But these are often very illiquid or restricted assets that can’t be used to subsidise loss making activities.

Or maybe they have lots of overseas students? They pay higher fees and subsidise UK students.

Yes I would imagine it’s a common of being older and being highly ranked so getting more overseas students. But that just demonstrates it’s always going to be more of an uphill battle for some newer, lower placed universities than others.

And if these less well off universities are the ones having to make cuts and the others don’t then the gap will widen. Some students will still be having a good experience with plenty of staff and equipment and others will be having didactic lectures with hundreds of students, no well being, no seminars, higher staff to student ratio. Their reputation nosedives, they get fewer and fewer student, inc overseas students.

How do they claw their way back from a downward spiral! They need to be careful what steps they take in the coming months and years.

I think it's all of the above accounts for the disparity - Historical assets that have appreciated and continue to, endowments and donations from more yrs back than newer unis, their prestige and reputation that in turn attracts more international students which equals higher fees, more research funding and lucrative partnerships all of these has given them the financial status newer unis are struggling to compete with.

Nevertheless, there are still things newer unis can do - developing a stronger brand to attract overseas students, they can build on their specialisms that many were known for and their 'industry connections' that are proven to attract students but which they're don't seem as efficient at anymore or rather the top unis have muscled into this area and have similar if not stronger industry connections they are known for e.g Bath, Loughborough, Warwick, all well known for their students securing internships etc.

It’s about time HE staff recognised that all points are valid. You might not like some of them but they are not abhorrent. It’s reasonable to look at where money is spent and if it’s the best use of the money available in a shrinking pond on money. I find myself not really caring about jobs at some universities because it’s obvious the sector is bloated. At least working out who is a women has been solved by the Supreme Court. That might save a bit!

But all of the points aren't valid.
Staff on this thread have acknowledged where people have made valid points and have pointed out the weaknesses in the sector. We know it needs to change but not all of the points on this thread are feasible or likely to be effective.

Why do you think your opinion is more valid than those of us who are living this every day. Who actually work in the sector?
You and others have proved time and time again that you don't really understand how the sector works.
Your arrogance is staggering and your dismissal of knowledgeable posters is insulting.

@ElaineMBenes Since when are you judge and jury about how student money is spent? You in the HE sector are making a mess of it. People keep saying that but you don’t listen. You can continue to be ostriches but in the end jobs will go. Any high quality SLT will have to look at all costs and value for money. At the moment too many students are dissatisfied. You want more money from them for projects. What’s in it for the majority of students? Not much. They see their experience diminished whilst your universities grow and grow and get into bigger snd bigger debt. There’s clearly a need to listen to others and stop telling them you are the Supreme Court of the university sector and other opinions are worthless. They are not and don’t be so patronising.

Developing a strong brand to attract international students is what has got a lot of institutions into the current problems. It was a sticking plaster measure that didn’t resolve the underlying structural and financial problems. Our university sector will not be resilient if it relies on competing for the diminishing number of overseas students.

There needs to be a fundamental rethink starting with what is university for and what is the best way (or ways) of delivering this.

In my view, there is too much autonomy at the moment which means individual institutions are reacting independently and in bespoke ways to the current crisis, when it is a sectoral, generational, solution that is needed.

Frustratingly, the govt is just standing back and watching.

One of the biggest costs of a university education - which is not shared by most of Europe - is the cost of living away from home. This leaves less money (whether taxpayers money or student money) to be spent on tuition. We have chosen that because the general view seems to be that going away to university is an important part of the uni experience. But it is not as prevalent in other countries. And being away from home increases the non academic support unis have to provide which would otherwise be provided by families. It makes university more expensive.

UK HE is world leading. We do it very well.
We're just not funded adequately. It's as simple as that.

I hear you on that @ElaineMBenes, and personally I'd be willing to pay more to get more. But a) there's no opportunity for me to pay more to get more and b) many/most students and their families are not able or don't want to pay more. And the taxpayer simply can't be asked to pay more in this era of the highest tax take since WW II.

Perhaps we'll have to force students to pay more, or perhaps some universities could charge more so that it became more of a free market. But that's not without significant problems including the widening access aspects. Loans can't realistically go up significantly (see point about the taxpayer).

Taking the "living at home" point a step further, perhaps all students should be entitled to £12 / 15k of loans towards tuition (with universities able to charge that much) and not a penny towards living costs. Many more would have to live at home and many more would need part time jobs to contribute towards their keep in the family home. Again, not good from a widening access perspective, but very hard indeed to see how we can have it all ways.

@EveryonesTalkingRubbish It's a double-edged sword,but I disagree this is solely responsible for getting universities into their current financial state. If we look further into why so many universities tried to attract more overseas students, it's because home students do not pay enough in fees to cover the cost of their education, and we do not like 'fees' here!
I agree that the purpose of university needs to be redefined and its delivery. On the WIWIKAU page (if you're familiar with it all), there seems to be a dominant mindset that it's mainly for youths to discover their independence. I'm not sure this is what educators had in mind when universities were first established or successive governments' crooning about "education for all'. It really is a mixed confused bag in what people think and what outcomes are to be expected. A lot of students on the 'student room' for instance, think it's all a waste of time and those who don't think they will automatically walk into £50k jobs!

Taking the "living at home" point a step further, perhaps all students should be entitled to £12 / 15k of loans towards tuition (with universities able to charge that much) and not a penny towards living costs. Many more would have to live at home and many more would need part time jobs to contribute towards their keep in the family home. Again, not good from a widening access perspective, but very hard indeed to see how we can have it all ways.

I believe in the USA tuition fees are lower if you go to an instate university. Maybe we could look at something similar here, less tuition fees on the understanding you also have a much smaller maintenance loan as you will live at home. Saying that some students will still be too far to commute to their nearest university. Or what happens if the local one doesn’t offer the course they want? Guess in the USA there is more choice of different universities in the same state. Here there may only be one, possibly two. Though students in bigger cities will have more options.

Me too @Piggywaspushed It starts to explain some of my students’ behaviours and choices, if this is how their parents think …

You said you did stem though. A lot of smaller group teaching will be done in labs. There are few ways to cut the costs of practical work other than offering less.