Some universities will go bust thread 2

[GinForBreakfast]

Continuing as thread 1 has filled up.

@RampantIvy it can be quite confusing though, especially when semesters are talked about.

On that other thread the main issue seems to be paying for accommodation when the DC has no activity at all from now til Sept, no exams, no coursework and no contact time. Rather than a general ‘there isn’t enough teaching’ gripe.

I think it is both. DD had a different experience because she only had 6 months in halls before covid struck and they were all sent home, but a lot of parents are amazed at how little contact time there is for humanities subjects, and feel that the students are short changed.

DD also had lab practicals as well as lectures and seminars so she had more contact hours.

Value for Money

A product that is around 30% lower in real terms than it was over a decade ago would seem to tick that box.

The marketisation of universities is the rational for my use of product.

Living costs, including accommodation is a very different conversation.

Perhaps some of those contributing to this thread who work in the sector could point a student or two towards a dissertation focused on;

University cost and value perceptions - Mumsnet HE threads 2014-2024.

I get the sense that the tone on threads from a time of rock bottom interest rates and low inflation was very different to that of today and more recent years. Despite the headline tuition fee cost still starting with a 9 and being in four figures.

History was mentioned as a niche type degree that could be consolidated into fewer unis, so an alternate dissertation option

Farage: A modern day Clodius? Discuss

@boys3 HE staff say it’s not the same product. Parents say it’s not the same product. Many don’t think it’s value for money. Perception matters I’m afraid. Same money but lower quality.

And well it is still free in Germany as well, and I hear a lot of international students are now flocking there instead.

@boys3 Missed the history comment. Clearly it’s not niche but polys didn’t teach it in the 60s or probably 70s. No one thought that was odd. It’s a recent phenomenon to offer it at 91 universities. Many of which were colleges of HE which also supported local employment. Do we need history at 91 universities? I doubt it.

And yet what does the latest Student Academic Experience Survey say?

it even has a whole value for money section.

• With a time-series too!

• And a full breakdown of what contributed to poor value for money.

• Over multiple years.

Section 3, starts on page 14.

Another inconvenient truth? Maybe.

A far more nuanced picture? Definitely

https://www.hepi.ac.uk/2024/06/13/student-academic-experience-survey-2024/

presumably the latest one for 2025 will be out in the next few months.

One for the next thread. (No pressure @GinForBreakfast )

That is fair observation. 91 could well be too many, though I’d suggest 19 would be too few.

As a worked example of the 91 who shouldn’t be offering history? What would the right number be. What reasonable and evidenced criteria would we use to reduce the number?

The CUG data goes back to 2008 when 88 unis, so little difference, to now, appeared in the history ranking. Peaked at 97, again not much different to today. Over the period 102 unis appeared in the subject ranking at some point.

But let’s start with Loughborough. Didn’t appear in the CUG table for history until 2014, coming in at 57 that year. 15th in the latest table, its highest ever ranking. Top 20%.

Stay or go? I’ll stir the pot and say Go.

91st Bishop Grot. Like Loughborough first appeared in 2014. A single year brief foray into the lower reaches of the third quartile.

Stay or Go? Its another Go from me.

90th Highlands and Islands. A 2015 entry.

Stay or Go? I’d suggest that should be a Stay.

still 88 left to “assess”. Not a straightforward exercise.

I think there will be a next thread, the issue isn't going away (although I'm kind of hoping some of the less helpful inputs will).

This is my lunchtime reading and resurrects the employer levy idea.

https://www.hepi.ac.uk/2025/04/24/how-a-graduate-levy-on-employers-could-help-pay-for-higher-education/

Indeed @boys3. But of course universities are independent organisations, and that kind of central control/decision making is not possible. The government has also been clear it doesn't want the responsibility of designing a HE system (just adding in multiple layers of regulations, requirements and metrics to bend it to its will while pretending they are free to do what they want...)

just adding in multiple layers of regulations, requirements and metrics to bend it to its will while pretending they are free to do what they want...

Which is pretty much what we have now ...

That HEPI report is so high level? Which employers exactly and in which areas? Surely it has to be by profession? So Law for example, there is already close collaboration in training and medicine too. Engineering to some extent. What professions are they talking about specially? Computer Science/AI? Which ones?

Did it leave you invigorated for the afternoon ahead?

i can’t help thinking that a co-produced report with industry (I know that’s a bit vague) would be more impactful. Especially as the author references the business links for his university.

it was strange to reference skills shortages accounting for more than one-third of vacancies without more context. Why not say that reference is primarily about Construction and Heathcare.

whilst it does not make the argument directly it does highlight the highly centralised Whitehall command and control approach simply doesn’t work. Whether increased devolution in England - but without any fiscal devolution - will make much difference I’m doubtful over.

But, rather like HE finances, it needs to be a doing with not a doing to approach

Edinburgh have announced 350 staff are taking redundancy. All promotions frozen. Say they will need to look at cutting courses and modules.

It’s certainly bonkers that universities train staff like paramedics, nurses, physios, OT, midwives, teachers and have to basically pay for the privilege of training staff for these sectors. Not only in the tuition fees shortfall but literally pay the hospitals for placements! Apparently the cost to the university per year for a medical student is around 18-20k and not much less for nurses and allied health professionals. Certainly more than 9.2k!

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj9e894z23jo.amp

Beeb article re above

https://www.ed.ac.uk/news/staff-students

Though does not seem to have made it to here yet

Good lord that's terrible

@boys3
No. Not easy but grades accepted might be a start. How low do they go? 2 A levels ok at Lincoln. A formula using entry standards, graduate prospects and proximity of another uni doing the same course at similar entry standards and outcomes. A sort of Duckworth Lewis for universities!

I note that you seem to hold this survey in high regard and as it has run for many years presumably it is useful for discerning trends, but ..,.

It’s a self-selecting survey of 10,319 students out of a population of 1,728,210 undergraduate students. That’s < 0.5%! Given that it’s self selecting as well, it’s laughable that this is put forward as any sort of basis to justify current HE policy.

It has no more or less value than an opinion poll in the Daily Mail.

I’m bemused as to why HEPI is so well regarded.

Earlier someone posted their “research” on the proposed policy of employers paying a graduate tax (not sure if it was this thread or another one). That document was so out of touch with the real world to also be laughable. A graduate tax on employers - when 50% of new graduate employers are the public sector is simply a tax on taxpayers so you might as well cut out the middle man and just fund universities from general taxation. Also a tax on jobs is anti-growth (although RR doesn’t seem to understand that so I suppose that isn’t widely understood…..).

HEPI also published a report proposing a new student loan system which was ostensibly structured so that “the rich” would pay more (natch) but also that everyone (regardless of income or employment status) would repay £10/week - the most obviously regressive system you could imagine, but presumably just a couple of lattes to the closeted academic authors.

HEPI is a think tank that publishes a wide range of papers designed to promote discussion. It has published several papers from authors with many different proposed solutions to the funding crisis.

HEPI doesn’t say this paper is the one we should all get behind because it’s the answer. That’s not the role of a think tank.

Edited to add: the LSE paper your last paragraph alludes to was interesting - a genuine ‘outside the box’ suggestion which wouldn’t have cost the tax payer any more. It also includes halving the repayment period. It generated some good discussion - exactly what it was designed to do.

The problem is that many parents don't think that a degree is good value anymore and that it doesn't necessarily lead to better job prospects. Although I want my DC to have a university experience, I don't want him to start his working life in debt. If he definitely has better job prospects from doing a degree, then I can accept the cost but if he doesn't then I don't want him to waste 45K in an expensive party.

According to Paul Wiltshire's calculations, if a students with 3C grades or below does
not earn anymore money on graduating than a non-graduate but they have the extra 45k debt.

www.if.org.uk/2025/03/25/there-is-more-than-one-version-of-student-loan-fraud/

On average he may have a point. On an individual basis there will be variations. I'm not even sure dd got 3x Cs at A level. But she got a 1st class degree in a tough subject, had an interview for Cambridge for a Masters and got into somewhere better (for her subject) than Cambridge for her Masters. I suspect she will end up earning more than if he had finished education with her CCD or CCC.