Private university company investigated over deception

[Mellowfruitfulness]

www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/apr/16/private-university-owner-deceiving-students

The things that strike me about this article:

Universities minister David Willetts is on a mission 'to increase the number of private companies in further education'. 'Willetts said earlier this year that one reason he wished to radically reduce state grants and deliver funding through loans was to level the playing field for private higher education providers.'

So this is not a rumour, it's reality. The government are going to raise tuition fees because they want more private universities.

'Last week the government also announced plans to double the tuition fee loans available to students attending private universities, in an effort to encourage more companies to enter the education market', and
'Private universities in ... the UK are almost entirely reliant for their funding on tuition fees, often paid by students through government loans'. And, Willets: 'We will also allow alternative providers to access the generous system of student loans and grants'

So we pay our taxes to the government which then gives them, via student loans, to private companies.

But the company involved in this particular story have been accused of skulduggery: 'Apollo Group's chief executive, Charles Edelstein, earns a $6m remuneration package, including bonuses and share options. The company's legal tangles will be an embarrassment for the British government, which is due to produce a white paper in which further encouragement for private universities is expected'.

And finally: 'Concerns have already been raised that private universities will be in a position to "cherry pick" ... lucrative degrees, for which high prices can be charged, while traditional universities continue to teach the full range of courses expected of them at a loss'.

What do you think about the privatisation of universities?

Oh my, its hard enough as it is without this complication. Bit worrying that they are exagerrating claims for job prospects post grad. My degree now would cost £36,000 in tuition fees alone, and I would not have been able to do it if that was the case then. It makes me very sad that we are going back to a position where only the rich can afford to be educated, or the extremely driven and motivated who can cope with a debt of towards a hundred thousand on graduation.

My issue with private universities would be the potential lack of accountability, and probably not that they were private per se.

I have a few problems with private universities - mainly that I don't think tax payers' money should go into private pockets. But I also worry about accountability and standards.

However, it has to be said that according to a recent Ch 4 documentary, several vice chancellors are busy lining their own pockets anyway.

Yes, people in all walks seem to have their snouts in the trough....dissapointing, but life, I suppose.

BPP was in trouble with the Bar Standards Board recently for taking on more Bar students than they were permitted to do. Many times more students take the Bar courses than can ever practise and BPP took on even more students (at more than £10k per year fees).

What you wrote is shocking, Lilymaid. The minute the profit motive comes in, the students' needs are no longer top priority, as they should be, imo.

IIRC, the loan for tuition fees for private universities is a maximum of £6k pa. They might try to charge more, but may well be unable to attract UK students if they do.

Private universities would also have a long way to go in terms of reputation before they were at all likely to compete in any meaningful way with the established universities.

PS aren't all universities (or at least the older ones) "private" in the sense that they are not Government owned or controlled? Though of course rather dependent on the Govt for much of their income, and therefore not totally independent.

I wouldn't call them private when they depend on the government for most of their income.

But I am puzzled at why the government allows the Vice Chancellors and the top brass to cream off so much of it. Wouldn't it be better if the government regulated their expenditure more closely? Not this government, obv, but the next one.

How could that be done?

In general, adding layers of central bureaucracy adds to expense and reduces flexibility.

Yes, I'm not in favour of extra layers of bureaucracy.

But in the same way that the banks need to be regulated, could something not be done about the VCs? A cap on earnings? Naming and shaming doesn't seem to work, and nor does relying on their better natures.

Or not allowing anyone to earn more than 10 times more than the lowliest paid lecturer, like I wish they did in some companies?

Do we need VCs? Get rid of one VC and pay for 50 students to get a degree? Who would be more useful to society?

VCs pay is small beans compared to what it would be in a privatised system (perhaps the $6 million of the apollo group CE). No wonder they were so keen on increasing fees.

I think a 10X limit on the salary pay scale is a very good idea, in all areas.