Universities 'face bankruptcy' because of delayed debate on tuition fees Senior civ

mzqa395

Universities are facing bankruptcy because the government has delayed a debate about whether to raise tuition fees, the most senior civil servant for science and research has said.
In stark comments, Adrian Smith, the government's director-general for science and research, said that politicians had "kicked into touch" a promised review of university funding, leaving universities "going bankrupt".
He said: "The higher education system is quite expensive to run, and one way of getting additional money into the system has been through student fees. A major debate that ought to have taken place around now is whether the current cap on student fees of £3,000 should have been raised or changed.
"That debate has been kicked into touch until after the general election because neither party wants to touch it. In the meantime, universities are going bankrupt because they don't have enough money."
In 2004, the government promised to review top-up fees this year as a concession to Labour rebels opposing their introduction. Many universities see a review as a chance to increase fees, raising their revenue. Last week the higher education minister, David Lammy, admitted that it would start this year but not be completed until next year.
Smith joined the Department for Universities, Innovation and Skills (Dius) after 10 years as principal of Queen Mary, University of London. He was previously professor of statistics and head of maths at Imperial.
The Higher Education Funding Council for England (Hefce) said it did not believe any universities were at risk of going bankrupt and a Dius spokesman distanced itself from Smith's comments.
A spokesman said: "Universities are not going bankrupt, and the timing of the fees review is not a threat to their financial viability.
"It is inevitable that people will talk about tuition fees, but ministers have always been clear that an independent review will begin this year following our debate on the future of higher education. This remains the case."
The university thought to be in the worst financial position is London Metropolitan, after an accounting error left it owing millions to Hefce.
Smith's comments were reported by the Times Higher Education magazine and were made during a speech at the Commonwealth Club in London this week.
Wendy Piatt, director general of the Russell group of large, research-intensive universities, said funding shortfalls could seriously jeopardise the health – in some cases, the survival – of science and engineerinng subjects, which were more expensive to teach.
"Without increased investment, there is a real danger that the success of our world-leading universities will not be sustained. Our institutions have a key role to play in helping the UK survive the economic downturn and stimulate a recovery, and it is vital they are given the right conditions to continue to flourish," she said
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/feb/12/bankrupt-universities-tuition-fees

Lokolo

Fair enough they should raise tuition fees but they need to highten the idea that parents must save for their kids for when they are older.

They have the child trust fund, maybe they should directly involved one for university fees for when they are older? At the moment they just say "Yes CTF for when the kid turns 18", they should branch it out to "Save for children's education if they want to go to university".

At the moment if they want to raise fees to the normal rate to get decent revenue it will need to be £10k a year (like international students), and people won't pay that much and just won't go.

Oldernotwiser

Lokolo wrote: »

At the moment if they want to raise fees to the normal rate to get decent revenue it will need to be £10k a year (like international students), and people won't pay that much and just won't go.

Which might be the best thing to happen! Then we could return to a decently funded HE system which catered for people who actually wanted to study at this level and who were bright enough to benefit from it!

You can't have a top class education system that has to be stretched to include 40% of the population and you certainly can't fund those numbers adequately.

farso

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Which might be the best thing to happen! Then we could return to a decently funded HE system which catered for people who actually wanted to study at this level and who were bright enough to benefit from it!

You can't have a top class education system that has to be stretched to include 40% of the population and you certainly can't fund those numbers adequately.

Very true. I think a lot of the problem comes from students picking courses like they would pick chocolate bars, with little thought going into it. Most finding themselves after graduation thinking what they have worked for actually is useful for.

I think the other part of the problem stems from nearly any old instutute now becoming a "university", and goverment having to fund people through these courses which are nothing more than 3 year long collage courses.

Naturally, I speak in a generalised term here and there are some new universitys which do offer worthwhile courses.

Oldernotwiser

farso wrote: »

I think the other part of the problem stems from nearly any old instutute now becoming a "university", and goverment having to fund people through these courses which are nothing more than 3 year long collage courses.

Naturally, I speak in a generalised term here and there are some new universitys which do offer worthwhile courses.

There always were non university institutions offering worthwhile courses; they were called Polytechnics and their raison d'etre really was to teach undergraduates, rather than, in the main, to do research. People who wanted to do practical, vocational courses went there and were generally satisfied whilst those who really were academic could go to a traditional university where scholarship was valued for its own sake.

Renaming everything in sight as a "university" has blurred the boundaries as has calling every course some kind of "degree". The harm that's been done to education in the name of equality is absolutely boundless.

robin_banks

Was a shocking decision to re-brand 'polys as unis', polytechnics do the vocational stuff, universities the academic, purer, research based stuff.

Clearly some 'degrees' should be stripped of thier status-and consequently funding, enabling a dramatic saving . This would free funds for bursaries for poorer students (social mobility and all that).

Worked nicely, and was no 'overpopulation' of students.

Lokolo

robin_banks wrote: »

Was a shocking decision to re-brand 'polys as unis', polytechnics do the vocational stuff, universities the academic, purer, research based stuff.

Clearly some 'degrees' should be stripped of thier status-and consequently funding, enabling a dramatic saving . This would free funds for bursaries for poorer students (social mobility and all that).

Worked nicely, and was no 'overpopulation' of students.

I have agree with most of that. My university does a lot of vocational courses, some of them shouldn't really exist, but there are useful stuff such as Nursing, which from graduates point of view, have been extremely helpful to them.

Mine is a 'vocational' course as such, but its still academic, and I am on the road to getting a decent graduate job which I wouldn't get without the degree and I have found it extremely useful, even though its not really an 'academic' subject. I could have gone else to a better university and done Computer Science or such but it didn't really interest me as much tbh.

I didn't go to university based on research tbh, I went for what the university provides in resources and the subject.

Tommy99

I am not sure as to whether they should really raise the fees more, it will get more and more expensive.

If the university's are going to struggle to fund themselves, i know that if i was paying £6000 (which is what i heard). I would want a 1st class service, lectures that can speak fluent understandably english, 1st class techonology etc. I mean this is me, it is a lot of money, and at the moment i am at Bounremouth university, rated as the No1 best new university. But also rate as the No1 university that makes money (from its students) from overchargeing it students for food etc.

Education is very important but the is no need to be greedy with money.

robin_banks

I dont think it's fair to increase fees myself but cut the 'dead wood' courses.

atypical

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Which might be the best thing to happen! Then we could return to a decently funded HE system which catered for people who actually wanted to study at this level and who were bright enough to benefit from it!

You can't have a top class education system that has to be stretched to include 40% of the population and you certainly can't fund those numbers adequately.

I think it a flawed line of thinking to assume doubling fees would double peoples’ diligence when picking courses. Whether £3k or £6k people will think equally as hard; it's a lot of money either way. What does change is peoples’ ability to afford it once they've made their decision.

The US system is not a good one and is where our education system would be heading if such changes were made. Exorbitant fees means education and expense have become synonymous to the extent that it deters too many from the very thought of being able to achieve a higher education - regardless of their ability.

And for all the expense, does the US really have a better education system than us? Are Americans better educated as a result, are their degrees of more worth than their British equivalents? Me thinks not.

Oldernotwiser

Tommy99 wrote: »

I am not sure as to whether they should really raise the fees more, it will get more and more expensive.

If the university's are going to struggle to fund themselves, i know that if i was paying £6000 (which is what i heard). I would want a 1st class service, lectures that can speak fluent understandably english, 1st class techonology etc. I mean this is me, it is a lot of money, and at the moment i am at Bounremouth university, rated as the No1 best new university. But also rate as the No1 university that makes money (from its students) from overchargeing it students for food etc.

Education is very important but the is no need to be greedy with money.

You do realise that even if £6,000 fees were charged, that would still only cover half the actual cost?