Universities' annual funding reduced by £533m

ukcarper

ThrowingStonesAtYou wrote: »

I'm sure they would... until they want to retire and realise nobody is left to pay for it.

And yes not every boomer has explicitly raved about HPI and fat pensions, however it is very rare to see one who will recognise the generational theft that is clearly occuring, any mention of it gets met with a torrent of drivel about 'youngsters want everything these days, you bought an ipod thats why you can't afford a £200k house blah blah blah etc etc.' As a generation they have condoned and encouraged the theft to continue, the attitude of the media makes it only too clear.

I don't know you but you seem a very bitter young man. Explain Generational Theft or do you mean people sitting houses that have been pushed up in price by younger people willing to pay the increased prices. Unfortunately for you people are living longer so by the time you reach retirement age there will only be one person left working for every thousand retired so you have less hope than us.

Masomnia

dopester wrote: »

I'd let the market deal with it. Even your elite universities where you 'really have to be able to afford it' are going to meet changes in market circumstances, and competition. And bring on the telepresence in universities. Real-time, high-quality imagery and sound to syndicate the best lecuturers nationwide and internationally. Literally "on stage" anywhere telepresence systems can be plugged in. Cut costs. Dispense with many costly tenured posts. Many full time professors do little teaching anyway. Universities need a good kicking to get costs down and standards up (sorry misskool.. know you're in education and all).

I can't agree. The elite universities are elite because they spend so much more time with the students. So the tuition is so much better. I do a history degree at a red brick uni, and my tuition consists of lectures, and seminars with around 10 - 15 other people depending on the subject and level. If I went to Oxbridge (so we're not even talking the difference between ex-polys and older unis) I'd get that but with tutorials as well, an hour a week either one on one with a tutor, or two on one with the tutor. It's not a case of linking everyone up with technology and cutting costs, because that simply won't get the results.

It's good for universities to have professors that don't do too much teaching, aside from the fact that being at the forefront in their field, because they're researching as well, is good for students as well as themselves, it means that the university will attract more funding.

The only way standards can be increased is through better funding. Unfortunately the government won't do it.

dopester

Masomnia wrote: »

I can't agree. The elite universities are elite becuase they spend so much more time with the students. so the tuition is so much better. I do a history degree at a red brick uni, and my tuition consists of lectures, and seminars with around 10 - 15 other people depending on the subject and level. If I went to Oxbridge, I'd get that but with tutorials as well, an hour a week either one on one with a tutor, or two on one with the tutor. It's not a case of linking everyone up with technology and cutting costs, because that simply won't get the results.

It's good for universities to have professors that don't do too much teaching, aside from the fact that being at the forefront in their field because they're researching as well, which is good for students as well as themselves, it means that the university will attract more funding.

The only way standards can be increased is through better funding. Unfortunately the government won't do it.

OK Mas maybe so. I still think many of the elite Universities (Ivy League whatever you want to call them) are going to be under pressure to reduce their fees else not attract student numbers. I don't think there is enough wealth out there, + market can give alternatives for high standards of education with much lower costs. One-on-one tutor teaching worth such a big premium or debt? Hit the books for an extra 3 hours imo.

Some tenured professor might not be there to make a little research breakthough on something. It is worth much higher fees? Imo, the extra research bit could have contributions from private foundations and corporate funds, rather than much higher fees.

Look at the Harvard graduation audience of students and families (very crude and inappropriate speech, imo, with only a few funny parts)... I just don't imagine don't see Harvard or many similar universities having enough rich families, or students willing and able to take on big debt, to keep paying $38,000 a year. To graduate in a much tougher (pay) jobs market.

YouTube: Ali G Harvard Speech 2004 (Part 1 of 2) (@ 7:38)

Let's talk about the finances of all that knowledge that's been dropped on you the last few years. It costs $38,000 a year to go to Harvard. Now I don't know hows you lot have earnt that, but most of you is got that cash from your parents.

All you fathers out there, you is made some choices. With that money you could have bought a top of the range Lexus, but instead you chose to invest in your kid's future. Is you mental? If you is got other kids you obviously don't make the same mistake again innit.

So students give it up for your parents; give it up for them. Respect them.

dopester

"Even your elite universities where you 'really have to be able to afford it' are going to meet changes in market circumstances"

I don't understand the institutional demand for all this university debt / bonds. Well it depends on how much debt is involved... a $2.5 billion issuance... having a taste of that as a creditor might be of value. How much is Harvard worth.. now and into the future?

University Bonds: Are the Ties that Bind Too Long?
Melissa Fabros
Dec 2, 2009 2:46PM

Public and private universities across the country have been on a credit binge for the past twelve months. Bonds, in the billions and billions, have been issued by illustrious and well-endowed universities such as Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, and Yale. Whether contending bad credit default swaps bets, Bernie Madoff, or drops in state or endowment funding, formerly financially-secure institutions have been taking on huge debts despite the economic downturn.

Universities use the money from bond sales to raise or improve buildings, refinance current debt, or cover operating costs. Forbes writers Bernard Condon and Nathan Vardi describe Harvard’s situation in early 2009 as “borrowing money, much like a homeowner who takes out a second mortgage in order to pay off credit card bills,” and Harvard’s peers seem to be following suit (see chart).

Moody’s recommendations highlight tuition hikes, cost cutbacks, online education delivery and direct borrowing as means for universities to survive the Great Recession with their credit ratings intact.

However, the enormity and surplus of universities’ bonds gives one pause. If loans are taken out to cover a university’s operating expenses, how many staff and faculty cuts will be necessary to reduce its deficit? And how will increased revenue, which will be needed to service the loan, be generated by an institution with reduced capacity? Lab and discussion sections can be overenrolled; small seminar classes can be converted into 200+ person lectures, clearly diminishing education quality.

But capacity cuts will affect student demand. Say the administration institutes a hiring freeze and trims faculty through retirement attrition or denial of tenure. The afflicted departments’ talent pool is emptied. With the variety and quality of courses thinned, departments across the institution will be less able to generate student interest and demand for its classes.

Already, the class of 2009 has the most heavily-indebted graduates in history. A student at a private university who borrowed to attain his degree will likely graduate with a loan that tops US$25,000. Student loans defaults are on the rise, and Marty Nemko, in the Chronicle of Higher Education, cautions that “employers are accelerating their offshoring, part-timing, and temping of as many white-collar jobs as possible. That results in ever more unemployed and underemployed B.A.'s.” Universities that have taken out these bonds for capital expansion and development may be indenturing a generation of vulnerable young people to satisfy bondholders or to fund projects of which they may never reap the benefit.

http://www.roubini.com/us-monitor/258059/university_bonds___are_the_ties_that_bind_too_long_

Chrysalis

Sorry as I know I will annoy many people with my view.

But I see universities as a luxury, some things need a degree and some things don't, in recent years far too many people have got pointless degrees wasting money. In many ways it seems to be just a buffer between leaving childhood and entering the adult world of the work place.

Everyone I know who has gone to uni has told me the same thing, the first half a year at least is spent dossing around doing next to nothing, then gradually they work harder and harder and then probably end up doing 70% of the work in the last 6 months. So clearly the earlier months are wasteful.

If I had a choice between cutting social welfare, security, health and education then education would be the choice.

Chrysalis

olly300 wrote: »

Agreed. One size fits all in terms of degrees is not a good policy.

I have lived next to, am related to and have worked with engineering and technical students whose universities made them use the summer break as way to get industrial experience. They also did 30+ hours a week of lectures and labs during term time.

So a 2 year degree for these people would mean they wouldn't get the industrial experience.

ok but why is the long summer break needed?

misskool

dopester wrote: »

Now your explanation is way more honest than Blanchflower's (imo), with the subsidy coming from donations or other fund raising activities (sponsorship).

To me Blanchflower is calling it a 'market rate' for one group - but that market rate happens to be manipulated and unnatural in his world. The slippery creature.

Maybe we should bring in the Blanchflower 'market rate' for other things like utility bills, and petrol, and food. The rich have to pay a higher tier rate, like double, to subsidise it for people who find the bills tougher going. 'Make the rich pay the market price'.

Guardian: Call for universities to charge well-off students £30,000 a year
Former member of the Bank of England's monetary policy committee says poor

Not that all richer families would happily pay-up a massive load more under this system. I'd imagine (know) there are 'richer' parents who are still careful with their money, and don't want to overpay for their own children, just to subsidise other kids.

I'd let the market deal with it. Even your elite universities where you 'really have to be able to afford it' are going to meet changes in market circumstances, and competition. And bring on the telepresence in universities. Real-time, high-quality imagery and sound to syndicate the best lecuturers nationwide and internationally. Literally "on stage" anywhere telepresence systems can be plugged in. Cut costs. Dispense with many costly tenured posts. Many full time professors do little teaching anyway. Universities need a good kicking to get costs down and standards up (sorry misskool.. know you're in education and all).

First of all, the elite universities in the UK are regarded as the best in the world, they have gained their reputation by being consistently top of research leagues etc etc. Their reputation has yet to diminish but is continually being eroded by what the government is doing.

Many 'new' universities now market their brand name by opening an overseas branch where they supposedly control the content and teaching. They can even choose to have their degrees awarded in the UK. Many more have combined degree programmes where the students spend a year or two at an accredited university and then join the university to complete their degree. (see http://www.nottingham.edu.my/ )

It's interesting that the brand name of a UK ex-poly will sell so well. More interesting that the redbricks and Ivy League universities don't do that. So they clearly believe education cannot be sold as a commodity as such.

as for the rich paying more fees, they already do by contributing more tax. The government cannot have a system where they have it all. Personal income tax for America is set much lower (in fact, in countries where they do pay for education it's much the same case) and national services (ie health) are much less.

If you are increasing taxation for the masses, then you need for them to expect the government to provide more.

And universities are being a kick up the bum, I can assure you redundancy packages for tenured academics are happening this year at more than one university. It's pathetic, these people have been underpaid for their services here (you do get paid a hell of a lot more at a full fee-paying Ivy League) but they have chosen to stay here to enrich knowledge, believing in the system and now they are told to leave.

misskool

Chrysalis wrote: »

ok but why is the long summer break needed?

It's not for the students, it's for the lecturers. Lecturers do not get paid extra to teach students, they are employed by the university to research. During the summer they attend conferences and catch up on writing papers/books/grants.

Some universities now have summer schools where students who fail one/two modules can retake them during the summer and join their classmates when they pass their resits in August.

lostinrates

Masomnia wrote: »

I can't agree. The elite universities are elite because they spend so much more time with the students. So the tuition is so much better. I do a history degree at a red brick uni, and my tuition consists of lectures, and seminars with around 10 - 15 other people depending on the subject and level. If I went to Oxbridge (so we're not even talking the difference between ex-polys and older unis) I'd get that but with tutorials as well, an hour a week either one on one with a tutor, or two on one with the tutor. It's not a case of linking everyone up with technology and cutting costs, because that simply won't get the results.

It's good for universities to have professors that don't do too much teaching, aside from the fact that being at the forefront in their field, because they're researching as well, is good for students as well as themselves, it means that the university will attract more funding.

The only way standards can be increased is through better funding. Unfortunately the government won't do it.

I had all of this at my non-redbrick too: seminars, weekly tutorials. I personally liked the modular degree system, though see it as flawed and very much easier than a traditional with year end finals. For me the advantage was I could stack my modules early, condensing a bit....something I'd already done with a levels, having done them all in one year: it suited me to work like that...but I do think it made it easier too.

A relative is at a post doctorate university fair type thing this week in US: where they will undergo interviews by dfferent institutions for any available post-doctoral post going in US. This person (Oxbridge, UK red brick then US Ivy league) has been struggling to get a post PhD placement for a year. There is no doubt in their mind that oppertunities in academia are narrowing. I feel quite strongly that for many lauded academics their experience in industry is too minimal (or non existant) to make all of their work as valuable in practise as in theory. I'm very luky to have spent considerable hours with very well respected philosophers and sociologists etc who have helped form the minds of our leaders ...and there interpretations can be, worryingly narrow and IMO flawed.

However great the mind, experience gives something...and years outside academia are valuable for that and underappreciated. Just as degrees with research and, post graduate level, with new research/work involved add something that is hard to equal in industry. The problem for me is not just degree v non degree routes in to work, its about a happier combination getting more out of each system, improving both systems by virtue of the different experiences, and progressing what we know and practise.

lostinrates

Chrysalis wrote: »

Sorry as I know I will annoy many people with my view.

But I see universities as a luxury, some things need a degree and some things don't, in recent years far too many people have got pointless degrees wasting money. In many ways it seems to be just a buffer between leaving childhood and entering the adult world of the work place.

Everyone I know who has gone to uni has told me the same thing, the first half a year at least is spent dossing around doing next to nothing, then gradually they work harder and harder and then probably end up doing 70% of the work in the last 6 months. So clearly the earlier months are wasteful.

If I had a choice between cutting social welfare, security, health and education then education would be the choice.

For an individual a university might be a luxury: for (our) society they are a necessity. I wholeheartedly agree there are a lot of pointless degrees and some education for education's sake.

If, as a society, we limit our pool of intake to purely those who are rich enough to pay for it we severely limit our own resources: a lot of the people who contribute most in terms of knowledge and advancement would be unable to atend and develop their own ideas and personal development.

Reestablishing tougher entry requirements for funding might be an option, limiting places on some courses, and perhaps reviewing what is a degree subject/course content, and what should be a vocational, more practical or other sort of quailfication?