MSE News: Open University pulls plug on Tesco-funded degrees

brownscombebird

I'm confused as to why it is still being offered to people studying level 1 courses rather than rewarding those people who have spent years studying by allowing them to finish their studies?!
Guess I won't be doing my final two level 3 courses then!!

atypical

brownscombebird wrote: »

I'm confused as to why it is still being offered to people studying level 1 courses rather than rewarding those people who have spent years studying by allowing them to finish their studies?!

The reason given was that the scheme was originally set up to encourage new students to take courses, but now 80% of those who pay with reward tokens are existing students.

The scheme was probably as much a marketing decision as it was a way to help people pay. Millions must have a Clubcard with a large proportion being the demographic The OU wants to target. They probably didn't anticipate that the uptake would be so high.

olly300

brownscombebird wrote: »

I'm confused as to why it is still being offered to people studying level 1 courses rather than rewarding those people who have spent years studying by allowing them to finish their studies?!
Guess I won't be doing my final two level 3 courses then!!

Well your loss.

As stated before most OU courses have a long time frame in which you can get your degree so a bit of scrimping, saving and begging people who buy you presents to get you OU vouchers instead will get you to do the courses.

StormyD

While at full time University you do build up massive debts through the loans, the OU financial support model is based on grants and i'll certainly hold my hand up to have benefited through this. I don't get full support and tesco tokens were making up the difference but its a massive help. For those of you who haven't taken a look believe me its worth doing! There is a link on the OU website somewhere (any one else struggle to find anything on their site?)

I'm looking at using as much of my tesco vouchers as possible before the deadlines for another course but I'll need to look at the installments method then in future. Yes it will be hard but its still better than when I tried full time University.

Stryder

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

You're making the same mistake that younger students at bricks and mortar universities make- you cannot calculate any university's funding on the basis of tutorial time only.

Oh dear. I see you do not understand the implications of the costing. Also, taking the wider picture you seem to be simplifying a complex issue

I calculated the cost I pay per tutor group. I understand there are many more costs that tutor time, software development, marking, etc.

HOWEVER

with the large number of people on any particular course, many of the overheads are massively reduced. It is no more expensive to produce a DVD for 1000 than it would be for 2000 (the actual publishing costs are pennies). Once the course is set up, the difference made by those on a course (such as a language course) who pay a reduced fee (which will not be as high as 50% of any course) which not cause the OU to lose money. It may however, remove the "profit" from these students - which is then used to support other aspects of the University. The change in policy will have been applied not to lose money, but as a way of increasing fees. A judgement will be made to how many people continue courses, and of those how much money will it bring in compared to keeping the course how it is.

NO DOUBT this is a sensible financial decision for the OU - but not a particularly socially ethical one. IF you had read my comments I complained that the way the change had been introduced (4 months, and going from allowing 100% funding to 0%) had been an unfair mistake. There is no reason this a) could not have been handled sensitively and b) it could not have been phased in, or a % cap applied on the Level 2 or 3 courses

Maybe teachers and professors should take a pay cut to help fund their students? I have a degree but never been able to get paid quite as highly than if I had become a teacher! (I know i will by lynched by the teacher out there for that one)

Oldernotwiser

Stryder wrote: »

Oh dear. I see you do not understand the implications of the costing. Also, taking the wider picture you seem to be simplifying a complex issue

I calculated the cost I pay per tutor group. I understand there are many more costs that tutor time, software development, marking, etc.

I think that you're the one simplifying a complex issue. Like so many students,you just see the OU (or any university) as one big teaching establishment, which is just laughable.

Maybe teachers and professors should take a pay cut to help fund their students? I have a degree but never been able to get paid quite as highly than if I had become a teacher! (I know i will by lynched by the teacher out there for that one)

I hope that you'd be lynched by anyone with an ounce of common sense-I'll provide the rope!

Stryder

OLLY 300

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE read my comments before quoting them.

>You have forgotten to add in to the equation:
>1. Cost of hiring and paying tutor for providing lessons and marking
>What is it that I calculated then???? this is a key cost implication and was ?>accounted for.

As for a lot of the other aspects - the OU is a funded university - it is not a corporate organisation. aspects such as servers, student subsidies, etc. are at least partially subsidised by tax payers... that is us!

>I don't know why they did this but I guess it is because they thought doing this >would be too complicated.

ITS A UNIVERSITY - everyone is (or should be) at University standard. I think we can all work out that 50% cap would be. having filled out the finance forms a few times I can tell you it would be very simple to make this clear. This is because it is simpler and potentially more profitable to not cap it. it has been assumed if you want to take it to Level 2 and 3 you will be willing to pay more.

>You have not mentioned Tescos in your rant. I'm surprised as I bet they have a >lot to do with this.

COME on - did you really not read my comments? I emailed the CEO of Tesco to make my feeling known. Where else do I complain?????

The fact is the OU would have come to an agreement with TESCO's. Tesco, I am sure will be happy to continue this existing agreement. However, the OU cannot afford it, so there is a change. I did suggest that to the CEO that a 1:2 ratio of the vouchers could increase the OU's money (double it presumably, if not more, as the chance would be people would not be able to pay fully with vouchers).

The issue is not whether the scheme NEEDED to be cancelled, as I support the OU and if they need more money, then fir enough. IT IS THE MANNER IN WHICH THIS HAS OCCURRED. It would not have been hard to allow people finish a year or two or use capping to soften the blow. It was a great scheme and I am grateful for it. But the OU should have shown sensitivity and common sense to ensure people could continue, at least to the end of their level (some courses can be converted into diploma's or other non-degrees by finishing selected modules.

Stryder

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

I hope that you'd be lynched by anyone with an ounce of common sense-I'll provide the rope!

The sad fact is that i personally know a lot of teacher in the profession who did it for the money as it was the easy graduate option. One chemistry teacher hated the idea of teaching but he liked the idea of money, and working in industry is relatively low paid.

Plus, like it or not, there are many rubbish teachers out there getting paid as much as the good ones.

If the country is suffering - with all parts of the population losing their jobs or taking pay cuts - why should teachers OR ANY profession be immune? I always supported the services arm-police-nurses-paramedics-teachers etc. etc when it comes to fair pay, but when everyone is cutting back - the role they do should not make them exempt. We are in recession and it would be better if the difficulties were evenly spread and we dealt with united as a country - not having select groups being able to look down from ivory towers.

EDIT: LOL just noticed "with an ounce of common sense" ... someone is showing there age. We are in the metric system now, so that will be "anyone with 28.35grams of common sense!

atypical

Stryder wrote: »

Once the course is set up, the difference made by those on a course (such as a language course) who pay a reduced fee (which will not be as high as 50% of any course) which not cause the OU to lose money. It may however, remove the "profit" from these students - which is then used to support other aspects of the University. The change in policy will have been applied not to lose money, but as a way of increasing fees.

I'm not quite sure what you mean to say. The OU doesn't profit from students; it is not in the business of making profit.

You can see from the 2009 accounts that tuition fees and education contracts only made up 34% of income. The surplus they had this year is only 2.3% of total income. I'm guessing the spending cuts the government has announced will be take more than 2.3% away from income which they need to fill and/or save.

Cost cutting rarely makes anyone happy but the realities of the situation demand it. The way The OU decided to withdraw the vouchers also most likely stems from the cost cutting required.

Stryder

"profit" was in "" because I did not mean a commercial profit, but a net gain that anyone one student brings in. knowing a little about the fees when i went to university, many courses effectively pay for more expensive ones, particularly those such as medicine, dentistry, science.

If you look at the initial statements, the scheme was only ever menat to encourage new members (something i only know now looking at BBC back catalogue), and they probably did not expect £1000 courses to be paid in full. However, this was stated when you choose the course and the OU should take care as they intended it to be a marketing tool, and did not sell it as such. To be honest, as it was only designed to "encourage new students" why it was not always only for Level 1 courses???

However, unless they release the figures we will never know the full extent of payments and %s - I am sure like me most people only paid a % of the course fees.

Sorry to repeat myself - but it is not the changes that have caused problems, but the way they gone about making them.