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

Dinah93

Thinking about it we'll just use the Tesco vouchers for our holidays next year and the holiday savings can go to the OU, some people might not have this option but its worth considering.

Digby2

Just a quick message of support to show support to students who are relying on Tesco vouchers to complete their studies.

I completed my degree last year, 29 years after I started! I certainly would not have signed up for the course if I had to pay full whack. The OU should consider that, unlike bricks and mortar universities, the additional cost of a student on a course is much less than the fee charged - as all the course preparation needs to be done anyway. The printing of course materials has huge economies of scale and administration costs are minimal using the Open University's business model. The only real additional cost is that for tutorial support (which is ridiculously low). So once the initial costs of setting up a course, and running it for the year, are covered, each additional student increases profitability by a relatively large amount. This is probably the case with or without the Tesco club card vouchers. It's the same as the economics of filling the last dozen or so seats on an otherwise full commercial flight.

You can read all about this basic dynamic of service costing in a number of OU course units. It's a shame that the decision-makers negotiating the contract with Tesco have not studied with the OU Business School!

Let's keep shouting and get them to change their minds...

golddustmedia

I know it may not be a popular decision but I have to side with the OU here.

I worked for them for many years and left there about 7 years ago (2003), at the time there were sizeable problems with financing the university. Dwindling student numbers etc meant it was costing more to run the university than it was making as income.

Despite being titled as a university, you have to remember though that it is still a business and has to pay it's staff, bills and all other costs.

I agree the Tesco scheme made it easier for many students to join the university, which is a good thing making education more readily available to all, however the realistic choice the OU must have been facing is "withdraw/limit the Tesco scheme, or make other cutbacks like cancelling some courses or laying off staff".

Would you really want to know that someone had to lose their job so you could get a discount on your course fees?

Stryder

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Of course you got help from the government,the fees you paid were only a small proportion of the actual costs.

Also,in the days when grants were available,a much smaller number of people went to university and,perhaps,you might not have been one of them. Grants were also heavily means tested.

Yes,I do have student loans.

1) the university gets help from the government - its a University and is only partially funded from the fees. Like BBC, NHS, etc it has essentially a charter and that is not to turn a profit but to educate,

2) Thanks but yes, I would have still gone to University. Sad fact that too many people are pushed into university when other vocational courses are better suited to them. Now it is almost a dirty to say you have not been to University, that is sold by some universities of an extended club 18-30 holiday, (cant remember, but saw a fantastic sexy add for one which did not actually mention education - possibly Salford???)

3) My sister got a partial grant so yes, i would have got something.

4) If you have student loans, then you should try to be a little sympathetic. Education should not come with debt, but if it has to it should be made easier.

I wonder how many students will actually cancel courses due to this, and whether the overall affect will be as good as the OU expect. Walmart economics suggest that low profit margin and high numbers is the way to go. OK OK there in theory should not be quality implications before you say it. But the fact remains, most OU students do not pay with 100% Tesco vouchers. As such, will this action result in far fewer students and further problems, will ther effect cancel itself out and thus only affect the reputation of Tesco and OU, or will it really benefit the OU financially.

I suspect it will be one of the former than the latter.

HOWEVER - it is irrelevant to the issue of HOW the courses was cancelled.

AND PS - I do not check my student homepage as often as I should, but to be fair the course had not actually begun!

Oldernotwiser

Stryder wrote: »

1) the university gets help from the government - its a University and is only partially funded from the fees. Like BBC, NHS, etc it has essentially a charter and that is not to turn a profit but to educate,

That's exactly what I meant;the fees you paid did notcover your education costs,they were subsidised by the government by many thousands of pounds.

2) Thanks but yes, I would have still gone to University.

You can't know that. when only 1 in 10 people went (rather than 4 in 10), entry was far more competitive and you might not have been successful.



4) If you have student loans, then you should try to be a little sympathetic. Education should not come with debt, but if it has to it should be made easier.

I can't see how much easier it can be when the rate of interest is so low and you only pay it back when earning a decent salary.

I agree that it's a shame that the scheme should have been cancelled with such little notice.

olly300

Stryder wrote: »

1) the university gets help from the government - its a University and is only partially funded from the fees. Like BBC, NHS, etc it has essentially a charter and that is not to turn a profit but to educate,

You and others in this country have to use to the fact that the last Tory government and the current Labour government are liars and will do anything not to tell the public the real story.

The tax payer cannot afford to fund university education to the same extent it could when only a small proportion of people went into higher education.

Other countries - Scandinavian ones, New Zealand and Australia have been more honest with their populations so that people know they have to pay for themselves at university.

Stryder wrote: »

2) Thanks but yes, I would have still gone to University. Sad fact that too many people are pushed into university when other vocational courses are better suited to them.

You are presuming you would have got in. Entry requirements and exams where different.

Stryder wrote: »

Now it is almost a dirty to say you have not been to University, that is sold by some universities of an extended club 18-30 holiday, (cant remember, but saw a fantastic sexy add for one which did not actually mention education - possibly Salford???)

Salford is part of Greater Manchester and the only way they can stand out from the other larger universities in the area is by running such ads. It's a shame when they have a few unique courses.

Stryder wrote: »

3) My sister got a partial grant so yes, i would have got something.

Was your sister younger than you? If not, don't presume that you would have got a any help as grants took into account the number of dependants your parents had.

Stryder wrote: »

4) If you have student loans, then you should try to be a little sympathetic. Education should not come with debt, but if it has to it should be made easier.

ONW is sympathetic but like me is a realist.

I remember talking to one of the presidents at my old Unis student union. We agreed that student loans where not a fair way of doing it but where aware that due to increasing student numbers that students themselves would have to pay more for their own education. We prefered using the tax system as if the government was right that graduates earned more on average then introducing a graduate tax would mean that they would collect a lot of money from those in this bracket plus it wouldn't impact those graduates who worked in professions where there are not high salaries. Now off course we know why they didn't go down this road.

Stryder wrote: »

I wonder how many students will actually cancel courses due to this, and whether the overall affect will be as good as the OU expect. Walmart economics suggest that low profit margin and high numbers is the way to go. OK OK there in theory should not be quality implications before you say it. But the fact remains, most OU students do not pay with 100% Tesco vouchers. As such, will this action result in far fewer students and further problems, will ther effect cancel itself out and thus only affect the reputation of Tesco and OU, or will it really benefit the OU financially.

I suspect it will be one of the former than the latter.

I wonder year on year the number of students paying with Tescos vouchers as a percentage of students.

Stryder wrote: »

HOWEVER - it is irrelevant to the issue of HOW the courses was cancelled.

Agreed.

Stryder wrote: »

AND PS - I do not check my student homepage as often as I should, but to be fair the course had not actually begun!

I check my student homepage about once a week for courses that haven't begun just to check they don't have any library or software tutorials I want to go to.

Stryder

Firstly - I would have got in to university, due to high A level grades, plenty of extra-curricular stuff etc, etc. Not trying to be arrogant but 3 A's and 1 B usually gets you in places

Secondly, the problem with tuition fees is that its ok to pay them back - but most graduate jobs no longer pay for the courses. Many richer younger people now have gone into trades, and work to being self employed, if your bright and ambitious, probably the best choice is to go into a trade. Sadly the rate of interest on 5 or 15 grand when you are not able to save anything is still very very expensive.

The fact is the government should not have pushed people into Universities. It was seen a a solution, but it has become a burden. There should have been more apprenticeships, more vocational courses and a bigger investment into small independent businesses. Universities are essentially academic places for a academic studies, leading to theoretical or "intellectual jobs".

When I was at university I met many many very intelligent, smart people who were very practically minded and had been pushed into courses that just did not suit them at all. I am sure industry has suffered from this singled minded approach which leaves enterprising people in so much debt they cant or never will start their own business.

To me Salford is a great example of a polytechnic. They have great technical courses that suit technically minded people. Its a shame that "polies" has such a stigma attached. They should have been maintained and funded as a midway between apprenticeships and universities.

As I have said - the payment of courses is not the issue - it is more issues related to the scheme and how it was advertised and finished. It was just badly done, and not in a way to ease people off them. This is I suspect an OU action to simplify the situation. However, i wonder how many students will feel so annoyed they just give up. I think the economics is complex - for example many people who are on Tesco Vouchers may be due funding. I wonder if the OU should have insisted everyone fill in a funding form first. I wonder if there are pools of money for funding lying dormant somewhere.

I just hope people find alternatives. Shame when so many people are out of work or struggling financially, this happens.

olly300

Stryder wrote: »

To me Salford is a great example of a polytechnic. They have great technical courses that suit technically minded people. Its a shame that "polies" has such a stigma attached. They should have been maintained and funded as a midway between apprenticeships and universities.

The University of Salford was never a polytechnic.

It got it's university charter in 1957.

Like the other smaller universities created around the 1960s are referred to as the "Plateglass universities".

BTW I didn't go to Salford. However I know many people who did go to smaller universities which specialised in certain subjects unlike larger ones that have every subject.

Stryder wrote: »

As I have said - the payment of courses is not the issue - it is more issues related to the scheme and how it was advertised and finished. It was just badly done, and not in a way to ease people off them. This is I suspect an OU action to simplify the situation.

Agreed.

Stryder wrote: »

However, i wonder how many students will feel so annoyed they just give up. I think the economics is complex - for example many people who are on Tesco Vouchers may be due funding.

To use Tescos vouchers you have to be organised.

Stryder wrote: »

I wonder if the OU should have insisted everyone fill in a funding form first. I wonder if there are pools of money for funding lying dormant somewhere.

The OU will send anyone who ticks the box or asks the forms for funding, and if you can be organised to use Tescos vouchers then you will be organised to do this.

Stryder wrote: »

I just hope people find alternatives. Shame when so many people are out of work or struggling financially, this happens.

Blame UK governments current and past.

Oldernotwiser

Stryder wrote: »

I just hope people find alternatives. Shame when so many people are out of work or struggling financially, this happens.

If people are unemployed or on low household incomes they get the OU courses paid for anyway!

Stryder

Not if they already have been to University and retraining - how many times do i have to say! ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH