Are UK Universities a drag on our economy?

olly300

jennikitten, you stated clearly that a traditional university can't adapt to what employers and industry want.

I was pointing out that you were not correct. The new universities received their University Charters post-1992 but before that there were traditional universities whose principle aims where to provide degrees in more modern subjects that industry wanted.

I actually know people whose university degree courses wouldn't have existed if a particular industry hadn't wanted graduates in them.

You also mentioned that some universities had only one option for particular a subject. Due to knowing that universities across the board have been shutting down, amalgamating and making their science, engineering and technology departments smaller due to lack of student numbers over the past decade then it's obvious why they only offer one option of a degree in a particular subject.

Also student numbers have gone up in the past 10 years so what are these students studying if certain departments have got smaller or disappeared?

Oh and you are lucky to find science and maths easy. Working in IT I'm fed up of the number of British women who think that they don't look silly stating things like women can't do those subjects. It's even worse when you hear Primary school teachers say it.

gauly

setmefree2 wrote: »

I can't understand why any intistution needs £9k per student to deliver a course. Given that the minimum the government is giving is 20% plus a minimum of £6k per student (on a course of 60 students that's £360,000), then it should be easy to deliver a course for that amount surely.

At £9k for 60 students that's £540,000 - over 3 years that's £1,620,000 plus at least a further 20%. All that to educate 60 people!!

If Unis need that sort of money do you think they are inefficient?

There is no "plus at least a further 20%" for arts and social sciences courses. The government is providing no teaching funding for these courses. The 20% funding remaining is all for STEM subjects.

I can quite easily see where the £9k+ goes for a chemistry or engineering course (in fact they cost substantially more than this). These courses usually have many hours a week of labs and lectures plus there is a lot of expensive equipment being used. There have been lots of science departments closed down because they were losing money for the university.

I think most universities outside London/SE could supply an arts course for less than £6k. If the university charge over £6k for an arts degree then I wonder if, rather than inefficiency, it would be so they could cross-subsidise science courses. That's going to be much harder to do if they are competing on price. I can see lots more science departments closing in the future.

jennikitten

olly300 wrote: »

jennikitten, you stated clearly that a traditional university can't adapt to what employers and industry want.

I was pointing out that you were not correct. The new universities received their University Charters post-1992 but before that there were traditional universities whose principle aims where to provide degrees in more modern subjects that industry wanted.

I actually know people whose university degree courses wouldn't have existed if a particular industry hadn't wanted graduates in them.

They aren't keeping up with the times though.

olly300 wrote: »

You also mentioned that some universities had only one option for particular a subject. Due to knowing that universities across the board have been shutting down, amalgamating and making their science, engineering and technology departments smaller due to lack of student numbers over the past decade then it's obvious why they only offer one option of a degree in a particular subject.

It's not that they've disappeared; it's that they didn't exist in the first place. I'm talking about computing more than anything else. The newer unis have managed to get relevant courses out with less funding and worse reputations, so why can't the others?

olly300 wrote: »

Working in IT I'm fed up of the number of British women who think that they don't look silly stating things like women can't do those subjects. It's even worse when you hear Primary school teachers say it.

Agree with you about the primary school teachers thing. & makes a change to hear that instead of the whole 'girl working in IT' mockery that I normally get, especially as I look younger than I am :mad:

satchmeister

setmefree2 wrote: »

I can't understand why any intistution needs £9k per student to deliver a course. Given that the minimum the government is giving is 20% plus a minimum of £6k per student (on a course of 60 students that's £360,000), then it should be easy to deliver a course for that amount surely.

At £9k for 60 students that's £540,000 - over 3 years that's £1,620,000 plus at least a further 20%. All that to educate 60 people!!

If Unis need that sort of money do you think they are inefficient?

How many hours a week in term time does the average uni lecturer actually teach? Teachers in school I guess, teach say five or six hours per day. Have a guess at the number of hours per week a uni lecturer spends lecturing, ok include the personal tuition and mentoring.

Really2

satchmeister wrote: »

How many hours a week in term time does the average uni lecturer actually teach? Teachers in school I guess, teach say five or six hours per day. Have a guess at the number of hours per week a uni lecturer spends lecturing, ok include the personal tuition and mentoring.

My uncle used to lecture art in the UK and abroad and would usually contract about 10h a week.

satchmeister

Really2 wrote: »

My uncle used to lecture art in the UK and abroad and would usually contract about 10h a week.

My experience would agree with this, 2 hours per day in (short) term time with the rest of the time spent on 'research' (private paid consulting work) while receiving a full salary and benefits.

So yes UK universities are the most inefficient places on earth - I used to work at one so have seen this first hand.

misskool

satchmeister wrote: »

My experience would agree with this, 2 hours per day in (short) term time with the rest of the time spent on 'research' (private paid consulting work) while receiving a full salary and benefits.

So yes UK universities are the most inefficient places on earth - I used to work at one so have seen this first hand.

I currently work at a UK university and you may only be lecturing for 5-6 hours a week but there would time taken to prepare the course, and meetings to attend to convene the course, then exam writing meetings, then marking the exams, then second marking the exams. And if you teach more than one course, it's a multitude of meetings and if you teach across a few degrees, you have to attend more meetings.

Research is not often paid consulting work. And if you think how much academics are paid compared to industry, you wouldn't begrudge them of a bit of paid consultancy. And if all academics went to work for industry, who would be there to teach the future generation?

I love how everyone thinks education is so cheap at a UK university. It's interesting how those involved in this discussion treat academics with such contempt. As in any industry (including MPs!) there are those that work extremely hard and provide good work and the few you happen to experience is not common occurrence.

It will not be any cheaper with a private provider. Higher education costs a lot of money to provide, from capital costs to specialised equipment to large numbers of human resources.

In countries where there are private and public universities, public (subsidised by the state) universities are still cheaper.

lostinrates

satchmeister wrote: »

My experience would agree with this, 2 hours per day in (short) term time with the rest of the time spent on 'research' (private paid consulting work) while receiving a full salary and benefits.

So yes UK universities are the most inefficient places on earth - I used to work at one so have seen this first hand.

sample size of one! My first uni was VERY efficient. Second less so, but seen far more inefficient places....

satchmeister

lostinrates wrote: »

sample size of one! My first uni was VERY efficient. Second less so, but seen far more inefficient places....

I attended three as student (two post grad degrees) and worked at two. And the two hours work per day was common as was the private consulting work, and the 'not in this week as he's working on his book'. Our undergraduate personal tutor was away for a whole term, no not sick, doing private consultancy in Australia. So yes small sample but very typical.

Really2

satchmeister wrote: »

My experience would agree with this, 2 hours per day in (short) term time with the rest of the time spent on 'research' (private paid consulting work) while receiving a full salary and benefits.

He used to do 2 hours a week some times, the more they paid the less he did (in hours).
Odd that you can get paid more talking about your work than you actually get paid for doing your work.