Are UK Universities a drag on our economy?

lostinrates

Really2 wrote: »

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.

This would correspond with what I see. My F-i-L barely lectures now, writes books, does lectures at places other than the place that pays him and involve holidays. But my siblings in la both teach a lot term times. In their non-science subjects they barely research either...lucky them!

My f-i-l says he considers himself lucky that he is paid to read books he like reading: and he is lucky and what he produces is highly rated so...his universities think he's worth it to them.

What I do find is they, and our friends who work in academia...who now are mainly arts and humanities, don't really get the difference between what they see as a demanding schedule to that we consider demanding. One said the work was becoming suffocating, that '' last semester I was putting in 40 hour weeks for ten weeks''. Holiday time is not all university holidays, but it can be substantial.

I find their non-science situation very different to my own experience in a science subject, studying and working. Lab time, the research can't be bluffed and though their is room for interpretation and development one has to have done the reading of other people's conclusions and work first.

I don't know how my experience relates to now though.

Really2

lostinrates wrote: »

This would correspond with what I see. My F-i-L barely lectures now, writes books, does lectures at places other than the place that pays him and involve holidays. But my siblings in la both teach a lot term times. In their non-science subjects they barely research either...lucky them!

My f-i-l says he considers himself lucky that he is paid to read books he like reading: and he is lucky and what he produces is highly rated so...his universities think he's worth it to them.

What I do find is they, and our friends who work in academia...who now are mainly arts and humanities, don't really get the difference between what they see as a demanding schedule to that we consider demanding. One said the work was becoming suffocating, that '' last semester I was putting in 40 hour weeks for ten weeks''. Holiday time is not all university holidays, but it can be substantial.

I find their non-science situation very different to my own experience in a science subject, studying and working. Lab time, the research can't be bluffed and though their is room for interpretation and development one has to have done the reading of other people's conclusions and work first.

I don't know how my experience relates to now though.

Not to different to my uncle, TBH he had given up lecturing but still commissioned for the odd sculpture. But he is in 70's now.
I think he was greatfull of lecturing as it provided a good stable wage for him, something art could never do.
It also still gave him time to still create also.
I can remember in the 90's he lectured in tokyo and was getting around £2000 an hour (obviously he had to get there so costs where high) Hate to think what their fees were. (should add it was only a few weeks)

TBH I have never really talked to him about his lecturing that much, I would just look round his gallery as a child (ground floor of house).
Some of it was amazing, some was way over my head. I know art is their to question but I find it polite not to do so when it is your own family.:)

setmefree2

jennikitten wrote: »

Whereas poly courses have adapted much better to the modern world -

I personally know, and have worked with people, who went to Polys in the 70s and 80s and they all have excellent careers. I know many poly graduates who earn more than their Oxbridge counterparts in the same industry. Poly students were doing vocational courses in the 70s and 80s (Engineering, Accountancy, Business Studies, ICT, etc) when the traditional Unis weren't and I believe (if someone bothered to do some research) they would find they have done very well. A history, geograpy, english degree from a good uni is all fine and dandy - but it's just that in the end.....a history, geog, english degree. It's not necessarily what employers want or where the money is...

.... but don't tell anyone

vivalagloria

In response to the initial post, I think the issue is that universities don't really need the £9k per student, the problem has arisen now because the government is making so many cuts to the education system that the universities need to charge more to make up for the shortfall in government funding.

But I don't think it really is as big a deal as many are making out. And most students would burn me at the stake for saying such a thing, but I honestly believe that it's not worth the levels of stress that have grown over the matter. For a start, anyone who couldn't afford the fees before is still eligible for loans and grants, and, like the current system, won't have to pay it back until they're earning a certain amount. Furthermore, the amount at which they start paying back will be higher than it is now, and from something I read recently it looks as though the rate at which it has to be paid back will be smaller (but don't quote me on that bit).

Yes, it's a lot of money, but education was always expensive. And I think if a student is willing to dedicate themselves to their subject then it's worth the cost. Of course, many students are NOT dedicated, and use university as the key to gaining independence, I guess the kind of limbo between childhood and adulthood - which is both a good thing and a bad thing. Personally I think the raise in fees might make THOSE people rethink whether it's worth it. But this isn't really related to the topic, I'm just pondering.

As for lecturers not teaching full time, that may be true, but when they spend their time "researching" you have to remember what that research entails - they are essentially creating and discovering the knowledge that filters down through students, and into high schools and primary schools and gets taught to children, eventually perpetuating the whole learning process.

Really2

vivalagloria wrote: »

In response to the initial post, I think the issue is that universities don't really need the £9k per student, the problem has arisen now because the government is making so many cuts to the education system that the universities need to charge more to make up for the shortfall in government funding.

Absolutely, the state has been set up to spend what it is given or get less next time. (March blowout as we call it)
This means everyone blows their budget to the max as prudence was detrimental to funding.
As we have seen everywhere else once that funding gets hit the institutions have no other response other than to increase costs or make wholesale cuts.

On of the best things I have heard from central government is that they will no longer punish institutions for being prudent so that means if they save money or do not spend a whole years budget they will keep what is left over and still receive what they would have had they spent everything.
Had this kind of logic been in place 10 years ago the country and the public sector would not be in such a state of shock.
Non of them would have been set up as 100% spend YOY "use it or lose it" culture they have been accustomed to.
Part of the reason public spending is so bloated is because there was reward for spending and punishment for saving.

jennikitten

vivalagloria wrote: »

And most students would burn me at the stake for saying such a thing, but I honestly believe that it's not worth the levels of stress that have grown over the matter.

To be perfectly honest, I don't think most of them even understand student loans or what they mean. It's just the basic principle of 'loan = bad' that they seem to hold by. And 'fee increase' is the only understandable concept.

For a start, most of the people protesting are current university students, recent graduates and postgrads who won't be affected by these changes. It's not like the majority are school kids or A level students or parents.

Oldernotwiser

olly300 wrote: »

In fact anyone who does Science A levels and doesn't get the grades for highly over subscribed courses like Medicine has always been able to find another Science/Technology/Engineering degree course they can get on to easily for over 30 years.

Make that over 40 years; it was the same for my generation when only 10% went to university.

Oldernotwiser

posh*spice wrote: »

Maybe we need less of this "researching" now? Students, parents and the government don't won't to pay for it!
.

This totally misunderstands the role of universities and undermines the concept of students learning from others who are ahead of them on the academic road.

lostinrates

posh*spice wrote: »

Maybe we need less of this "researching" now? Students, parents and the government don't won't to pay for it!
.

Depends on the subject. I rolled my eyes at B-i-L'scurrent project..but would hate to see funding stopped into developing the minds and skillsets in most science disciplines.

posh*spice

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

This totally misunderstands the role of universities and undermines the concept of students learning from others who are ahead of them on the academic road.

But we can't afford most of this research anymore. So we should just do without it. I'm sure a lot of it doesn't matter anyhow. When I was at Uni nearly all research went unread....