Tuition fees 2012 on - Buy 4 Get 1 free ...

melancholly

The_One_Who wrote: »

It's a good job no one chooses academia for the money! As far as I am aware the payment of lecturers doesn't come out of the tuition fee moneys, but I could be wrong on that, do you have any professional insight?

My original career aim was academia, but couldn't face not having a guarantee of a job upon graduation. The short-term contracts and having to be open to working anywhere in pursuit of those jobs wasn't appealing either.

it's all a bit opaque to me. a lot of teaching work is done by people on research contracts, so there's no government/tuition fee support. but people who get permanent contracts are HEFCE funded based on government support. given that that money is what's being cut, i'd expect the difference to be made up from tuition fees at the increased levels...... i really don't understand how it all works out, not least because every uni i know of seems to change its financial model as applied to departments regularly!

job security is worse now than in years, especially because as money dries up, more PhD studentships are offered rather than RAs or postdoc places (cheaper plus no FEC in grants!). so there are less jobs and more people with PhDs applying for them. it's normal to be out of work for some period of time, but a lot of people finishing now are heading abroad to stay in research. you have to love it to do it and the addition of extra teaching loads doesn't make it more appealing to most people interested in research.......

melancholly

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/mar/17/university-funding-cuts-institution-hefce-universities

best link i can find to HEFCE funding cuts broken down by institution (i'm a sucker for the bubble diagrams that the guardian does!) - see the note at the bottom about UoL cuts as that figure isn't really the same as for other places so is a bit misleading.

The_One_Who

melancholly wrote: »

it's all a bit opaque to me. a lot of teaching work is done by people on research contracts, so there's no government/tuition fee support. by people who get permanent contracts are HEFCE funded based on government support. given that that money is what's being cut, i'd expect the difference to be made up from tuition fees at the increased levels...... i really don't understand how it all works out, not least because every uni i know of seems to change it's financial model as applied to departments regularly!

Aah, I see. So the fees may now actually be paying for the lecturers. But I guess that will be different for every university depending on their own financial situation.

job security is worse now than in years, especially because as money dries up, more PhD studentships are offered rather than RAs or postdoc places (cheaper plus no FEC in grants!). so there are less jobs and more people with PhDs applying for them. it's normal to be out of work for some period of time, but a lot of people finishing now are heading abroad to stay in research. you have to love it to do it and the addition of extra teaching loads doesn't make it more appealing to most people interested in research.......

Exactly. The thing is that the job market can't really absorb these PhDers at the appropriate levels, at least not all of them. "Industry" isn't an option for most. So a few years more down the line things are only going to look worse. I could see where HE was heading and jumped off the sinking ship before I made the commitment. It's quite sad really.

melancholly wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/mar/17/university-funding-cuts-institution-hefce-universities

best link i can find to HEFCE funding cuts broken down by institution (i'm a sucker for the bubble diagrams that the guardian does!) - see the note at the bottom about UoL cuts as that figure isn't really the same as for other places so is a bit misleading.

Thanks for this. The bubble diagrams aren't the easiest things to read at first, but they are very pleasing on the eye!

melancholly

The_One_Who wrote: »

Exactly. The thing is that the job market can't really absorb these PhDers at the appropriate levels, at least not all of them. "Industry" isn't an option for most. So a few years more down the line things are only going to look worse. I could see where HE was heading and jumped off the sinking ship before I made the commitment. It's quite sad really.

luckily my head is above water - just! the chances of moving from contract to 'permanent' jobs is slim though. with all the redundancies lately, permanent doesn't mean much anyway any more. hopefully in a couple of years things will settle down once everything about the new funding system is clearer. although if unis start to close down, things will get very bad. working abroad may be the only option. it's tricky as things have changed a lot since i decided to do a PhD but now i'm committed!

2sides2everystory

So what do you HE insiders think about the emerging practice of robbing 4 Peters to pay Paul the pauper?

And what do you think about the 'up to 1/3' cashback system ?

And why are you dismissive of the worth of Vice Chancellors generally?

Do they not earn their salary just as fairly as any other HE insider interested in the prospective 2012 HE gravy train ?

Oldernotwiser

2sides2everystory wrote: »

So what do you HE insiders think about the emerging practice of robbing 4 Peters to pay Paul the pauper?

And what do you think about the 'up to 1/3' cashback system ?

And why are you dismissive of the worth of Vice Chancellors generally?

Do they not earn their salary just as fairly as any other HE insider interested in the prospective 2012 HE gravy train ?

I approve of any scheme that widens participation in HE to disadvantaged groups, as long as they have the ability to benefit from this level of education.

melancholly

2sides2everystory wrote: »

So what do you HE insiders think about the emerging practice of robbing 4 Peters to pay Paul the pauper?

And what do you think about the 'up to 1/3' cashback system ?

And why are you dismissive of the worth of Vice Chancellors generally?

Do they not earn their salary just as fairly as any other HE insider interested in the prospective 2012 HE gravy train ?

in order:

1. no idea what you mean in exact terms

2. it's not specified enough to be clear yet - the specifics are as (more?) important than general suggestions. i do worry that those from middle earning backgrounds will lose out though. they won't be able to pay up front but won't get any extra help. but the flip side is that no system is perfect so i'm not expecting this one to magically achieve that!

3. they get paid a lot of money to represent staff but, in general, don't act in the interest of the academic staff. constant restructures are not efficient or helpful! i'm sure people in other areas of unis or indeed in other unis will have much higher opinions of VCs. i don't think their engagement with the press has been helpful during the HE finance debate (or indeed that many have even tried to convey the university position at all). the reality is that most uni employees have nothing to do with the VC and probably couldn't pick them out of a line up! they make decisions, often without consultation, that impact on working practices for others. these are often not practical/useful. they have also increased their pay substantially, while those in academic positions are on fixed salary scales that don't go anywhere close to the ridiculous levels many VCs opt to pay themselves:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8274663/Row-over-hike-in-university-vice-chancellors-pay.html

4. there is no gravy train - salaries/money at unis will not increase in 2012; it will be going down. that's a fundamental point that's being missed. uni income used to be all from government, then some from fees and most from government. the new system is just switching it all to fees, with a maximum limit which is less than it costs a lot of courses to run. unis will have less money than before..... again - there is no gravy train for people below the top handful in any institution!

2sides2everystory

no idea what you mean in exact terms

Well my original premise in this thread that the deal by the universities with the fair access regulators (forgot their exact name but another quango I guess) is that 20% of the new £9Kpa fees should be redistributed by the universities in the form of scholarships or bursaries or other aid to needy students.

So, on balance, 4 students will pay the full £9000 a year for every one pauper who gets tuition free.

Had that 20% (inverse 4:1) number not reached you via your internal grapevine ? I heard it direct from the mouth of a VC who was working hard on a Saturday to market his university's wares !

In addition, the cashback system which is specified in quite some detail now by the three universities I have visited recently will account for a further redistribution initially to those arriving with the highest A level grades and who are tackling the less fluffy courses.

You say that there is no gravy train, but a long term ok paid job in this climate is gravy to most citizens, and the thought of being able to control a whole establishment of such jobholders is no doubt seen as a key step to some real potential gravy train to ambitious VCs! As I mentioned earlier, one particular university made the point of telling we interested parties that they had recently recruited some dozens of new teaching staff and were now starting a fresh drive to do the same again.

The_One_Who

2sides2everystory wrote: »

Well my original premise in this thread that the deal by the universities with the fair access regulators (forgot their exact name but another quango I guess) is that 20% of the new £9Kpa fees should be redistributed by the universities in the form of scholarships or bursaries or other aid to needy students.

So, on balance, 4 students will pay the full £9000 a year for every one pauper who gets tuition free.

Universities are expected to be providing some sort of financial aid, but I don't think it has to cover the full fees cost. If you have a link to this it would be helpful.

As has already been said (several times), the universities could end up worse off under this system because the fees are essentially having to make up for the cuts in the governmental teaching grants.

You say that there is no gravy train, but a long term ok paid job in this climate is gravy to most citizens, and the thought of being able to control a whole establishment of such jobholders is no doubt seen as a key step to some real potential gravy train to ambitious VCs! As I mentioned earlier, one particular university made the point of telling we interested parties that they had recently recruited some dozens of new teaching staff and were now starting a fresh drive to do the same again.

A long-term well paid job in academia is becoming more and more difficult to get, and you are expected to work much more to justify your place there. Not only do you have to do teaching (and that is more than the few hours a week in front of a class!), you are expected to be conducting and publishing research all the time. The process you have to go through to get the money for this research is complicated, competitive, incredibly time-consuming and has recently been made more difficult than ever before. Working in higher education isn't a cushy job. VCs are a whole different species to those poor souls who are working at the coal face, and often taking all the flack.

Do students want dedicated teaching staff? I'm not so sure. I went to university to be taught by and to interact with those people who are doing the research that I'm reading about. Will the teaching-only staff have that same level of knowledge and interest in the topic?

melancholly

2sides2everystory wrote: »

Well my original premise in this thread that the deal by the universities with the fair access regulators (forgot their exact name but another quango I guess) is that 20% of the new £9Kpa fees should be redistributed by the universities in the form of scholarships or bursaries or other aid to needy students.

well the OFFA (office for fair access) has a threshold, as i understand it, of a family income of £42K, below which students count for widening participation programmes. this seems very high and so, as ever, the details matter as much as the principle. a lot of students will be eligible under this scheme as something like 90% of households fall into that category (which is why i don't see how it can possibly work tbh!). it's also bizarre that the systems will vary by institution so it's really impossible to make any generalisations........ at any rate, the term pauper doesn't seem appropriate!

fwiw, plenty of places are hiring teaching staff - on short term and often part time contracts, having removed full time lecturers in redundancies or after having recruitment freezes so jobs haven't been replaced. they can honestly say that they're recruiting, but it is on a completely different status than in the past.

ETA - plus part time teaching staff won't be available for students to contact via things like office hours, so for students, it isn't an improvement. it's also never as good to have staff changes each year - continuity from year to year on modules can be very useful.