Cashback skewing proper choice via UCAS system

kayr_2

OK, I've searched for this "cashback" and found a few universities (e.g. Queen Mary) who offer it for a limited number of subjects. Many more universities offer bursaries for people from low income households which is a little different. I don't think it's fair though that 2 students will come out with different loan amounts after doing the same course with, I assume, the same earning potential just because their parents had different incomes when they started.

I would agree that it seems unfair only to offer the "cashback" for a firm acceptance of an offer but I suppose they would argue they want to attract the brightest students. I don't like it either but isn't that how a lot of things in our society work?

It is an absolute fact that DS1's thinking has been skewed by this cashback cr*p.

You are obviously a concerned parent and your son sounds academically able. I imagine discussion about this might eventually lead to an outcome you would be happier with? If he has a choice of a "world class department" vs a "respectable" one then when he gets/doesn't get his offers maybe it will be clearer - they usually know how likely they are to get the grades required by the time they have to choose their firm/insurance offers (around April/May) because they have got most of their module scores by then. There is still lots of time for your son's thinking to become "unskewed" as he talks things through with you. They do change a lot during this final year at school and become more mature in their thinking.

2sides2everystory

Thank you kayr.

The chances of my son getting a place at the world class institution is not affected by his grades because he will almost certainly achieve all he needs but more a question of the number of hopefuls that will apply because "getting the grades" or UCAS points is easy for the top 10% at least and maybe more.

So instead he is thinking he is better off throwing in his lot with the next stream.

No we wil not be paying up front, but we will have to deal with this cashback nonsense to neutralise it.

amiehall

I've received a £1000 a year scholarship from my uni based on my A Level grades and tbh I'd really struggle financially without this money. I don't see what the problem is. If you're stupid enough to go to a uni that's totally unsuitable for you because of a couple of grand then more fool you. Anyways, what you're saying about skewing firm/insurance choices makes little sense... I can see that you might think about whether you're realistically going to get the grades for your firm choice before you confirm that decision. However, if you have an exam meltdown and end up at your insurance, you probably wouldn't have qualified for the scholarship anyways. I'm very confused.

2sides2everystory

Yes you do sound a bit confused amiehall. Good luck with the course

Oldernotwiser

amiehall wrote: »

I've received a £1000 a year scholarship from my uni based on my A Level grades and tbh I'd really struggle financially without this money. I don't see what the problem is. If you're stupid enough to go to a uni that's totally unsuitable for you because of a couple of grand then more fool you. Anyways, what you're saying about skewing firm/insurance choices makes little sense... I can see that you might think about whether you're realistically going to get the grades for your firm choice before you confirm that decision. However, if you have an exam meltdown and end up at your insurance, you probably wouldn't have qualified for the scholarship anyways. I'm very confused.

Well said. Obviously someone who's recently been through the application procedure actually understands it; unlike others.

bewildered123

OP - I'm kind of resigned (from reading this and your other threads) to know that you aren't interested in any challenge to your thinking but you seem to have not noticed an important part of government policy that may cast some light on what you are complaining about.

1) Please don't blame universities - this is government policy and the people you need to complain to is your MP or the relevant ministers. It is true that neither the Conservatives nor the Liberal Democrats mentioned that they would implement such a radical change to university funding in their manifestos so you may feel rightly betrayed if you voted for either party but it's really not what universities wanted either.They are also not going to be swimming in money (outside perhaps of Oxbridge) as funding for teaching has been cut by 100% in most subjects - redundancies are the order of the day in many places and unprofitable departments are being closed down (this week's high profile casualty was Music at UEA for example). It is bad news for pretty much everyone involved except the US 'for profit' firms that the government wants to enter the system (presumably so that we can also enjoy what the US is now calling financial mis-selling of the same degree as sub-prime mortgages).
2) I gather from your posts that the system of bursary support for lower-income families isn't something that you are interested in with respect to your own children, and so it is the merit / open to all scholarships that you are bothered about. Here again I'm afraid this is government not university policy. You may have read that the government wishes to increase market competition in the sector. To do this they have taken away a fairly large number of 'funded' places for UK and EU citizens from all universities to encourage market competition at two ends of the market:
a) they will redistribute 20,000 places to institutions offering degrees for less than £7500 p.a.. These are mainly the lower ranked institutions, who traditionally have struggled to recruit outside of Clearing, FE colleges trying to deliver HE as an alternative now FE funding is being cut to the bone, and new for profit providers.
b) and then I think the bit you are getting at here: they've taken places away from the top thirty institutions like the others but told them they can recruit as many AAB students as they can accommodate without being fined for over-recruitment. This was sprung with next to no notice on universities after most prospectuses etc had long gone to press, and has led to universities having to make snap decisions without guidance or any clue about how it would operate. They had worked out budgets based on current student numbers and now the figures don't add up - consequently all the universities in this camp (or any who could feasibly attract any AAB students for their popular courses like Law and English) are trying to find the best way to attract as many students likely to actually achieve AAB as possible. This is particularly challenging for places like Queen Mary, who someone has mentioned as offering cashback on this basis, as they tend not to be students' first choice but rather an insurance London-based offer if they miss the grades for UCL, KCL or Imperial, and so unusually for a university of that reputation a lot of their courses end up in clearing. Hence if you aren't a top 5 university, you have to start offering more attractive scholarships than you have in the past to try and get market share of this group, to make your overall budget balance.
Universities are also particularly keen to attract students to unpopular but useful degrees like engineering that even at the best places have struggled in recent years to recruit students (and so have offered some financial incentives to students for years now - I remember small scholarships being there in the 1990s for engineering), so will also target those subjects for attractive scholarships. There is a lot of worry that science and engineering courses will not be affordable to run at many places in future unless undergraduate recruitment is boosted by these means, so students like your son interested in those fields will probably get double benefits - lower grade offers and some financial incentives.

Basically, the government has decided that universities must be subjected to market forces so they have to respond - just as in other markets this, as the government must have known, will result in a confusing array of financial offers. No-one working in universities would ever have wanted to have such massive changes to the system implemented as chaotically and fast as the government has chosen to do, as we all recognise that A-level students are getting conflicting advice (a lot of the coverage in the press is very ill-informed), and so some will make sub-optimal choices as a result. My suggestion for when you and your son have to weigh up financial and course preferences would be to put course preference first (unhappy students tend to drop out - this is much more costly than people realise in wasted money) and then try to maximise any help with maintenance costs. It is preferable in my opinion on graduation to owe money for tuition fees and government maintenance loans where repayments are contingent on earnings and with protected interest rates rather than to have overdrafts and credit card debts run up trying to cope with day-to-day costs (particularly given inflation at the moment).

2sides2everystory

You are spot on the money bewildered123 so thanks for explaining in so much very very useful detail. I am sure many readers appreciate it.

My only response to 'don't blame the university blame the government' is that it sounds rather much like 'dont blame the bankers blame the government' (for [STRIKE]failing to regulate the brass b*lls off them[/STRIKE] creating such a ruthless market enviroment).

bewildered123

I think you perhaps don't understand the extent to which the British government regulates what universities may or may not do (rather different from the banks). Believe me it's extensive and the subject of ridicule elsewhere in the world where university independence is still held dear. Universities have precisely two choices in reality when it comes to deciding whether to jump through whatever increasingly stupid, incoherent and pointless hoops the government sets, in return for allowing their students to access public funding for loans and grants: a) obey and pray that they can somehow balance the books b) go out of business if that's the right term for charities (it's almost inevitable that some will even if they try to comply). You would have to be even richer that Oxford or Cambridge are to be able to offer the type of scholarship-loan packages needed without state support - it's amazing how rich US private colleges are.

melancholly

bewildered123 - thanks for getting through about this info in a way that clearly many of us have failed!

2sides2everystory

melancholly wrote: »

bewildered123 - thanks for getting through about this info in a way that clearly many of us have failed!

Yes there are ways and there are ways. Usually the best ways are devised by those that know what they are talking about AND can demonstrate that they can communicate it rather than just thinking they do/can (and yes I do know which category I stumble into quite often )