What is actually going wrong with the government.....this USS scandal is shocking....

atush

whatever you do before posting, do look up the law and regulations.

mattvolatile

hyubh wrote: »

Care to explain what you meant by 'a bonus slice of (utterly demented) ideological commitment to (amongst other things) marketisation as a way of improving standards and the long-term erosion of the social contract'...? It was part of a policy to increase university access (an aim achieved), which is an odd way to go about furthering 'the long-term erosion of the social contract'.

I mean, this isn't really the forum for a rant about the marketisation of higher education, but the social contract is, basically, the idea that education is a national (social) good rather than a means to individual enrichment. That's certainly eroded, in both ideological and practical terms over the last two decades.

Your post suggests that the only way to have improved wider access was the introduction of fees. That's an ideological claim, not an unquestionable truth. In fact, your assumption rather proves my point about the social contract -- we can agree that widening participation is good (though the data on that is far from as straightforward as you suggest) without conceding that fees paid by the individual student (or, now precisely, a system which makes it *feel* as if fees are paid by the individual student, when that isn't necessarily the case) is the right funding model.

At things stand, we have huge state subsidy of HE, but through a system deliberately (ideologically) designed to obfuscate that fact. And that obfuscation has caused intended and unintended behaviour changes by students, parents, and universities, all (as I said in the beginning) in the service of a quasi-religious zeal for marketisation as a mechanism for improvement and control. As you might have surmised, I don't think many of those behaviour changes are to to ultimate benefit to students, or to wider society.

But yeah. We're very of topic now.

mattvolatile

hyubh wrote: »

Sorry, but that's baloney. What you would consider a hardline position towards the scheme's funding is shared by the Pensions Regulator. The 'whistleblower', like the union, advocates a soft approach, because hey, everyone in a generous DB arrangement would like to keep it open to future accrual, right?

Pace what has been said on this thread, the USS is not 'basically underwritten by Government', and its major sponsoring employers are not tax-raising bodies. If things were allowed to fall into actual crisis, its size would tank the PPF.

There is no god-given right to lecturers having a DB scheme. Indeed, until the mid-1970s, the scheme available was pure DC. Dare I say, the hue and cry is also a bit out of place when there was no such noise as the DB schemes for support staff at the 'old' universities were steadily closed and replaced with much worse DC or cash balance arrangements.

The TPS is *more generous* than USS, so I'm not sure what you're arguing here.

It's also not particularly clear what the PR think, which was precisely at the heart of Hutton's whistleblower complaint. Bill Galvin is accused, credibly, of presenting a pessimistic case as having come from the PR, when the PR explicitly told him that wasn't their position at all.

The JEP Report is quite good on picking apart the details. That said, it seems that given how big USS is, and how it is structured, it's not particularly obvious why it should be assessed in the same way as a normal company pension scheme, particularly when the TPR models propose modelling scenarios which would exacerbate the situation they are designed to prevent. Mike Otsuka's blog has lots of posts on risk with a huge amount of detail on these modelling assumptions, if you're interested.

hyubh

mattvolatile wrote: »

The TPS is *more generous* than USS, so I'm not sure what you're arguing here.

So what? If anything that says more about the unsustainability of public sector pensions in their current form. However, even leaving aide the present higher contribution rates on average, teachers as a class are paid less than lecturers.

That said, it seems that given how big USS is, and how it is structured, it's not particularly obvious why it should be assessed in the same way as a normal company pension scheme

Like the LGPS perhaps...? Three of the JEP (including the chair) came from the LGPS world; fair enough, if you're looking for relevant 'experts', the LGPS is a reasonable analogue (indeed, the guy who designed the USS back in the 70s was a key post-war advisor of what is now GMPF, the biggest LGPS fund in the country). However, USS sponsoring employers, unlike councils, are not tax-raising bodies, and can fail. This is a key difference.

I'm curious whether, like Jane Hutton in 2014 at least, you see no problems in assessing liabilities on an expected returns basis...?

https://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/files/dennisleech/letter_to_uss_trustees_re_deficit_21_nov_2014.pdf

'The Gilts plus method of estimating future investment returns represents an unduly pessimistic assumption which is substantially out of line with what USS has managed historically.'

So, pension fund assets are accounted for on their current market value; in addition, you 'bank' in advance envisaged future returns to depress the present value of the liabilities.

Who pays when the bets fail to pay off? What if the university sector contracts following Brexit; perhaps the tap of overpaying Chinese students gets turned off; perhaps government policy switches to one that seeks to reverse the relentless increase in student numbers over the past few decades.

You may be perfectly happy at nationalisation if things got really bad, but it's unclear why non-members, including those with crappy AE DC pensions, should help pay for that, if it came to it.

hyubh

mattvolatile wrote: »

I mean, this isn't really the forum for a rant about the marketisation of higher education, but the social contract is, basically, the idea that education is a national (social) good rather than a means to individual enrichment. That's certainly eroded, in both ideological and practical terms over the last two decades.

20 years ago was 1999 - you may not be quite as young as you remember (I share that).

Who knew though - the 'social contract' was safe and sound while Thatcher and Major were at number 10, and even survived the first couple years of Blair, but then, boom - the National Minimum Wage, the Human Rights Act, Scottish and Welsh devolution, gay rights, wacking up of tax credits, child benefit and income support - what a terrible time for the social contract it was.

Your post suggests that the only way to have improved wider access was the introduction of fees. That's an ideological claim, not an unquestionable truth.

Call it 'ideological' if it makes you feel better, but the only person who has spoken of supposed 'unquestionable truths' is you. It was a policy decision, to achieve the aim of continued increase access amongst a bundle of other goals the Labour government of the time had.

In fact, your assumption rather proves my point about the social contract -- we can agree that widening participation is good (though the data on that is far from as straightforward as you suggest)

I haven't expressed a view either way...

At things stand, we have huge state subsidy of HE, but through a system deliberately (ideologically) designed to obfuscate that fact.

A Labour government increases public spending in a manner that hides the fact, a bit. Hold the front page!

And that obfuscation has caused intended and unintended behaviour changes by students, parents, and universities, all (as I said in the beginning) in the service of a quasi-religious zeal for marketisation as a mechanism for improvement and control.

If students are taking less crap nowadays, good for them.

Yet_More_Puddylove

I can tell you here, but I'd never breathe a whisper of it elsewhere, that 'grade inflation' is a thing.
Students who finish on an upper second, are now routinely being raised to firsts, for no other reason than 'bums on seats'.
It's across all grades, and the standards are being lowered as universities compete to give the highest class degree for the least money/effort from the student.

penners324

What a ludicrous headline. Nothing to do with the government.

Malthusian

mattvolatile wrote: »

I mean, this isn't really the forum for a rant about the marketisation of higher education, but the social contract is, basically, the idea that education is a national (social) good rather than a means to individual enrichment.

Then this construct collapses immediately because those two things are the same.

While I'm not in favour of the "50% of children should go to university" nonsense, what we had before, when only a small fraction of the population went to uni, was a system in which university education was reserved for the establishment and a very tiny sliver of the masses.

This helped keep hoi polloi out of middle-class professions which required a degree to enter, which in turn meant thicker middle-class people were individually enriched at the expense of more intelligent working-class pupils, who could have done their job better if they had access.

The system we have now when literally anyone of any background can be individually enriched by three years of dossing around at the taxpayer's expense if they want is much more socially equal. Whether it's a good thing for them or a good use of resources is a different debate, but it is objectively more socially egalitarian than the system 20-30+ years ago.

As a bonus, anyone can study for an economically valuable degree, individually enrich themselves and at the same time enrich society through their more productive labour and higher taxes.

LHW99

As a bonus, anyone can study for an economically valuable degree, individually enrich themselves and at the same time enrich society through their more productive labour and higher taxes.

In theory yes, but unfortunately many of those types of degree require more funds to be expended by the Uni's and more student contact time, hence are being gradually gated or otherwise withering - think medicine, chemistry as a start.
Those which require not too much in the way of expensive equipment (journalism eg) have been expanded on the other hand.

atush

While I'm not in favour of the "50% of children should go to university" nonsense, what we had before, when only a small fraction of the population went to uni, was a system in which university education was reserved for the establishment and a very tiny sliver of the masses.

not so sure about your 'tiny sliver'. OH is in his 60s and he and loads of friends and acquaintances all went to uni. All on the grant, first in their families and he and many are in the 'professions'. I think back in t he day of grammar schools, no fees + grants it was less elite than today.

In today, the days of unpaid internships and huge fees/student loans it matters more what your parents make/have and who they know.