It’s a poorly-timed piece of kite-flying by the VCs, but the parties have all agreed to leave the issue to one side until after the next election, at which point the Government will very likely kick it further into the long grass for a while.

The universities do need money, and seem reluctant to go to business for it. They’re going to have to, though.

Yer, as if Labour are going to shove up tuition fees when they are already suffering in the polls. No-one is going to touch this issue and I don’t blame them.

Besides, any mention of the word ‘market’ these days will get you hunted down…..

It is, of course, a coincidence that the NUS Exec elections are in a couple of weeks.

Grants!

Lee:

Let us take Guy Smith, an academically talented individual who has decided they want to become an actor. They gain entry to Oxford to do drama and pay £20k a year for that privilege, paid for by government loan.

You can’t ‘do’ Drama at Oxford. That said: you could have phrased it as ‘Guy gains entry to Oxford to study English and spends most of his time acting in the Drama Society before getting a “Desmond”* or a “Douglas”** and becoming an actor’ (If only he’d gone to Cambridge and joined Footlights – he’d have his own BBC series by now…)

Oh, and one other off-topic point: you can’t get tuition fees for most drama schools.

Interesting post though: btw, the VCs aren’t kite-flying; they’re calling the government’s bluff as to whether they want a ‘market’ in fees or not. The review was meant to report after the election; as it is, Lammy will have to make sure it reports after the votes are counted in 2010. After that, they’ll just tap the students for more cash – which what the whole set-up was designed to do all along.

*Lower Second (or 2:2)
** As in Hurd

‘£1000′s’

There is no need for the apostrophe.

‘so many more students are taking the higher education root’

Wow, is this a new drug/medicine I have yet to hear about?! I assume you meant ‘route’…

Also, that’s ‘bears nothing on’ and ‘additional’.

‘Following VCs’ demands’.

A bit of a sloppy post. I didn’t get the Guy Smith part. If the cap is removed, the government is not going to match the fees charged. Thus, the taxpayer isn’t having to fork out £60,000 for Guy Smith’s ‘Drama/something you can actually study at Oxford’ degree. It will probably fork out roughly what it forks out now for ‘cheap’ Arts degrees.

Unfortunately free higher education isn’t viable. No one will vote for a party that promises to give ‘yet more’ money to ‘lazy students’. France and Germany have long enjoyed close to free higher education and have consequently been chronically underfunded for the past half century. Between them they have 5 universities in the top 100; Britain has nearly 20. This is not a coincidence.

Higher education isn’t a luxury, but it is a necessary expense. Tuition fees as they stand are not a brilliant way of doing things, but current system works okay – from a student’s perspective. The threshold to start paying back is £15,000. The mean graduate starting salary is £24,000. The threshold is too low.

What the government (and universities) should concentrate on is increasing UK universities’ endowments. Only Oxford and Cambridge have them to any significant degree (thanks in large part to Henry VIII and some prime real estate nicked from monks). I’m studying in Canada on an exchange. My university here (a good, but not great one) has an endowment of close to £400 million. My home university in the UK (a good, but not great one) has one closer to £30 million. As a result the Canadian university has a huge amount of tuition fee bursaries, while they’re few and far between at home.

Quick question: Which university in the world has the most progressive funding and fees system? Any guesses?

Harvard.

Applications are made needs blind. You pay, essentially, what you can afford, with their ridiculously large (although slightly shrunken due to credit crunch) endowment of $30 billion (minus whatever they’ve lost in the crunch) soaking up the rest.

To build up these funds takes time. We can’t just nick slate from church roofs any more. I propose that universities try to foster more of a ‘Class of whenever’ culture, encouraging alumni to donate as much as they can. This would allow universities to help students who really can’t afford university through bursaries and give them a free higher education. Those who pay are the ones who can afford it.

And good times are had by all. Huzzah.

@Lazy Student (7): “The threshold to start paying back is £15,000. The mean graduate starting salary is £24,000. The threshold is too low.”

To determine whether the threshold is correct, we need to know the median graduate starting salary and the salary curve. Means are pretty useless. Additionally we need to acknowledge that graduates are opting out of the employment market to pursue a post graduate qualification. How many years will pass before all university students are expected to have conducted four or five years of study to get a “graduate job”?

I follow Lazy Student’s argument about endowments to universities, but there are cultural differences. In the US, most public orchestras and theatres, as well as universities, are funded by public donation, and in Europe those bodies are primarily funded from taxes. Oxford and Cambridge have incredible wealth, compared to most European universities, but that wealth is mostly derived from ancient legacies. Begging appeals from UK universities today are about finding money for something that will be used today.

@ 9 Charlieman

The median starting salary is £23,500 and there’s a percentage breakdown of graduate salaries here: http://www.prospects.ac.uk/cms/ShowPage/Home_page/How_much_could_I_earn_/Salary_and_vacancy_FAQs__2_/What_is_the_average_graduate_starting_salary_/p!eaLXbeX

You’re right. A cultural change is required, but universities have to be more proactive. My sister went to Oxford and receives begging letters each year from her college. It ain’t pretty, or polite or very ‘British’, but it’s necessary.

This donated money must be spent transparently on long term projects and bursaries, however, and not on general upkeep.

http://www.lazystudents.org

All the figures are here: http://www.prospects.ac.uk/cms/ShowPage/Home_page/How_much_could_I_earn_/Salary_and_vacancy_FAQs__2_/What_is_the_average_graduate_starting_salary_/p!eaLXbeX

The median is 23,500 – which is a lot more than I’d previously thought. This is graduates in graduate level jobs though.

Redpesto: Thanks for the pedant, however the underlying point still stands and is relevant.

Lazy Student:

“If the cap is removed, the government is not going to match the fees charged. Thus, the taxpayer isn’t having to fork out £60,000 for Guy Smith’s ‘Drama/something you can actually study at Oxford’ degree. It will probably fork out roughly what it forks out now for ‘cheap’ Arts degrees.”

Read the rest of the post and you will see that it doesn’t matter how much the government grants, it is down to how much the government loans…and only through complete loans will increase in top up fees not have a detrimental effect on student participation in higher education.

“To build up these funds takes time. We can’t just nick slate from church roofs any more. I propose that universities try to foster more of a ‘Class of whenever’ culture, encouraging alumni to donate as much as they can. This would allow universities to help students who really can’t afford university through bursaries and give them a free higher education. Those who pay are the ones who can afford it. ”

How many non-harvard level universities in the US are able to rely so much on these donations, out of interest? I really don’t like comparisons with the US system given the level of difference in why they take students on, how and why they subsidise some, and how much those caught in the grey area need to work to simply receive their education…a problem that through American comparison we’re starting to see and feel here in the UK.

Drop out rates in the UK aren’t down to people not being good enough or not wanting to stay in university, it’s that they hit a financial wall some time around second term and, combined with not so amazing educational progression, decide it’s not worth wasting their own money.

For the record I don’t think free education through taxation is viable either, that doesn’t mean I think top-up fees are the best answer. At a £3k cap I believe they are probably the most workable answer for the current time…but they have to be a stepping stone to a better system, not the thin end of the wedge to a worse one.

Also, I may be talking rubbish here, but getting a graduate level job is something like a 50/50 chance for graduates now, so yes the graduate average may be high, but then take in to account those working jobs that they didn’t need to go to univesity and accrue something in the realm of £20k worth of debt and I’m sure the overall averages drop.

Drop out rates in the UK aren’t down to people not being good enough or not wanting to stay in university, it’s that they hit a financial wall some time around second term and, combined with not so amazing educational progression, decide it’s not worth wasting their own money.

Aren’t drop out rates directly related to the quality of the university – or should that be “university”?

There should be fewer universities / fewer students. Redistrubute the existing funding to the rest.

Endowments only work for independent universities. People will not give if they think there is a rsik that government will cut funding on the other side.

Lazy student, you’re quoting the figure from Graduate Prospects’ survey of salaries offered last year, which isn’t bad as long as you realise that it mostly covered very large blue-chip recruiters and has a distinct bias towards London and the South East and away from the public sector, technical roles and SMEs.

To be fair to GP, they do not attempt to disguise that – further down the link you sent, you’ll notice the figure of £19,300, a more accurate reflection of a graduate starting salary that comes from the annual Destination of Leavers from Higher Education survey, and covers many more graduates outside London, in SMEs and in the public sector.

Lee, I’m afraid you are talking rubbish. About two thirds of graduates start their careers in graduate level jobs (strictly speaking, are in these jobs six months after graduating), using a rather complicated assessment method developed by the Institute of Employment Research at Warwick: http://www.prospects.ac.uk/cms/ShowPage/p!ebfcaec. Whilst the coding scheme is now a few years old and is creaking in some specific areas, it’s still pretty good, and actually underestimates slightly in some areas.
Longitudinal studies of graduate employment find that after 5 years, between 10 and 15% of graduates in a given cohort are not in jobs that require a degree; that does not necessarily mean that they are not well paid, and most of them are happy with the jobs that they are doing. The largest group of graduates who do not start their careers in graduate level jobs do not have significant work experience, start in entry-level jobs with organisations that employ graduates elsewhere (in offices and so on, for example), and progress into graduate positions once they have a bit of experience.

That process will be disrupted this summer, of course, but I will reserve judgement on the effects (which will be considerable) until I get some data.

It is always worth reflecting that one key job that does not require a degree, and is, therefore, by Government measures of graduate employment, a failure, is that of MP.

Bah, that link’s not working: here it is again: http://www.prospects.ac.uk/cms/ShowPage/p!ebfcaec

Lazy student said: “To build up these funds takes time. We can’t just nick slate from church roofs any more. I propose that universities try to foster more of a ‘Class of whenever’ culture, encouraging alumni to donate as much as they can. This would allow universities to help students who really can’t afford university through bursaries and give them a free higher education. Those who pay are the ones who can afford it.”

No way you’d be able to raise more than about 5p at a university like Manchester, where although the teaching is excellent, the university management is so woeful and disrespectful of its own students, that most people leave the place hating it, rather than wanting to give it even more of their cash. Can’t imagine any UK university getting much alumni payments other than Oxbridge.

Fair point Ken, the difference between 50% and 66% is significant but the point still remains.

Not that it bares too much relevance to what I was originally saying which is that a) if the government is going to continue funding students through loans (as it must if it intends to bridge class divides) then the idea that the graduates themselves (happy or otherwise) will be paying for it is not necessarily the case and b) where it is the case that they are paying that this is an unethical situation given that if we’re being utterly literal then it is, yes the individual that benefits (and thus pays more of their income through general taxation), but more importantly the beneficiary is the business, the sector and therefore the economy or society. Finally c) that where the only beneficiary is the student, they are not the sort that is likely to be paying back their loan and that brings us back to point a above.

cjcjc: Dropout rates bare no resemblance to this debate given they are either not using the money spent on them or they are not attending in the first place because the fees rise extortionately.

I’ll second noughtpointzero at 16 – the University management at York just didn’t seem to care about the needs of undergraduates; no wonder that after graduation they are reluctant to donate to the alma mater.

@Lazy Student (9): “You’re right. A cultural change is required, but universities have to be more proactive.”

Some differences between Europe and the USA are:
1. Lower taxes in the USA and smaller public funds there for public “benefits” (including the arts and higher education). If donors don’t give money, the institutions can’t exist.
2. Donations to universities are smaller in the UK, possibly as a consequence of higher taxes. Donations may also be smaller because successful graduates attribute their progress to “the education system” (if not their own brilliance), rather than feeling a special connection to alma mater.
3. Historically low funding of European universities reinforces point 2. Graduates could have received a similar education elsewhere at university X, so why respond to the begging letter from university Y that s/he attended? Only those who attended Oxbridge or one of the wealthier London colleges might feel that their education was special; other graduates may have struggled to get decent A levels to attend their choice of Russell group university, but there are many fine alternatives.

I think that those are factors that take generations to change.

When questioning whether graduates get “graduate jobs”, it is worth looking at the employment practices of universities. The examples I give reflect their value of immediate and early graduates.

1. Science lab technician: The job requires good A Levels, HNC, HND, equivalent. Typical employee is BSc.

2. Low level administrator: The job requires good A Levels, work place equivalent. Typical employee is BA.

3. Computer support technician: The job requires good A Levels, work place equivalent. Typical employee is BA, BSc, BEng.

Fortunately, for now at least, there is scope for job progression within UK universities.

20.
1.Many jobs which were previouly undertaken by HNC/OND technicians are now undertaken by graduates.

2. Many solicitors and accountants left school after ‘O’levels and were articled to the local firm , studying for exams in the evening. Hardly anyone read accountancy at university pre 1960.

3. Many engineers( Brunel for example ) left school at 16 and were apprenticed /articled to a local organisatiion and recieved training . By studying for Council of Engineering Exams they obtained the theoretical training they needed to become incoporated( Technician) or Chartered Engineers. By undertaking practical work and theorectical training together they were often better engineers.

4. Tesco, Sainsburys and M and S were all set set and run by people without degrees. Supermarket management only started needing graduates in the late 60s .

5. The Armed Forces , except for technical corps do not need officers with degrees. In fact best officers are often those who have spent a year or two in the ranks. Wellington, Nelson and Rommel did not have degrees.

6. Stocbrokerrs and brokers at Lloyds did not need degrees before the 1970s.
7. Taylor Woodrow, Costain, AMEC, Berkely Homes and most of the large construction companies were started by craftsmen, not graduates.

If we produced an education system with high standards up to the age of 16 or 18 and with extensive faciliies for further education at night school, correspondence courses and attendance at week or month long courses; we could close down many of the humanities courses at the ex-polysand spend the money on technical/vocational training. This would help class mobility by enabling talented and industrious working and lower middle class people obtain professional qualifications required to enter the professional middle classes, without taking out large loans to study. After all Tom Paine was an Exciseman, without a degree, yet he managed to write some very influential political works.

Most companies and The Civil Service have high flyer streams. Very few graduates with humanities sdegrees from ex-polys ever enter or are promoted to the high flyer streams. There is likely to be a two tier form of graduate management over the next few years . Those with humanties degrees from ex-polys are likely to be burdened with paying off their students loans and saving for deposits for mortgages which are likley to increase to 10%-30% of the value of the property. I expect the mortgage company will look hard at the qualifications and future propects of the graduates. A 30 year old with a B.Sc and M.Sc degrees in Petroleum Engineering from Imperial College and is a Chartered Engineer working for Shell/BP may look a better bet than a humanities graduate struggling in media. A 30 yr old electrician who is trained to NVQ 3 or 4, with 9 years good quality post apprenticeship experience , is a chargehand and with no student loan, may look a better prospect than many humanities graduates.

The expansion of higher education has been wonderful for those employed in it , construction companies , landlords and pub/club owners.

The USA is run by 10- 20 institutions. Attending many of the academically poor small institutions does little to break down the class divide because their courses lack the rigour of such places as MIT or Stanford. In Science, engineering and technology it is important to attend those departments of universities which are World leaders in their subjects otherwise one may be wasting one’s money. Just look at the institutions which receive research money, companies do not do it for charity.