Sussex students suspended for protesting

[Jason]

However, didn't the public university system supported by the UK Government (I assume that's how it works) provide for some emergency 5-year plan for downturns in the economy?

You have forgotten that Gordon Brown as chancellor told us he had "abolished boom and bust". There was never going to be a downturn. The downturn has been the world's falt, not his, but he has been busy in his words to parliament "saving the world".

No, there is no contingency funding for universities. Back in 1997 most universities had assets, often land that they owned (and either used themselves or rented out). But 13 years of Labour reductions in their income have meant that these assets have been spent. I doubt any university now has any significant reserves and many are technically bankrupt.

The fees that can be charged to UK students are capped, so universities cannot up their prices. They actually make a loss on almost all UK undergraduates. The law requires them to accept EU students for the same cost, which in effect increases the loss. The primary source of income is overseas students who pay a commercial price. The joke is that admissions tutors don't see the student but instead see a £. There is research income (though much of this is through research boards which are government controlled). Yes there is commercial research, but at a commercial price which basically covers the job. The problem we have is that the present model just isn't working, and it is a slow process to make changes. Options include:

1) The government scraps the £1bn cuts. My own view is that this makes sense. The direct costs of redundancies, lost income tax and increased benefits dependency are ball park £100m pa for several years. Then there's the indirect cost of damage to the UK system.

2) We move towards a system where students pay the real costs. Quite possibly this will happen, but there are a lot of issues with it. We don't have a framework of scholarships (as in the US) or parents planning for 18 years to cover costs (as in US) nor do we have clearly higher salaries for professionals (as in US). Moving from a state to a market system is messy.

3) The third way! The Conservatives tried blue sky thinking in the 1970s. They came up with University of Buckingham, the only UK private university (there are foreign private unis in the UK but not giving UK degrees). Present chancellor is Margaret Thatcher. This is a tiny university (less than 1000 students) which has kept in business by slipping under Labour's radar. It has some amazingly good results, particularly in student satisfaction. Here we have a 100% privately funded organisation which is small enough to be financially smart. Curiously it is now little more expensive to do a BA there than through a state funded uni. Buckingham illustrates that there are formats in which education can be delivered much more cheaply than through the state system and at a quality which is much better than the average. The problem is we can't turn our existing unis into Buckinghams. Probably an incoming Conservative government would look at the Buckingham model.

The problem is that any changes take years. My view is that right now we just have to fund universities properly. But we also have to accept that the nationalised industry model does mean that we have an expensive system. When a university as Buckingham can do so well in the league tables while teaching each student for considerably less per head than the state universities we do have to think that we need a different model.

 

[D_Andreas Sukov]

the Sussex students were reinstated today.

 

[dandelion]

Lemon, the problem here is that the students are attacking sussex for making job cuts but Sussex is not in a position to do anything about it. The government gives them the money and they are the ones you need to attack. Yes it gets publicity if something happens at one campus, but the people in charge really have no choice but to do what the government has told them to do. Sussex probably arent very good at managing their student relations which will make everything worse, but in the end what can they do? I expect management expenses are spinning upwards just as they are in all sorts of semi-autonomous government institutions (hospitals, local councils) but putting that right wont be enough to fix this problem.

Universities are a total can of worms. There are three kinds of university. Traditional long established ones which used to be private institutions (though always relying on big donors). The new universities (like sussex) created mid last century because it was believed britain needed a bigger number of highly educated people. Then the wave of new universities created in the last 10-20 years by transforming other forms of college and a push to send a bigger proportion of people to university. These three never were the same and still are not.

The mid 1900s expansion was fully funded by the government. Buildings were paid for. Staff were paid for. The state take over of private education was similar to the state take over of private charitable hospitals and the creation of the NHS. They introduced grants equivalent to a working wage to pay people to go there.

Then in the late 1900s someone came up with the idea to expand university education to as large a percentage of the population as possible. I do not understand how this is justifiable. The 1950s plan was based upon an economic argument that graduates are good for the economy and would pay back the money invested in their education. Clearly the government no longer believes this, because it is unwilling to finance university education for all. Some nonsense arguments were made that graduates earn more thus ought to repay the costs of their education directly. The figures were based on the earning power of the relatively few graduates then in existence. Presumably the brightest and best of the population who would have done well even if universities had never been invented. Absolutely no scarcity value getting you extra wages because you have a degree if everyone has got one. Still a premium if you go to one of the best universities and not if you go to the worst.

Plainly the government no longer believes that educating one individual will boost the income of eveyone, so everyone should pay. Then, getting more people into education was seen by the last Tory government as a way to reduce unemployment figures. It still is. They boosted the number of higher education places last year to soak up some of the expected unemployment from this recession too. Probably better for the people that they are getting a qualification rather than doing nothing for a year, but a lot better if they had gone directly into work. University eduction was supposed to give specialist education directly applicable to industry. A mate of mine did a physics PHd, at government expense, and then became a banker. How much benefit did either he or the government really get from learning physics for six years?

Jason, your at it again, trying to make political points from current government cuts. I'm not old enough to remember exactly who created the 1950s totally free universities, which complimented the grammar school system which gave excellent free education to bright people to allow them to get to university. Before that you could only get a good education if you could pay (sound familiar?). I do remember that the Thatcher governments were cutting back on grants and all kinds of income enjoyed by students (for example, being able to claim social security benefits: they had to axe this because once the grants were cut they found students were paid so little they then qualified for benefits). It has been one long steady downhill process where students are expected to pay more and more.

I do not believe we need a large proportion of the population going to university. We need what the 1950s scheme was intended to provide, a small number of very good graduates. Everyone else would be better off in work learning on the job. Despite claims that there are rising numbers of pensioners and not enough workers, we send people to university for 3 years instead of doing something useful.

Oh I enjoyed university immensely. No complaints about that. But it isnt being sold as a three year holiday.

 

[D_Andreas Sukov]

If one VC spoke out against cuts, more would, and the government would have to act. The protests in Sussex are more about the nature of the cuts rather than the cuts itself. Staff were not consulted on the cuts and staff were being cut when other methods to save funds were suggested with no/minimal job losses.

 

[Jason]

Heard the VC of Reading arguing that the cuts would not hurt Reading. Every VC is terrified that if they speak out and say there is a problem then students will go elsewhere. Basically every VC says there are problems in the sector but their uni has bucked the trend and is doing just fine.

We need less students and more funding per capita. We had a good model - but Labour's push for 50% of 18 year olds to go to uni has caused chaos. We don't have professional jobs for 50% of 21 year olds, and while uni is great for personal development we can't justify it just for that.

Right now unis need funding - we cannot change overnight. But there needs to be serious thought towards a different sort of rationale for universities, basically les and better.

 

[dandelion]

If one VC spoke out against cuts, more would, and the government would have to act.

I doubt it. At least as far as government grant to universities goes. There are lots of competing national claims and a government has only to say, so should we cut hospitals, cut secondary education, buy less helicopters and equipment for the soldiers? It is possible though that the government is waiting for universities to squeal so that it can say, Ok, well let you put up student fees because clearly you need the money. Want more debt?

We need less students and more funding per capita. We had a good model - but Labour's push for 50% of 18 year olds to go to uni has caused chaos. We don't have professional jobs for 50% of 21 year olds, and while uni is great for personal development we can't justify it just for that.

I agree about the numbers but there goes that political dig again. There is a worldwide delusion that university education is essential, and the conservatives are not free from it. Of course, conservatives probably disproportionately include graduates of traditional universities which their ancestors paid to have built and which their purchased high quality secondary education still manages to get them into. They recently officially repudiated the grammar school, elitist, alternative which was the way a generation of the poor managed to push some of the aristocracy out of their bought and paid for positions. Anyone see the 'history boys', where one of them gets into oxbridge because his relative used to work there? Its a joke, but its true, family connections matter. We currently have a system of second class universities for the plebs.

 

[D_Andreas Sukov]

I doubt it. At least as far as government grant to universities goes. There are lots of competing national claims and a government has only to say, so should we cut hospitals, cut secondary education, buy less helicopters and equipment for the soldiers? It is possible though that the government is waiting for universities to squeal so that it can say, Ok, well let you put up student fees because clearly you need the money. Want more debt?

No, id rather see heavier taxes on the rich bankers and corporations who rape this country. We should even be in afgahnistan, we shouldnt be upgrading tridant etc. Universities should be free.

I agree about the numbers but there goes that political dig again. There is a worldwide delusion that university education is essential, and the conservatives are not free from it. Of course, conservatives probably disproportionately include graduates of traditional universities which their ancestors paid to have built and which their purchased high quality secondary education still manages to get them into. They recently officially repudiated the grammar school, elitist, alternative which was the way a generation of the poor managed to push some of the aristocracy out of their bought and paid for positions. Anyone see the 'history boys', where one of them gets into oxbridge because his relative used to work there? Its a joke, but its true, family connections matter. We currently have a system of second class universities for the plebs.

For the plebs? What do you mean by that? My university used to be a polytechnic, so am i a pleb?

 

[dandelion]

For the plebs? What do you mean by that? My university used to be a polytechnic, so am i a pleb?

So which university do you go to? From your posts I would have assumed it was sussex since you said you were talking to people there. Ex brighton poly?

The times uni rankings are at University Rankings League Table 2010 | Good University Guide - Times Online

sussex is 35 scored 606/1000, brighton is 70 scored 417. Oxford scored 1000, cambridge 968 and my university imperial 3rd at a miserable 859. Buckinghamshire got 263. Thames Valley at 110 got 273 (someone once offered me a job there. Given we were both naked on a beach im not sure what that says. I took it to mean he was desperate).

Obviously the scores are a bit rough and ready, but does that mean oxford is 4x better than TVU? Most students are pretty satisfied whichever uni they went to. Im not sure what that means, either.

What i said was, ' We currently have a system of second class universities for the plebs.'

wikipedia says 'The plebs were the general body of Roman citizens (as distinguished from slaves) in Ancient Rome. They were distinct from the higher order of the patricians. A member of the plebs was known as a plebeian (Latin: plebeius). This term is used today to refer to one who is or appears to be of the middle or lower order; however, in Rome plebeians could become quite wealthy and influential.

Maybe you are from a wealthy or ruling family and went to one of those elite public schools (ie private school for those in the US), but id guess not. Whether or not its true for you, patricians nowadays disproportionately go to the universities which are at the top of the list (me, i went to a grammar, so also a pleb by background, but I used the system and I anyway went to a specialist science university) Slaves, of course, don't go to university and no one cares a bit whether some Pole picking fruit happens to have a first class degree form their top university.

I think the lower ranks of the university table exactly fit the definition of being tailored for plebs.

 

[Jason]

For the plebs? What do you mean by that? My university used to be a polytechnic, so am i a pleb?

No you're a lemon.

Note on Buckingham/Buckinghamshire
By the way Buckingham and Buckinghamshire are two separate universities, the first the UK's only private uni and the second a former college and one of our newest unis. Buckingham is sometimes missed out of the presentation of legaue tables (because it doesn't receive government funding and therefore doesn't fit) but it does submit to the various assessments bodies and is graded. If anyone is interested there's info linked from the uni's site at: News: University of Buckingham enters Sunday Times league tables
It is right at the top of the lists for student satisfaction and employability. In any debate about the future direction of UK unis Buckingham provides an example of an alternative to the state system which is cheaper per capita and which can demonstrate success.

 

[Sergeant_Torpedo]

Undergraduates are good at nailing spurious matters to the cross, but inarticulate when it comes to explaining a situation. Maybe my taxes can go to better causes if media studies and social theory were binned. We are all supposed to contribute to society not ravish it. So what, one less tv tart of a presenter. Let the crucifiction begin. Yes they are breaking the civil law of trespass.
Filius Nullis

 

[dandelion]

Note on Buckingham/Buckinghamshire
By the way Buckingham and Buckinghamshire are two separate universities, the first the UK's only private uni and the second a former college and one of our newest unis.

Thanks for pointing that out. there seem to be two tables by timesonline, the one I linked called 'the good university guide 2010' and another from your link 'the sunday times university guide'. Naturally the placings seem to differ.

 

[D_Andreas Sukov]

I only know people from Sussex through my political party. I go to Portsmouth Uni. Pleb is used as an offensive term now, so ofcourse im going to question it. It would be like calling people laypeople or something.

 

[dandelion]

I only know people from Sussex through my political party. I go to Portsmouth Uni. Pleb is used as an offensive term now, so ofcourse im going to question it. It would be like calling people laypeople or something.

you mean non-clergy? Given the problem the church is having just not, isnt that a compliment?

yes, I know, Im not totally daft and I considered it when I first posted it. It is however apt. We absolutely have second and third class universities. You know it too or you wouldnt be getting upset about sacked staff. Education is an elitist business. People do not start equal and it is pointless claiming that they do. Nor did the government set out to create every university equally good. There was a semi-joke at Imperial (ie it was funny but true), that London University (which technically Imperial was a college of) kept complaining Imperial marked its exam papers too hard. That says quite a lot, and not simply that more passes means the uni gets more money.

 

[D_Andreas Sukov]

i know education is elitest. The world is elitest.