Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

University Bubble Making Hissing Sounds


Recommended Posts

A few comments on here about what University lectures think about recording lectures.

 

My point would be, just like many courses have a standard text book, could we not just use the best lecturer to create a standard set of lectures to be used across the country?

 

Obviously I get maybe in the second and third year there will be specialities, but at least in the first year for many subjects there is a massive overlap.

 

For example, I studied Chemistry, I  am sure at the first year level, everyone was learning the same set of things about physical chemistry for example.  Why not record the best of these lectures and use these as material?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

 

For example my mother worked in social work, part of the public sector you apparently despite. All the preventive work they used to do was cut away (soft part of the budget). More efficient? Maybe on paper. Same story in schools and universities, everything inessential has gone apart from new b*llocks introduced with marketisation.

 

 

Not really. Those managers (in the NHS) are essential if you have to cope with the nonsense of the purchaser provider split imposed by the govt. 

Those managers aren't essential at all, and there's no marketisation  / purchaser-provider split in schools and universities to explain the bloat Fred.

 

That's interesting. At Oxbridge it's a given, I understand as a non Oxbridge bod, that the standard undergrad level syllabus should be self explanatory to the caliber of students attending, and the lectured stuff is on top of the books, that is to get a first class equivalent level at any other university. 

I'm not sure about arts subjects, but when I read medicine at Cambridge there was a lot of pride amongst the lecturers that there was no syllabus (or the syllabus was just the subject of medicine) and any students who weren't intelligent enough to cope with that were free to transfer out.  There's no written national minimum curriculum for undergraduate medical degrees in the UK, although UK medical schools are 'quality assured' by the General Medical Council, and the argument I heard repeatedly was that a national minimum curriculum would lead to a race to the bottom as most medical schools would just teach that.

As an example, in anatomy I was taught that you didn't really know anatomy unless you could draw it.  I wasn't much of an artist but I learned.  Later I worked with students and graduates from other medicals schools who didn't draw anatomy I was frequently struck by how weak their anatomical knowledge was.

Personally I think there should be a national minimum curriculum for undergraduate medical degrees in the UK, but with incentives, such as intercalated degrees, to go beyond it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

 

Those managers aren't essential at all, and there's no marketisation  / purchaser-provider split in schools and universities to explain the bloat Fred.

 

No essential on your say so? I'll choose people who work in the NHS thanks (family members including NHS consultant) and people who study it (marketing academics) who say that's exactly why it's necessary. Quite apart from it being fairly obvious it would incur those costs. No marketisation of schools and universities? - further proof you don't live in the real world. What are league tables and academies and "free schools" all about, and  the small matter of tuition fees?

Edited by nickb1
Link to post
Share on other sites
 

No essential on your say so? I'll choose people who work in the NHS thanks (family members including NHS consultant) and people who study it (marketing academics) who say that's exactly why it's necessary.

I do work in the NHS Fred, and of course a 'marketing academic' would say all those business managers are 'essential'.

 

No marketisation of schools and universities? - further proof you don't live in the real world. What are league tables and academies and "free schools" all about, and  the small matter of tuition fees?

You have at least 50 pages of homework to read!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unite have a trading update.

"2020/21 applications

UCAS data shows a 4% increase in the number of placed applicants to UK Universities for the 2020/21 academic year. UK acceptances have increased by 4%, driven by a record 36.4% participation rate for 18-year-olds (2019/20: 33.8%). International acceptances also rose by 4%, reflecting a 9% increase for non-EU students and a 2% decline in EU acceptances. There has been an ongoing flight to quality by students, with Higher tariff Universities increasing acceptances by 12% compared to +1% and 0% for Medium and Lower tariff Universities respectively.

Letting performance

As we enter the final stages of the lettings cycle for the 2020/21 academic year, we have achieved a strong performance with 88% of bed spaces let across the whole portfolio (2019/20: 98%). We have seen healthy letting activity since A-Level results on 13 August, with new lettings partially offset by a higher than usual volume of cancellations, particularly following the recent increase in UK cases of Covid-19. This resulted in completed lettings falling marginally short of our 90% occupancy target. However, we are targeting additional sales from January 2021 starts from direct let customers as well as Universities, where a number of discussions are already underway."

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

I do work in the NHS Fred, and of course a 'marketing academic' would say all those business managers are 'essential'.

You have at least 50 pages of homework to read!

? I'm sure it would take at least 50 pages of nonsense, Jeremy, to argue that this is not marketisation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

? I'm sure it would take at least 50 pages of nonsense, Jeremy, to argue that this is not marketisation.

This is a 50+ page thread which answers all the points you raised.

With reading comprehension like that you could go to university!

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

This is a 50+ page thread which answers all the points you raised.

With reading comprehension like that you could go to university!

The topic of this thread is universities being in a bubble. Well you already have market logic right there. Kindly explain with the benefit of your having read all 50 pages of the scholarship contained in this thread, how the introduction of tuition fees is not marketisation.  With powers of diagnosis like yours, I wouldn't want you as a doctor!

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

The topic of this thread is universities being in a bubble. Well you already have market logic right there.

Market rhetoric Fred, not market logic.

 

I wouldn't want you as a doctor!

and I wouldn't want you as a student.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

OK Jeremy so you're not going to explain how £9k tuition fees aren't marketisation, didn't think you would.

On the supply side, almost every university charges the maximum tuition fees.  There is no price discovery.

On the demand side, most tuition fees are paid by student loans, most of which will never be paid back in full by the students and are guaranteed by the taxpayer.  There is no price discovery.

For these reasons there is no market price for tuition fees.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

 

For these reasons there is no market price for tuition fees.

Not the point at issue, and in any case the price is clearly £9k. You can say "it's not a real market", you are playing with words.  Students don't pay they don't get, and universities have to compete for students or they don't get funded, so the all have marketing departments (never used to) marketing staff and the whole paraphernalia, costing tens of millions each that is completely wasted from an educational point of view. The only people who benefit are the idiots (quite literally) in the marketing jobs. Plus students are now clients with a massive sense of entitlement. The system is royally f*cked, thanks to marketisation. Anyway, I am bored of arguing with you, it's too easy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

 

That's a shame as I was following intently.  'Knowledge'/debate is interesting for the audience - not boring.

I guess I'm just getting fatigued by encountering odd views on this board, probing them, finding there is little or nothing backing them up, but that people still defend them to the hilt. In real life people would get embarrassed, but not online it seems.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

That's a shame as I was following intently.  'Knowledge'/debate is interesting for the audience - not boring.

The bubble began when John Major was Prime Minister and he decided that everyone should go to university.

Initially this was achieved through an increase in student number controls, conversion of polytechnics into universities and increased central government funding via the Higher Education Funding Councils.  Simply put, this increased central government funding was expensive and so in 1998 the Labour government introduced tuition fees, which most students paid with the help of a taxpayer-guaranteed Student Loans.  These loans would only be repaid by students when they achieved a certain earnings threshold after graduating.

The Labour government claimed (and maybe genuinely believed, I don't know) that this would bring market forces to higher education.  Universities would only be able to charge tuition fees that the market of students would bear and students would choose not to spend money on poor value degrees.  However, universities soon discovered that most students are not price-sensitive when they are paying their tuition fees with a Student Loan and most, if not all, universities' tuition fees soon rose to the maximum permitted amount.

For universities there was now a much stronger link than previously between numbers of students and revenue.  A 'successful' university administration could be one that recruited lots of students, as well as one that did good-quality teaching and research.  This led to management bloat and high pay for some vice-chancellors seemingly out of proportion with the academic quality of their universities.

John Major's wish for a workforce with more graduates was achieved, but wages for many of the graduates from academically weak universities were poor and the phenomenon of graduates who would never earn enough to pay back all of their Student Loans (which are guaranteed by the taxpayer) developed.

Personally I think I've been calling the top in the University bubble for about as long as the house price bubble.  I have been expecting Solent University, Southampton to go bust for over ten years, but it's still there.

Edited by Will!
SPAG
Link to post
Share on other sites
 

The bubble began when John Major was Prime Minister and he decided that everyone should go to university.

 most, if not all, universities' tuition fees soon rose to the maximum permitted amount.

 This led to management bloat and high pay for some vice-chancellors seemingly out of proportion with the academic quality of their universities.

 

the tuition fees rose to the maximum - because universities had to make good the shortfall in funding as best they could. It was cut under Thatcher, who saw herself as trimming fat, and successive governments did not match the increase in student numbers with increased funding.

High pay for VCs is part and parcel of marketisation. They play at being CEOs of corporations. The University "Councils" that get to make the key decisions on how universities are run, and often have primary inflence in selecting VCs, are stuffed full of local businessmen, who want someone imbued with market culture (not academic culture, God forbid) in the driving seat, not least to align with the direction of travel imparted by central govt. You want a CEO that knows nothing about Universities, you have to pay the going rate. Quite often these guys perform disastrously, but by the time the chickens have come home to roost they are off to their next promotion.

So here again, the managerial bloat comes from "marketisation", the introduction of quasi-market structures and incentives in a context where given the nature of the public service provided they are out of place. It does not come from inherent "public sector inefficiency". Once the game has been set up that way it is difficult or impossible for an individual institution to do differently.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

the tuition fees rose to the maximum - because universities had to make good the shortfall in funding as best they could. It was cut under Thatcher, who saw herself as trimming fat, and successive governments did not match the increase in student numbers with increased funding.

I take it back.  You're not Fred Kite, you're Dave Spart - with an 'alternative' take on reality!

What shortfall?  Do you have any evidence for those assertions?

 

The University "Councils" that get to make the key decisions on how universities are run, and often have primary inflence in selecting VCs, are stuffed full of local businessmen, who want someone imbued with market culture (not academic culture, God forbid) in the driving seat, not least to align with the direction of travel imparted by central govt.

Give a few examples.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

I guess I'm just getting fatigued by encountering odd views on this board, probing them, finding there is little or nothing backing them up, but that people still defend them to the hilt. In real life people would get embarrassed, but not online it seems.

😳

 

 

The bubble began when John Major was Prime Minister and he decided that everyone should go to university.

Initially this was achieved through an increase in student number controls, conversion of polytechnics into universities and increased central government funding via the Higher Education Funding Councils.  Simply put, this increased central government funding was expensive and so in 1998 the Labour government introduced tuition fees, which most students paid with the help of a taxpayer-guaranteed Student Loans.  These loans would only be repaid by students when they achieved a certain earnings threshold after graduating.

The Labour government claimed (and maybe genuinely believed, I don't know) that this would bring market forces to higher education.  Universities would only be able to charge tuition fees that the market of students would bear and students would choose not to spend money on poor value degrees.  However, universities soon discovered that most students are not price-sensitive when they are paying their tuition fees with a Student Loan and most, if not all, universities' tuition fees soon rose to the maximum permitted amount.

For universities there was now a much stronger link than previously between numbers of students and revenue.  A 'successful' university administration could be one that recruited lots of students, as well as one that did good-quality teaching and research.  This led to management bloat and high pay for some vice-chancellors seemingly out of proportion with the academic quality of their universities.

John Major's wish for a workforce with more graduates was achieved, but wages for many of the graduates from academically weak universities were poor and the phenomenon of graduates who would never earn enough to pay back all of their Student Loans (which are guaranteed by the taxpayer) developed.

Personally I think I've been calling the top in the University bubble for about as long as the house price bubble.  I have been expecting Solent University, Southampton to go bust for over ten years, but it's still there.

Thank you for your perspective.  My understanding sits more with the position below.

 

the tuition fees rose to the maximum - because universities had to make good the shortfall in funding as best they could. It was cut under Thatcher, who saw herself as trimming fat, and successive governments did not match the increase in student numbers with increased funding.

High pay for VCs is part and parcel of marketisation. They play at being CEOs of corporations. The University "Councils" that get to make the key decisions on how universities are run, and often have primary inflence in selecting VCs, are stuffed full of local businessmen, who want someone imbued with market culture (not academic culture, God forbid) in the driving seat, not least to align with the direction of travel imparted by central govt. You want a CEO that knows nothing about Universities, you have to pay the going rate. Quite often these guys perform disastrously, but by the time the chickens have come home to roost they are off to their next promotion.

So here again, the managerial bloat comes from "marketisation", the introduction of quasi-market structures and incentives in a context where given the nature of the public service provided they are out of place. It does not come from inherent "public sector inefficiency". Once the game has been set up that way it is difficult or impossible for an individual institution to do differently.

 

This is how I understood things, generally but need to think about this a bit more in the context of the challenge presented above.  

 

Please both continue to debate on this. 

Edited by Buffer Bear
Link to post
Share on other sites
 

I take it back.  You're not Fred Kite, you're Dave Spart - with an 'alternative' take on reality!

What shortfall?  Do you have any evidence for those assertions?

Give a few examples.

Alternative take? Hardly. Have a google on the Thatcher government or read the book "dancing with dogma", written by a Tory incidentally.

A few examples are any UK university outside of Oxbridge. A very good book written by a lecturer of mine called "Warwick University Ltd" sets out the structure of a typical UK university. Having looked I can see the same structure at Nottingham, Reading, UEA and Southampton, these being the ones I have direct experience of.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

the tuition fees rose to the maximum - because universities had to make good the shortfall in funding as best they could. It was cut under Thatcher, who saw herself as trimming fat, and successive governments did not match the increase in student numbers with increased funding.

High pay for VCs is part and parcel of marketisation. They play at being CEOs of corporations. The University "Councils" that get to make the key decisions on how universities are run, and often have primary inflence in selecting VCs, are stuffed full of local businessmen, who want someone imbued with market culture (not academic culture, God forbid) in the driving seat, not least to align with the direction of travel imparted by central govt. You want a CEO that knows nothing about Universities, you have to pay the going rate. Quite often these guys perform disastrously, but by the time the chickens have come home to roost they are off to their next promotion.

So here again, the managerial bloat comes from "marketisation", the introduction of quasi-market structures and incentives in a context where given the nature of the public service provided they are out of place. It does not come from inherent "public sector inefficiency". Once the game has been set up that way it is difficult or impossible for an individual institution to do differently.

 

 

What shortfall?  Do you have any evidence for those assertions?

Give a few examples.

 

 

Alternative take? Hardly. Have a google on the Thatcher government or read the book "dancing with dogma", written by a Tory incidentally.

A few examples are any UK university outside of Oxbridge. A very good book written by a lecturer of mine called "Warwick University Ltd" sets out the structure of a typical UK university. Having looked I can see the same structure at Nottingham, Reading, UEA and Southampton, these being the ones I have direct experience of.

So your evidence for this "shortfall" is just Fatcher?  You're not in the student union bar now Dave!

Even if you could produce any evidence for this "shortfall", which you can't, and tuition fees were set by market forces, which they're not, then this "shortfall" wouldn't explain why tuition fees rose to the maximum.  The maximum market price is set by what the buyer can and will pay, not by what the seller "needs" to cover a "shortfall".  You seem to like the word "marketisation" a lot, but you don't seem to know what a market is.

You said University Councils are "stuffed full of local businessmen".  You've given Warwick as an example.  Here's Warwick University Council:

https://warwick.ac.uk/services/gov/committees/council

A quick search of LinkedIn reveals only four out of nine independent members (and out of twenty-four members in total) have any private sector executive role.  Not exactly "stuffed full of local businessmen"!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

A few comments on here about what University lectures think about recording lectures.

 

My point would be, just like many courses have a standard text book, could we not just use the best lecturer to create a standard set of lectures to be used across the country?

 

Obviously I get maybe in the second and third year there will be specialities, but at least in the first year for many subjects there is a massive overlap.

 

For example, I studied Chemistry, I  am sure at the first year level, everyone was learning the same set of things about physical chemistry for example.  Why not record the best of these lectures and use these as material?

I think you're onto something.

The whole idea of 3 year Uni courses made sense when there was scarcity in the lecturers knowledge. With t'internet you can massively condense things.  The first and second year topics are pretty much standard (at least in the Physical Sciences), so lectures can be recorded by engaging and charismatic lecturers.  You follow up with online tutorial sessions to answer questions or go through set problems.  Assignments can be done and sent electroncially. Exams can be completed at registered test centres.  3rd year topics can be covered through a number of 6 week 'camps' running through the year - turn up to as many (or as few as you need).  Get some major employers to accredit the degree (Dyson, Tesla et al) and you have a serious contender to the traditional University / college.

 

The only downside being the financial blow to destroy the Uni / College industry and everyone on that gravy train.  Some Uni's would survive being majority research and teaching cutting edge topics.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

 

 

So your evidence for this "shortfall" is just Fatcher?  You're not in the student union bar now Dave!

Even if you could produce any evidence for this "shortfall", which you can't, and tuition fees were set by market forces, which they're not, then this "shortfall" wouldn't explain why tuition fees rose to the maximum.  The maximum market price is set by what the buyer can and will pay, not by what the seller "needs" to cover a "shortfall".  You seem to like the word "marketisation" a lot, but you don't seem to know what a market is.

You said University Councils are "stuffed full of local businessmen".  You've given Warwick as an example.  Here's Warwick University Council:

https://warwick.ac.uk/services/gov/committees/council

A quick search of LinkedIn reveals only four out of nine independent members (and out of twenty-four members in total) have any private sector executive role.  Not exactly "stuffed full of local businessmen"!

 

Actually Jeremy I gave you a pretty good reference for Thatcher and her cuts, not that one is needed since it should be blindingly obvious for anyone who has lived through it. And I said it's initiated by that government and successive governments have continued to expand without expanding funds available. But very well if you want more after 1min of googling here is Hansard (re 1981 cuts):

"May I first of all say a word or two about higher education? On 10th March, the Government published in Command Paper 8175 their revised expenditure plans for the financial years 1981–82 to 1983–84. The exact apportionment of the resources for higher education as a whole in 1982–83 and 1983–84 has yet to be settled. But the University Grants Committee and the local authority associations have been told by my right honourable friend's department to assume, for illustrative purposes, reductions of rather more than 8 per cent. for the period up to 1983–84compared with the plans of March 1980. The Department is discussing separately with the UGC and the local authority associations the implication of this. Final decisions on the exact apportionment of the resources available to higher education as a whole for these later years will be reached and announced later. The Government do not pretend that the planned reduction in expenditure over the next few years is not going to pose considerable problems and challenges for the higher education system."

Hansard records proceedings of parliament, Jeremy. This was just the start of course, and part of cuts to education more generally.

Warwick: What's clear from the list is there are only 4 jobbing academics (the ones from Senate) in this list. (In Reading there is only one jobbing academic.)  3 of the 7 top posts (in addition to the 9 "independents") have never been academics. So it's hardly academic self governance. The other "professors" have probably had nothing to do with research or teaching since embarking on administration many years ago. Not having vetted your list, at least 5 clear businessmen seems like a lot to me, outnumbering the jobbing academics, unless you think HE should be a business.

Edited by nickb1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 428 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.