Quite often that group makes up student numbers through second choices and clearing from people who didn't make the grade at their first choice. If people are now able to go to their first choice they will, though some may stick with a revised offer if the alternative is deferring in the present climate if the course they can now do is full.
Quite often that group makes up student numbers through second choices and clearing from people who didn't make the grade at their first choice. If people are now able to go to their first choice they will, though some may stick with a revised offer if the alternative is deferring in the present climate if the course they can now do is full.
University finance is a mess in the UK. Essentially there are 5 income streams.
1) UK student fees
2) International student fees
3) Research funding (grants etc)
4) Central government block funding
5 Commercial income of various kinds.
The proportions vary enormously between institutions. 4 - central government funding is a fraction of what it used to be. One of the many bad things about Cameron's introduction of fees was the reduction in government funding- especially in non-science subjects. In other areas it's vital; in the case of medicine the 45k fees paid are less than a third of costs.
Oxford and Cambridge are both wealthy, with very large land portfolios and generous alumni. Neither is close to the wealthy US institutions and no other UK university comes close to their commercial (etc.) incomes.
And so if you look at the post-92 universities, they generally have minimal underlying wealth and commercial income. They tend to have small research portfolios and relatively few international students; thus they are very dependent on UK students and their fees.
The reason the cap on student numbers exists is to stop more prestigious institutions 'poaching' students from less fashionable ones. The theory with fees was that less popular universities would charge lower fees to attract students but they can't afford to. Whether the cap is good policy or not the reality is that to a large extent their intake is students who had aspirations to go elsewhere but didn't quite achieve the necessary grades. With the probable uplift in grades of students maximising their potential and the (necessary) removal of the cap it is likely that several institutions will find they're not filling their courses. (There isn't a sufficiently large pool of students who can unexpectedly go to uni to make up the numbers).
The problem being that these universities are the ones that are most dependent on student fees for their income. They are now facing potentially 3 years of significantly reduced income.
There was a time (O! So long ago now...pre-Brexshit, pre-Covid) when students in this neck of the woods (Kent) were being seriously advised to seek places at universities in The Netherlands - Maastricht seems to come to mind - on account of the much better financial arrangements (as well as the huge range of excellent courses available).
I have no idea if anyone actually did this - the difference in language may have been a problem, although I'm told that Dutch is actually the easiest European tongue for an English person to learn...
University finance is a mess in the UK. Essentially there are 5 income streams.
1) UK student fees
2) International student fees
3) Research funding (grants etc)
4) Central government block funding
5 Commercial income of various kinds.
The proportions vary enormously between institutions.
And, generally how close each of these streams comes to actually paying the real costs is variable. Research funding is always less than actual costs (funding councils only pay 80% of Full Economic Cost), though if you get a research project funded by industry that often attracts FEC (or, even FEC+) ... though, some might argue that that's commercial. UK student fees are also usually below FEC (some large courses where the student:staff ratio is high may achieve FEC, but in science where you have both the costs of practicals and those practicals demand small groups with multiple staff present to supervise ... medicine is a subject that's particularly more expensive to teach than the fees provide). International students for post-grad are also usually FEC+.
There was a time (O! So long ago now...pre-Brexshit, pre-Covid) when students in this neck of the woods (Kent) were being seriously advised to seek places at universities in The Netherlands - Maastricht seems to come to mind - on account of the much better financial arrangements (as well as the huge range of excellent courses available).
I have no idea if anyone actually did this - the difference in language may have been a problem, although I'm told that Dutch is actually the easiest European tongue for an English person to learn...
I believe some of the Dutch universities do offer some teaching in English to help attract foreign students.
though if you get a research project funded by industry that often attracts FEC (or, even FEC+) ... though, some might argue that that's commercial.
I've some experience of this; the only sum to be charged is a) just below what the firm want to pay (if you want the job) or b) just above (if you're not so keen). When my university computes FEC, the answer is usually around b) x 6, and if we quote at that, no income comes in at all
I just wanted to say that that's a very good summary of UK HE funding, AFZ
I predict that some universities will either fold or have to be massively bailed out by government in the next three to five years. Not going to name any names here, but I even have one or two in mind as being particularly vulnerable to a sudden and significant drop in student numbers.
I just wanted to say that that's a very good summary of UK HE funding, AFZ
I predict that some universities will either fold or have to be massively bailed out by government in the next three to five years. Not going to name any names here, but I even have one or two in mind as being particularly vulnerable to a sudden and significant drop in student numbers.
Many unis will have some tutorials in the autumn as well as working remotely for lectures. My son is studying engineering and needs to have practicals in the labs. (He is one of the lucky few who could do practicals from home as my husband is an engineer with his own labs and resources).
They will also have to plan for accommodation for future years.
You just made me think - the University of Oxford Statutes require undergraduates to reside within 6 miles of Carfax (the crossroads in the middle of Oxford) during full term. I suppose that those regulations have been waived during the present emergency, but an increased student cohort would be present in the University for three or four years, during which one hopes the state of play will return to some semblance of normality.
That said, I'd be surprised if the likes of Oxford and Cambridge overbook their places by much - I'd expect them to operate under the assumption that everyone - or nearly everyone - they make offers to will make the grade.
Unfortunately, they've changed the rules since your day.
*Mutter* *Mutter* It was better in my day *mutter*
A-level physics is not permitted to require A-level maths. I'll agree that you need mathematical fluency to be able to readily apply the GCSE maths you know to physical situations correctly, but examiners were not permitted to require maths beyond the GCSE syllabus.
Which doesn't make sense. *mutter* why did they need to change things? *mutter* it was better in my day *mutter* why can't we go back to the old system? *mutter* nothing wrong with O Levels
Oh shit. Much more of this and I'll be mistaken for a Tory.
I *think* I'm older than you or at least the same vintage but I was 6th form in 1983-1985 and my school specifically offered Nuffield physics because of its qualitative approach which didn't require post O-level maths. It also famously gave you a formula reference sheet to use in the exam, believing firmly that learning physics was not (per example) knowing the formula for kinetic energy but what it means and why.
I got a B and have never managed to get my head around calculus.
Similar vintage, I also did Nuffield physics (1985-87) and I certainly used maths that was included in the applied maths A level (though, I suppose it could have been possible to understand and use that maths within the physics course without doing the A level - all of us doing physics also did at least the combined pure and applied maths A level, I did two maths A levels in Pure maths and Applied). And, I also think we did some things using ordinary linear differential equations - certainly velocity and acceleration (though it's also possible that the "a car starts from rest and accelerates at a steady 1m/s^2 for 10s, how fast is it then travelling and how far has it gone?" type questions were actually in the applied maths rather than physics course, though the measurements with ticker tape attached to a remote control car, and in one case the teachers car, were in physics).
I remember getting to university and comparing what we'd done and the Nuffield course was heavier on electronics and practical (we did a wee research project, in my case I dropped ball bearings in sand pits because I'd been reading sci-fi novels about asteroid impacts and wanted to know if the shape of an impact crater varied with impact angle), and lighter on other traditional topics such as optics.
And so if you look at the post-92 universities, they generally have minimal underlying wealth and commercial income. They tend to have small research portfolios and relatively few international students; thus they are very dependent on UK students and their fees.
The reason the cap on student numbers exists is to stop more prestigious institutions 'poaching' students from less fashionable ones. The theory with fees was that less popular universities would charge lower fees to attract students but they can't afford to. Whether the cap is good policy or not the reality is that to a large extent their intake is students who had aspirations to go elsewhere but didn't quite achieve the necessary grades. With the probable uplift in grades of students maximising their potential and the (necessary) removal of the cap it is likely that several institutions will find they're not filling their courses. (There isn't a sufficiently large pool of students who can unexpectedly go to uni to make up the numbers).
The problem being that these universities are the ones that are most dependent on student fees for their income. They are now facing potentially 3 years of significantly reduced income.
AFZ
Yes, that makes sense. It was the same nearly 60 years ago when I went to uni. The then new University of NSW had no reputation save in some sciences - it simply had not had the time to develop one. The result was that the other faculties had few students clamouring for entry. Over the next decade or so, that changed. It was another university needing students, with few wanting to go there and that pattern was repeated as more and universities were founded.
... One of the many bad things about Cameron's introduction of fees ...
I'm no cheerleader for the Tories (far from it), but in fairness it wasn't Cameron who introduced tuition fees - it was Tony Blair.
I was working in the higher education sector at the time, and one of the first things he did after being elected in 1997 was to introduce a $1000 per year tuition fee.
As I understand it* Cameron compounded the felony by introducing higher fees for the more popular universities.
* I lived abroad from 2003 to 2020, so wasn't involved in the system
Definitely not - Grants and bursaries rolled back overtime and became student loans, but I didn't pay fees for uni and that was in 1995 I just missed them by a year or two.
... One of the many bad things about Cameron's introduction of fees ...
I'm no cheerleader for the Tories (far from it), but in fairness it wasn't Cameron who introduced tuition fees - it was Tony Blair.
I was working in the higher education sector at the time, and one of the first things he did after being elected in 1997 was to introduce a $1000 per year tuition fee.
As I understand it* Cameron compounded the felony by introducing higher fees for the more popular universities.
* I lived abroad from 2003 to 2020, so wasn't involved in the system
Blair introduced the £1000 fee (though many of us were exempt), then raised them to £3000 (which was universal and loan-backed) despite a manifesto pledge not to. Cameron raised them to the eye-watering £9000 and cut most central government grant funding. This was supposed to be a limit but, like so many things, became a target and to charge anything less was seen as a sign of being an inferior institution so universities ended up awash with cash, a lot of it blown on building work and raising senior salaries while cutting back on and casualising academic staff. My experience of university was of buildings that were largely unchanged since the 70s but by the time I graduated they were rapidly being demolished and replaced or upgraded. While I was there it was accommodation at ~£50/week being rapidly replaced with en suites at £100/week (funded by PFI with rent increase pegged at RPI+3% for 30 years) but after I left it was massive expansion and refurbishment across the board and the campus is barely recognisable now.
Blair introduced the £1000 fee (though many of us were exempt), then raised them to £3000 (which was universal and loan-backed) despite a manifesto pledge not to. Cameron raised them to the eye-watering £9000 and cut most central government grant funding.
The piece of the puzzle you're missing there is that the move to £9k fees was as a result of the Browne Review into HE spending and finance, which was commissioned by the Labour government in 2009 with the initial remit to balance the costs of Higher Education between students and government.
The review had been made necessary by Blair's policy of getting up to 50% of all young people into university, a massive expansion of the sector that had the effect of making direct government funding completely unaffordable, even after the previous fee increases they'd brought in.
At the 2010 election both Labour and the Conservatives said in their manifestos that they would seek to follow Browne's recommendations. The Lib Dems were completely opposed to fee increases, a position that gained them many votes in areas with large student populations but that would come back to bite them very very hard indeed when they agreed to abstain from the subsequent tuition fee vote in order to maintain their access to power through the coalition.
After Browne published his report (which I read, in full, under embargo in advance of its official publication, as part of my job) the Con-Lib government (albeit with the Libs abstaining from the vote) implemented most of its recommendations wholesale, including the shift to a loan system rather than government grants and the rejection of a graduate tax (though the loan repayments work in exactly the same way as a tax, so in terms of the financial impact on graduates it's effectively the same thing). The key difference was the imposition of the £9k cap rather than the system of completely uncapped fees with a percentage of fee income above a certain level having to be repaid to government in order to fund Widening Participation schemes that Browne had recommended.
So I think it's bending the truth a little to imply that the move to £9k was purely a Tory thing. Barring minor detail differences, Labour would have done exactly the same thing as well.
This was supposed to be a limit but, like so many things, became a target and to charge anything less was seen as a sign of being an inferior institution
This is true, and was being said at the time by virtually everyone who was involved with university finances. Myself included, even though I'd only been in the job a couple of years at that stage.
Most of our modelling of the system suggested by Browne was suggesting that the optimum fee for us to charge would end up being around £7.5k, with other institutions charging less or more depending on their priorities. But as you say, as soon as a cap was introduced every single university in the country just decided to charge that rather than having to actually do all the work of deciding what their optimum fee would be and where they wanted to position themselves in the market.
so universities ended up awash with cash, a lot of it blown on building work and raising senior salaries while cutting back on and casualising academic staff. My experience of university was of buildings that were largely unchanged since the 70s but by the time I graduated they were rapidly being demolished and replaced or upgraded. While I was there it was accommodation at ~£50/week being rapidly replaced with en suites at £100/week (funded by PFI with rent increase pegged at RPI+3% for 30 years) but after I left it was massive expansion and refurbishment across the board and the campus is barely recognisable now.
An alternative spin would be to say that the extra money went into improving the student experience in order to attract more students - a market-based approach. There's a line to be drawn, of course, and I agree that a lot more should go to the staff who are expected to occupy all those new buildings and actually provide the teaching that all those students are there for. But let's face it, it's got to be better than just making do with those hideous 70s campuses hasn't it?
... One of the many bad things about Cameron's introduction of fees ...
I'm no cheerleader for the Tories (far from it), but in fairness it wasn't Cameron who introduced tuition fees - it was Tony Blair.
I was working in the higher education sector at the time, and one of the first things he did after being elected in 1997 was to introduce a $1000 per year tuition fee.
As I understand it* Cameron compounded the felony by introducing higher fees for the more popular universities.
* I lived abroad from 2003 to 2020, so wasn't involved in the system
Sorry, my sloppy writing there. Indeed the £1000 fee was introduced in '97. The increase to £3000 was also under Labour and had its issues.
What Cameron did was introduce the much higher fees and the loan interest rate shot up massively.
I have big issues with that, although unlike @Marvin the Martian I haven't actually read the Browne report but what I was driving at (and not very clearly) was that one of the justifications given for the fees was to put the universities on a better financial footing. This was just a lie because to a large extent for each pound now coming in from fees, central funding was removed. This varied a lot by subject thus having a large effect in some areas and smaller in others.
The other Big Lie was that the financial crisis forced the government to make this move. As I have no doubt bored everyone with the argument that the country had to have austerity was complete bunk back in 2010. Moreover, the underwriting of the loan book by the government meant that in the immediate term it saved the government no money... so it was all nonsense.
Anyway, that's all by-the-by except to say the key point that some universities are not particularly dependent on student fees (IIRC and I may be wrong on this, or just out of date, but) Bristol* is more than 50% research and thus student fees are less than half of their income. Conversely, there are plenty of other unis (mostly the post-92) group whereby ~80% of their income will be from UK student fees. The universities that are dependent on fees are also the ones who may find they cannot fill their courses.
And as @Alan Cresswell pointed out there is a key difference between the fees and the actual economic costs. And this difference will vary enormously between specific courses and institutions. However, the economies of scale may mean that putting on a course for 40 students costs very little extra compared to putting on the same course for 20 students. Depending on how the course is delivered, amount of lecture time vs tutorial time vs scientific practicals for example. Also if the staff are already employed (as opposed to where the lecturers are paid by hour of teaching) then the costs are essentially fixed in the short term, even if the students and thus their fees are not forthcoming. Of course for lecturers who are not in a substantive post, it's them who may face the cost of suddenly not being employed for nearly as many hours as they were expecting.
Again, the key point here is since the last (Cameron/early 2010) rearrangement of university finance, some institutions are very dependent on UK student fees for their income.
To be honest I was happy to pay my £45/week for a largish room in a fine example of brutalist architecture having seen the disaster that was the new accommodation built by Jarvis.
I would note that 50% to university was never the plan. It was 50% with some experience of HE i.e. courses at level 4 and above which included NVQs, HNCs, HNDs et al, not just undergraduate degrees. And it wasn't unaffordable. It could have been paid for from general taxation but it was decided that it was better to have young people saddled with a marginal tax rate 9% higher all through the early years of their career, trying to buy a house, provide for a family rather than have everyone pay an extra 3-4% once they were above average earnings.
To be honest I was happy to pay my £45/week for a largish room in a fine example of brutalist architecture having seen the disaster that was the new accommodation built by Jarvis.
I would note that 50% to university was never the plan. It was 50% with some experience of HE i.e. courses at level 4 and above which included NVQs, HNCs, HNDs et al, not just undergraduate degrees. And it wasn't unaffordable. It could have been paid for from general taxation but it was decided that it was better to have young people saddled with a marginal tax rate 9% higher all through the early years of their career, trying to buy a house, provide for a family rather than have everyone pay an extra 3-4% once they were above average earnings.
Yep.
The only defence of this was that the universities themselves were not keen on extra funding from general taxation as they reportedly wanted the predictability of fee-based income. I think that simply shows a lack of imagination - it is no doubt possible to fund universities from general taxation in such way that doesn't mean that people like me (who graduated for the second time in 2005) have a marginal rate of tax that is 9% higher than everyone else. Fortunately for me, as I was a medical graduate it only took me 10 years to pay off my loan and get back to the same taxation rates as everyone else. I still find it galling, however, that the same people who argue that high marginal tax-rates are wrong because they are a disincentive to work and wealth-creation, were hugely in favour of much higher marginal tax rates for new graduates.
And I was not subject to the higher fees of people who graduated later!
I have big issues with that, although unlike @Marvin the Martian I haven't actually read the Browne report but what I was driving at (and not very clearly) was that one of the justifications given for the fees was to put the universities on a better financial footing. This was just a lie because to a large extent for each pound now coming in from fees, central funding was removed. This varied a lot by subject thus having a large effect in some areas and smaller in others.
I don't recall such a justification being mentioned as such at the time. Tying the institutional financial footing to the number of students they can attract rather than governmental whim, certainly, but that's not quite the same thing.
The other Big Lie was that the financial crisis forced the government to make this move. As I have no doubt bored everyone with the argument that the country had to have austerity was complete bunk back in 2010. Moreover, the underwriting of the loan book by the government meant that in the immediate term it saved the government no money... so it was all nonsense.
Again, Browne predated the Con-Lib government, and thus predated austerity. I don't recall austerity being mentioned in the Review, though for obvious reasons it's been over a decade since I read it. It's true that central university funding was becoming unsustainable, but that was mostly due to rising numbers rather than the financial crisis.
Anyway, that's all by-the-by except to say the key point that some universities are not particularly dependent on student fees (IIRC and I may be wrong on this, or just out of date, but) Bristol* is more than 50% research and thus student fees are less than half of their income. Conversely, there are plenty of other unis (mostly the post-92) group whereby ~80% of their income will be from UK student fees. The universities that are dependent on fees are also the ones who may find they cannot fill their courses.
Only four Russell Group universities got less than 50% of their core income through fees in 2018/19. Oxbridge is two of them, and the other two are in London.
And even then, I'd strongly contest the idea that having between a third and half of your income coming from a single source means you're not dependent on that source. Not as dependent, sure, but losing a significant amount of it is still going to hurt a lot.
However, the economies of scale may mean that putting on a course for 40 students costs very little extra compared to putting on the same course for 20 students.
Assuming your lecture theaters are big enough to fit in the extra numbers, of course. And that you've got enough spare capacity in your student housing - you can't take lots of extra students if you've got nowhere for them to live (unless they're all local and are able/willing to live with their parents, I suppose). There's not a university in the world that can just throw up a few new buildings in a month, which is all the time we've got before those students are supposed to be starting their courses.
I would note that 50% to university was never the plan. It was 50% with some experience of HE i.e. courses at level 4 and above which included NVQs, HNCs, HNDs et al, not just undergraduate degrees.
That wasn't how it was presented.
And it wasn't unaffordable. It could have been paid for from general taxation
Not without cuts elsewhere or tax increases. Seriously. I saw the numbers in Browne's report.
but it was decided that it was better to have young people saddled with a marginal tax rate 9% higher all through the early years of their career, trying to buy a house, provide for a family rather than have everyone pay an extra 3-4% once they were above average earnings.
9% on earnings above £21,000. Which wasn't that far off the median salary at the time anyway.
The only defence of this was that the universities themselves were not keen on extra funding from general taxation as they reportedly wanted the predictability of fee-based income.
More that we wanted (and still want) the extra independence from governmental whim. When government was funding students they were also imposing intake caps on us to control that spending - those were (with one or two exceptions, such as medical and dental students) removed with the new fees regime.
Central government funding invariably means fewer university students. The loans system meant far more young people could access university, albeit at a cost to them once they reap the employment benefits.
Central government funding invariably means fewer university students. The loans system meant far more young people could access university, albeit at a cost to them once they reap the employment benefits.
I have big issues with that, although unlike @Marvin the Martian I haven't actually read the Browne report but what I was driving at (and not very clearly) was that one of the justifications given for the fees was to put the universities on a better financial footing. This was just a lie because to a large extent for each pound now coming in from fees, central funding was removed. This varied a lot by subject thus having a large effect in some areas and smaller in others.
I don't recall such a justification being mentioned as such at the time. Tying the institutional financial footing to the number of students they can attract rather than governmental whim, certainly, but that's not quite the same thing.
We have no choice: we need change, we need to put the funding of our universities on a sustainable footing - and it's right that when it comes to doing this, successful graduates pay their share.
It was repeatedly claimed by both leading Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.
The other Big Lie was that the financial crisis forced the government to make this move. As I have no doubt bored everyone with the argument that the country had to have austerity was complete bunk back in 2010. Moreover, the underwriting of the loan book by the government meant that in the immediate term it saved the government no money... so it was all nonsense.
Again, Browne predated the Con-Lib government, and thus predated austerity. I don't recall austerity being mentioned in the Review, though for obvious reasons it's been over a decade since I read it. It's true that central university funding was becoming unsustainable, but that was mostly due to rising numbers rather than the financial crisis.
Mr Vince Cable MP, speaking in the HoC 9th December 2009 (Hansard):
Instead, we have opted for a set of policies that provides a strong base for university funding and makes a major contribution to reducing the deficit
(Emphasis mine). As I said, the deficit was used a lot to justify the changes. Which is ridiculous given that the loan arrangement meant no cash savings for central government in the first few years.
Only four Russell Group universities got less than 50% of their core income through fees in 2018/19. Oxbridge is two of them, and the other two are in London.
And even then, I'd strongly contest the idea that having between a third and half of your income coming from a single source means you're not dependent on that source. Not as dependent, sure, but losing a significant amount of it is still going to hurt a lot.
Bristol was a random example where I did medicine and hence know a bit about the institution. Their 2019 funding report says that of a total income of £707m, £288.9m was from fees. (40.9%)*. By contrast, De Montfort University (a post 1992-uni) says in their 2019 funding report that 86.1% of their £245.3m income comes from fees.
There are two points here; the first is that a 10% hit (i.e. 10% less students) in 40% of your income is a 4% hit, whereas a 10% of 86% is 8.6%! The other point here is that universities like Bristol are not expecting to be undersubscribed - again it's the institutions like De Montfort that are vulnerable.
The point was simply that post-1992 universities are more dependent on fees for their income (in a clearly measurable way) and more likely to be under-subscribed.
However, the economies of scale may mean that putting on a course for 40 students costs very little extra compared to putting on the same course for 20 students.
Assuming your lecture theatres are big enough to fit in the extra numbers, of course. And that you've got enough spare capacity in your student housing - you can't take lots of extra students if you've got nowhere for them to live (unless they're all local and are able/willing to live with their parents, I suppose). There's not a university in the world that can just throw up a few new buildings in a month, which is all the time we've got before those students are supposed to be starting their courses.
I was probably not very clear here; I was envisaging a situation whereby normally a course has 40 students and now suddenly it only has 20. I.e. they have the capacity and are under-subscribed. It's unlikely that the cost of providing the course will fall as much as the income from said course.
AFZ
*The University of Southampton where I currently work, also Russell Group reports £251m out of £584m from fees (43.0%)
I have big issues with that, although unlike @Marvin the Martian I haven't actually read the Browne report but what I was driving at (and not very clearly) was that one of the justifications given for the fees was to put the universities on a better financial footing. This was just a lie because to a large extent for each pound now coming in from fees, central funding was removed. This varied a lot by subject thus having a large effect in some areas and smaller in others.
I don't recall such a justification being mentioned as such at the time. Tying the institutional financial footing to the number of students they can attract rather than governmental whim, certainly, but that's not quite the same thing.
We have no choice: we need change, we need to put the funding of our universities on a sustainable footing - and it's right that when it comes to doing this, successful graduates pay their share.
It was repeatedly claimed by both leading Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.
I'm pretty sure that means more sustainable for the government - as I said in my earlier posts.
The other Big Lie was that the financial crisis forced the government to make this move. As I have no doubt bored everyone with the argument that the country had to have austerity was complete bunk back in 2010. Moreover, the underwriting of the loan book by the government meant that in the immediate term it saved the government no money... so it was all nonsense.
Again, Browne predated the Con-Lib government, and thus predated austerity. I don't recall austerity being mentioned in the Review, though for obvious reasons it's been over a decade since I read it. It's true that central university funding was becoming unsustainable, but that was mostly due to rising numbers rather than the financial crisis.
Mr Vince Cable MP, speaking in the HoC 9th December 2009 (Hansard):
Instead, we have opted for a set of policies that provides a strong base for university funding and makes a major contribution to reducing the deficit
(Emphasis mine). As I said, the deficit was used a lot to justify the changes. Which is ridiculous given that the loan arrangement meant no cash savings for central government in the first few years.
Agreed. But there were other justifications, and the changes were based on Browne which predated both austerity and the Con-Lib government.
Bristol was a random example where I did medicine and hence know a bit about the institution. Their 2019 funding report says that of a total income of £707m, £288.9m was from fees. (40.9%)*. By contrast, De Montfort University (a post 1992-uni) says in their 2019 funding report that 86.1% of their £245.3m income comes from fees.
Fair enough. I must have an incomplete set of figures (I did specify core income, which is the figure I use at work).
There are two points here; the first is that a 10% hit (i.e. 10% less students) in 40% of your income is a 4% hit, whereas a 10% of 86% is 8.6%! The other point here is that universities like Bristol are not expecting to be undersubscribed - again it's the institutions like De Montfort that are vulnerable.
The point was simply that post-1992 universities are more dependent on fees for their income (in a clearly measurable way) and more likely to be under-subscribed.
It's a point with which I agreed. I'm just pointing out that being less dependent on fees isn't the same as not being dependent on them.
However, the economies of scale may mean that putting on a course for 40 students costs very little extra compared to putting on the same course for 20 students.
Assuming your lecture theatres are big enough to fit in the extra numbers, of course. And that you've got enough spare capacity in your student housing - you can't take lots of extra students if you've got nowhere for them to live (unless they're all local and are able/willing to live with their parents, I suppose). There's not a university in the world that can just throw up a few new buildings in a month, which is all the time we've got before those students are supposed to be starting their courses.
I was probably not very clear here; I was envisaging a situation whereby normally a course has 40 students and now suddenly it only has 20. I.e. they have the capacity and are under-subscribed. It's unlikely that the cost of providing the course will fall as much as the income from said course.
Ah, right - I thought you were talking about the extra costs of teaching 40 students rather than the usual 20. As rephrased you're quite right that costs won't fall anywhere near as much as income.
It should also be noted that monies from different income streams goes to different places.
Research income funds research, and in research intensive universities that means paying lots of technicians and post-doctoral researchers who are almost entirely funded by research income with some top-up from student fees (eg: to allow post-docs to demonstrate under-grad labs, lead tutorial groups, supervise projects) and commercial work, and also lecturers and professors who are funded by fees (and, therefore spend a lot of their time teaching which, but receive some research income - typically an academic might expect to be PI( leading a research project) which funds one or more RAs, technicians, and attached PhD students; but whereas the grant comes 80% of the costs of the full-time staff the PI would get maybe 10% of their salary from the grant).
Student fees fund student teaching (well, d'uh) and even in a research intensive university there isn't a lot of money from elsewhere to teach students. There will be staff who are almost exclusively employed to support students (anyone from the cleaners who keep the lecture theatres spic and span to lecturers and professors with only a fraction of their salary coming from their research interests). A 10% cut in student fees will hit that part of the university work very hard irrespective of how much research income there is. Research grant money is ring fenced, and can't just be diverted to pay staff doing other jobs, nor can the estate costs from those budgets be used to maintain lecture theatres or student accommodation that isn't being used - these monies are for maintenance of the research labs.
This is all true but I don't think the research intensive universities are at risk. They're not likely to be under-subscribed by the removal of the cap; quite the opposite.
Conversely the institutions that are very dependent on teaching are the same ones who are likely to have gaps, hence the overall viability of the institution is threatened.
The struggle for Russell Group Unis will be if they accept bigger numbers of medical students, that will be expensive...
This is all true but I don't think the research intensive universities are at risk. They're not likely to be under-subscribed by the removal of the cap; quite the opposite.
Conversely the institutions that are very dependent on teaching are the same ones who are likely to have gaps, hence the overall viability of the institution is threatened.
The struggle for Russell Group Unis will be if they accept bigger numbers of medical students, that will be expensive...
AFZ
Yep, completely agree there.
I love that they’ve removed the cap on medical students now, but haven’t guaranteed the extra students any placements. That could be fun in a few years...
But let's face it, it's got to be better than just making do with those hideous 70s campuses hasn't it?
(A late comment here, but very much 'no'. And not only for reasons to do with rip-off accomodation provided by private franchises to whom the universities sell their undergraduates, though this is important. My institution is involved in a scam where in the guise of modernising the estate, new buildings have been (and are currently being) erected with central government funding, whilst knocking down existing buildings which are only 40-50 years old and which do the same thing better . As well as being intensely wasteful (of money and resources) the new buildings, while looking flash and clad in glass, are smaller and *much* less well equipped (we're talking large lab facilities which are built-in - test chambers, strong floors, wind tunnels, hydraulics facilities, heavy-current electrical machines etc etc etc) than those they replace.
The scam will succeed financially as the kind of students who must be attracted will be wowed by the fancy facade (in all senses of that word) and ignorant of the actual facilities which have been lost. The scam pays double when the ground the old buildings were on can be sold for housing developments, as has happened more than once here. Losers are anyone who wants to do real work, and the tax-payer who paid for the lost facilities and the new stuff which is, mostly, fancy crap.)
This is all true but I don't think the research intensive universities are at risk. They're not likely to be under-subscribed by the removal of the cap; quite the opposite.
Conversely the institutions that are very dependent on teaching are the same ones who are likely to have gaps, hence the overall viability of the institution is threatened.
The struggle for Russell Group Unis will be if they accept bigger numbers of medical students, that will be expensive...
AFZ
Yep, completely agree there.
I love that they’ve removed the cap on medical students now, but haven’t guaranteed the extra students any placements. That could be fun in a few years...
Although it means whoever is in charge by then will be able to say 'This government has increased the number of new doctors and nurses by [some flattering]%' (and keep saying that at every PMQs for the subsequent ten years ...)
This is all true but I don't think the research intensive universities are at risk. They're not likely to be under-subscribed by the removal of the cap; quite the opposite.
Conversely the institutions that are very dependent on teaching are the same ones who are likely to have gaps, hence the overall viability of the institution is threatened.
True enough, my point was that it's not as simple as percentage of income from fees. The research intensive universities are at lesser risk not because the threat is to a smaller proportion of income but because they also happen to be the same universities who won't struggle to fill most of the places they have.
Comments
Now clear thanks
University finance is a mess in the UK. Essentially there are 5 income streams.
1) UK student fees
2) International student fees
3) Research funding (grants etc)
4) Central government block funding
5 Commercial income of various kinds.
The proportions vary enormously between institutions. 4 - central government funding is a fraction of what it used to be. One of the many bad things about Cameron's introduction of fees was the reduction in government funding- especially in non-science subjects. In other areas it's vital; in the case of medicine the 45k fees paid are less than a third of costs.
Oxford and Cambridge are both wealthy, with very large land portfolios and generous alumni. Neither is close to the wealthy US institutions and no other UK university comes close to their commercial (etc.) incomes.
And so if you look at the post-92 universities, they generally have minimal underlying wealth and commercial income. They tend to have small research portfolios and relatively few international students; thus they are very dependent on UK students and their fees.
The reason the cap on student numbers exists is to stop more prestigious institutions 'poaching' students from less fashionable ones. The theory with fees was that less popular universities would charge lower fees to attract students but they can't afford to. Whether the cap is good policy or not the reality is that to a large extent their intake is students who had aspirations to go elsewhere but didn't quite achieve the necessary grades. With the probable uplift in grades of students maximising their potential and the (necessary) removal of the cap it is likely that several institutions will find they're not filling their courses. (There isn't a sufficiently large pool of students who can unexpectedly go to uni to make up the numbers).
The problem being that these universities are the ones that are most dependent on student fees for their income. They are now facing potentially 3 years of significantly reduced income.
AFZ
I have no idea if anyone actually did this - the difference in language may have been a problem, although I'm told that Dutch is actually the easiest European tongue for an English person to learn...
Really interesting to learn where it went wrong..
Asher
It was very good.
I believe some of the Dutch universities do offer some teaching in English to help attract foreign students.
I've some experience of this; the only sum to be charged is a) just below what the firm want to pay (if you want the job) or b) just above (if you're not so keen). When my university computes FEC, the answer is usually around b) x 6, and if we quote at that, no income comes in at all
I predict that some universities will either fold or have to be massively bailed out by government in the next three to five years. Not going to name any names here, but I even have one or two in mind as being particularly vulnerable to a sudden and significant drop in student numbers.
Some of the quotes from people in the educational sector are an absolute joy: “I would be happy to see Gavin Williamson resign. He’s fucking useless.”
Then there's this from the super loyalist Sun: “A = Anger, B = Balls-up, C = Chaos, D = Dunces, E = Errors, U = U-turn, F = Farce.”
Let's see what tomorrow will bring ...
Thank you
They will also have to plan for accommodation for future years.
https://bbc.co.uk/news/education-53843148
Still, if it makes things fairer all round in the end - but the anxiety and stress this must all be causing is horrible to think of.
I'm so glad I was at school, and took exams, when we still used slates, and pens you had to dip into the inkwell...
Do they no longer "award" N grades as well? I'll grant it was a particularly pointless grade.
You just made me think - the University of Oxford Statutes require undergraduates to reside within 6 miles of Carfax (the crossroads in the middle of Oxford) during full term. I suppose that those regulations have been waived during the present emergency, but an increased student cohort would be present in the University for three or four years, during which one hopes the state of play will return to some semblance of normality.
That said, I'd be surprised if the likes of Oxford and Cambridge overbook their places by much - I'd expect them to operate under the assumption that everyone - or nearly everyone - they make offers to will make the grade.
You say that as if accommodation is not a problem for any other universities.
I *think* I'm older than you or at least the same vintage but I was 6th form in 1983-1985 and my school specifically offered Nuffield physics because of its qualitative approach which didn't require post O-level maths. It also famously gave you a formula reference sheet to use in the exam, believing firmly that learning physics was not (per example) knowing the formula for kinetic energy but what it means and why.
I got a B and have never managed to get my head around calculus.
I remember getting to university and comparing what we'd done and the Nuffield course was heavier on electronics and practical (we did a wee research project, in my case I dropped ball bearings in sand pits because I'd been reading sci-fi novels about asteroid impacts and wanted to know if the shape of an impact crater varied with impact angle), and lighter on other traditional topics such as optics.
Yes, that makes sense. It was the same nearly 60 years ago when I went to uni. The then new University of NSW had no reputation save in some sciences - it simply had not had the time to develop one. The result was that the other faculties had few students clamouring for entry. Over the next decade or so, that changed. It was another university needing students, with few wanting to go there and that pattern was repeated as more and universities were founded.
I was working in the higher education sector at the time, and one of the first things he did after being elected in 1997 was to introduce a $1000 per year tuition fee.
As I understand it* Cameron compounded the felony by introducing higher fees for the more popular universities.
* I lived abroad from 2003 to 2020, so wasn't involved in the system
Blair introduced the £1000 fee (though many of us were exempt), then raised them to £3000 (which was universal and loan-backed) despite a manifesto pledge not to. Cameron raised them to the eye-watering £9000 and cut most central government grant funding. This was supposed to be a limit but, like so many things, became a target and to charge anything less was seen as a sign of being an inferior institution so universities ended up awash with cash, a lot of it blown on building work and raising senior salaries while cutting back on and casualising academic staff. My experience of university was of buildings that were largely unchanged since the 70s but by the time I graduated they were rapidly being demolished and replaced or upgraded. While I was there it was accommodation at ~£50/week being rapidly replaced with en suites at £100/week (funded by PFI with rent increase pegged at RPI+3% for 30 years) but after I left it was massive expansion and refurbishment across the board and the campus is barely recognisable now.
The piece of the puzzle you're missing there is that the move to £9k fees was as a result of the Browne Review into HE spending and finance, which was commissioned by the Labour government in 2009 with the initial remit to balance the costs of Higher Education between students and government.
The review had been made necessary by Blair's policy of getting up to 50% of all young people into university, a massive expansion of the sector that had the effect of making direct government funding completely unaffordable, even after the previous fee increases they'd brought in.
At the 2010 election both Labour and the Conservatives said in their manifestos that they would seek to follow Browne's recommendations. The Lib Dems were completely opposed to fee increases, a position that gained them many votes in areas with large student populations but that would come back to bite them very very hard indeed when they agreed to abstain from the subsequent tuition fee vote in order to maintain their access to power through the coalition.
After Browne published his report (which I read, in full, under embargo in advance of its official publication, as part of my job) the Con-Lib government (albeit with the Libs abstaining from the vote) implemented most of its recommendations wholesale, including the shift to a loan system rather than government grants and the rejection of a graduate tax (though the loan repayments work in exactly the same way as a tax, so in terms of the financial impact on graduates it's effectively the same thing). The key difference was the imposition of the £9k cap rather than the system of completely uncapped fees with a percentage of fee income above a certain level having to be repaid to government in order to fund Widening Participation schemes that Browne had recommended.
So I think it's bending the truth a little to imply that the move to £9k was purely a Tory thing. Barring minor detail differences, Labour would have done exactly the same thing as well.
This is true, and was being said at the time by virtually everyone who was involved with university finances. Myself included, even though I'd only been in the job a couple of years at that stage.
Most of our modelling of the system suggested by Browne was suggesting that the optimum fee for us to charge would end up being around £7.5k, with other institutions charging less or more depending on their priorities. But as you say, as soon as a cap was introduced every single university in the country just decided to charge that rather than having to actually do all the work of deciding what their optimum fee would be and where they wanted to position themselves in the market.
An alternative spin would be to say that the extra money went into improving the student experience in order to attract more students - a market-based approach. There's a line to be drawn, of course, and I agree that a lot more should go to the staff who are expected to occupy all those new buildings and actually provide the teaching that all those students are there for. But let's face it, it's got to be better than just making do with those hideous 70s campuses hasn't it?
Sorry, my sloppy writing there. Indeed the £1000 fee was introduced in '97. The increase to £3000 was also under Labour and had its issues.
What Cameron did was introduce the much higher fees and the loan interest rate shot up massively.
I have big issues with that, although unlike @Marvin the Martian I haven't actually read the Browne report but what I was driving at (and not very clearly) was that one of the justifications given for the fees was to put the universities on a better financial footing. This was just a lie because to a large extent for each pound now coming in from fees, central funding was removed. This varied a lot by subject thus having a large effect in some areas and smaller in others.
The other Big Lie was that the financial crisis forced the government to make this move. As I have no doubt bored everyone with the argument that the country had to have austerity was complete bunk back in 2010. Moreover, the underwriting of the loan book by the government meant that in the immediate term it saved the government no money... so it was all nonsense.
Anyway, that's all by-the-by except to say the key point that some universities are not particularly dependent on student fees (IIRC and I may be wrong on this, or just out of date, but) Bristol* is more than 50% research and thus student fees are less than half of their income. Conversely, there are plenty of other unis (mostly the post-92) group whereby ~80% of their income will be from UK student fees. The universities that are dependent on fees are also the ones who may find they cannot fill their courses.
And as @Alan Cresswell pointed out there is a key difference between the fees and the actual economic costs. And this difference will vary enormously between specific courses and institutions. However, the economies of scale may mean that putting on a course for 40 students costs very little extra compared to putting on the same course for 20 students. Depending on how the course is delivered, amount of lecture time vs tutorial time vs scientific practicals for example. Also if the staff are already employed (as opposed to where the lecturers are paid by hour of teaching) then the costs are essentially fixed in the short term, even if the students and thus their fees are not forthcoming. Of course for lecturers who are not in a substantive post, it's them who may face the cost of suddenly not being employed for nearly as many hours as they were expecting.
Again, the key point here is since the last (Cameron/early 2010) rearrangement of university finance, some institutions are very dependent on UK student fees for their income.
AFZ
*Typical Russell Group university
I would note that 50% to university was never the plan. It was 50% with some experience of HE i.e. courses at level 4 and above which included NVQs, HNCs, HNDs et al, not just undergraduate degrees. And it wasn't unaffordable. It could have been paid for from general taxation but it was decided that it was better to have young people saddled with a marginal tax rate 9% higher all through the early years of their career, trying to buy a house, provide for a family rather than have everyone pay an extra 3-4% once they were above average earnings.
Yep.
The only defence of this was that the universities themselves were not keen on extra funding from general taxation as they reportedly wanted the predictability of fee-based income. I think that simply shows a lack of imagination - it is no doubt possible to fund universities from general taxation in such way that doesn't mean that people like me (who graduated for the second time in 2005) have a marginal rate of tax that is 9% higher than everyone else. Fortunately for me, as I was a medical graduate it only took me 10 years to pay off my loan and get back to the same taxation rates as everyone else. I still find it galling, however, that the same people who argue that high marginal tax-rates are wrong because they are a disincentive to work and wealth-creation, were hugely in favour of much higher marginal tax rates for new graduates.
And I was not subject to the higher fees of people who graduated later!
AFZ
I don't recall such a justification being mentioned as such at the time. Tying the institutional financial footing to the number of students they can attract rather than governmental whim, certainly, but that's not quite the same thing.
Again, Browne predated the Con-Lib government, and thus predated austerity. I don't recall austerity being mentioned in the Review, though for obvious reasons it's been over a decade since I read it. It's true that central university funding was becoming unsustainable, but that was mostly due to rising numbers rather than the financial crisis.
Only four Russell Group universities got less than 50% of their core income through fees in 2018/19. Oxbridge is two of them, and the other two are in London.
And even then, I'd strongly contest the idea that having between a third and half of your income coming from a single source means you're not dependent on that source. Not as dependent, sure, but losing a significant amount of it is still going to hurt a lot.
Assuming your lecture theaters are big enough to fit in the extra numbers, of course. And that you've got enough spare capacity in your student housing - you can't take lots of extra students if you've got nowhere for them to live (unless they're all local and are able/willing to live with their parents, I suppose). There's not a university in the world that can just throw up a few new buildings in a month, which is all the time we've got before those students are supposed to be starting their courses.
That wasn't how it was presented.
Not without cuts elsewhere or tax increases. Seriously. I saw the numbers in Browne's report.
9% on earnings above £21,000. Which wasn't that far off the median salary at the time anyway.
More that we wanted (and still want) the extra independence from governmental whim. When government was funding students they were also imposing intake caps on us to control that spending - those were (with one or two exceptions, such as medical and dental students) removed with the new fees regime.
Central government funding invariably means fewer university students. The loans system meant far more young people could access university, albeit at a cost to them once they reap the employment benefits.
Tell that to the Finns.
Which means we should be able to afford more, not less.
It means we should be able to afford the same fraction (assuming the same priorities etc.), because everything scales linearly.
I do:
David Cameron, Prime Minister, 8th December 2010
It was repeatedly claimed by both leading Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.
Mr Vince Cable MP, speaking in the HoC 9th December 2009 (Hansard): (Emphasis mine). As I said, the deficit was used a lot to justify the changes. Which is ridiculous given that the loan arrangement meant no cash savings for central government in the first few years.
Bristol was a random example where I did medicine and hence know a bit about the institution. Their 2019 funding report says that of a total income of £707m, £288.9m was from fees. (40.9%)*. By contrast, De Montfort University (a post 1992-uni) says in their 2019 funding report that 86.1% of their £245.3m income comes from fees.
There are two points here; the first is that a 10% hit (i.e. 10% less students) in 40% of your income is a 4% hit, whereas a 10% of 86% is 8.6%! The other point here is that universities like Bristol are not expecting to be undersubscribed - again it's the institutions like De Montfort that are vulnerable.
The point was simply that post-1992 universities are more dependent on fees for their income (in a clearly measurable way) and more likely to be under-subscribed.
I was probably not very clear here; I was envisaging a situation whereby normally a course has 40 students and now suddenly it only has 20. I.e. they have the capacity and are under-subscribed. It's unlikely that the cost of providing the course will fall as much as the income from said course.
AFZ
*The University of Southampton where I currently work, also Russell Group reports £251m out of £584m from fees (43.0%)
I'm pretty sure that means more sustainable for the government - as I said in my earlier posts.
Agreed. But there were other justifications, and the changes were based on Browne which predated both austerity and the Con-Lib government.
Fair enough. I must have an incomplete set of figures (I did specify core income, which is the figure I use at work).
It's a point with which I agreed. I'm just pointing out that being less dependent on fees isn't the same as not being dependent on them.
Ah, right - I thought you were talking about the extra costs of teaching 40 students rather than the usual 20. As rephrased you're quite right that costs won't fall anywhere near as much as income.
Research income funds research, and in research intensive universities that means paying lots of technicians and post-doctoral researchers who are almost entirely funded by research income with some top-up from student fees (eg: to allow post-docs to demonstrate under-grad labs, lead tutorial groups, supervise projects) and commercial work, and also lecturers and professors who are funded by fees (and, therefore spend a lot of their time teaching which, but receive some research income - typically an academic might expect to be PI( leading a research project) which funds one or more RAs, technicians, and attached PhD students; but whereas the grant comes 80% of the costs of the full-time staff the PI would get maybe 10% of their salary from the grant).
Student fees fund student teaching (well, d'uh) and even in a research intensive university there isn't a lot of money from elsewhere to teach students. There will be staff who are almost exclusively employed to support students (anyone from the cleaners who keep the lecture theatres spic and span to lecturers and professors with only a fraction of their salary coming from their research interests). A 10% cut in student fees will hit that part of the university work very hard irrespective of how much research income there is. Research grant money is ring fenced, and can't just be diverted to pay staff doing other jobs, nor can the estate costs from those budgets be used to maintain lecture theatres or student accommodation that isn't being used - these monies are for maintenance of the research labs.
Conversely the institutions that are very dependent on teaching are the same ones who are likely to have gaps, hence the overall viability of the institution is threatened.
The struggle for Russell Group Unis will be if they accept bigger numbers of medical students, that will be expensive...
AFZ
Yep, completely agree there.
I love that they’ve removed the cap on medical students now, but haven’t guaranteed the extra students any placements. That could be fun in a few years...
(A late comment here, but very much 'no'. And not only for reasons to do with rip-off accomodation provided by private franchises to whom the universities sell their undergraduates, though this is important. My institution is involved in a scam where in the guise of modernising the estate, new buildings have been (and are currently being) erected with central government funding, whilst knocking down existing buildings which are only 40-50 years old and which do the same thing better . As well as being intensely wasteful (of money and resources) the new buildings, while looking flash and clad in glass, are smaller and *much* less well equipped (we're talking large lab facilities which are built-in - test chambers, strong floors, wind tunnels, hydraulics facilities, heavy-current electrical machines etc etc etc) than those they replace.
The scam will succeed financially as the kind of students who must be attracted will be wowed by the fancy facade (in all senses of that word) and ignorant of the actual facilities which have been lost. The scam pays double when the ground the old buildings were on can be sold for housing developments, as has happened more than once here. Losers are anyone who wants to do real work, and the tax-payer who paid for the lost facilities and the new stuff which is, mostly, fancy crap.)
Although it means whoever is in charge by then will be able to say 'This government has increased the number of new doctors and nurses by [some flattering]%' (and keep saying that at every PMQs for the subsequent ten years ...)