Current Affairs The Conservative Party

[Daveysgingerlovechild]

No, I am making the case for an end to the current system - reverting to public funding rather than loans and a return to a much higher degree of financial control.

Sorry, firing out thoughts all over the shop today - one other point on funding. No matter the source, from analysis by a colleague an increase is needed solely based on collective bargaining set non-executive staff pay increases since the last time tuition fees were set. I.e. if you got rid of the executive there'd still be a bit of a squeeze.

There's also a whole load of new administration needed to deal with student and non-student functions such as TEF, REF, KEF, export control, and research governance. This all has to be paid for, usually via a mix of QR funding, HEIF funding (funds from government based on research and innovation performance respectively and both not really increasing) and, of course, subsidy from student fees.

Chucking up tuition fees is untenable morally and as a financial burden on individuals in my view. So that means general taxation, which vexes others.

 

[tsubaki]

Pretty much what I think needs to happen. However, the incumbent government shows no sign of doing so, nor do the current labour party.

There is some degree of financial control via OFS however, this severly needs overhaul as it is limited in scope. However, without it I suspect staff student ratios or expenditure from fees not going towards students (as in courses, infrastructure etc) would be much worse.

Edit: having said that, there are benefits to the relative financial independence of Universities. Get the regulation wrong or have it set up by say, a 'wokery' obsessed 'mickey mouse degree' hating party of social hierarchies I can see problems!

Found it hard to take the OFS as an organisation seriously after that attempt to put Toby Young in charge of it.

 

[Daveysgingerlovechild]

Found it hard to take the OFS as an organisation seriously after that attempt to put Toby Young in charge of it.

I suspect you might not be alone there!

 

[Bruce Wayne]

No, I am making the case for an end to the current system - reverting to public funding rather than loans and a return to a much higher degree of financial control.

Given how schools are funded currently I'd love to know your rationale for giving the government control of the purse strings. A lot of your logic seems to rest on your fantasy Labour government being permanently in charge,when the electoral evidence suggests that such a government is practically never in charge.

 

[Daveysgingerlovechild]

Given how schools are funded currently I'd love to know your rationale for giving the government control of the purse strings. A lot of your logic seems to rest on your fantasy Labour government being permanently in charge,when the electoral evidence suggests that such a government is practically never in charge.

Even more than schools, HE is a potential political football. There is a real danger of increased turbulence and uncertainty with more government influence.

On the other hand, better oversight might stop fun and games such as: https://www.theguardian.com/educati...dominic-shellard-payoff-resigning-de-montfort

 

[Daveysgingerlovechild]

Anyway, think we've gone massively off topic.

Tories booo, the post-92 woke university hating belters!

 

[tsubaki]

Given how schools are funded currently I'd love to know your rationale for giving the government control of the purse strings. A lot of your logic seems to rest on your fantasy Labour government being permanently in charge,when the electoral evidence suggests that such a government is practically never in charge.

Bruce we had that system in place under Labour and Tory governments (including Thatchers) for years, which did not result in vast sums being accrued in debt (to the state and the individual) did not produce lower standards and did not boost inequality.

Part of the reason why this country is in such a mess is people who must surely know better going around loudly pretending that things which worked perfectly well for long periods of time and which enjoyed support from both main parties are in fact crazy extremism / fantastical nonsense, and that what’s common sense / realism are the things that benefit them - even though there are blatantly massive problems with those policies.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Bruce we had that system in place under Labour and Tory governments (including Thatchers) for years, which did not result in vast sums being accrued in debt (to the state and the individual) did not produce lower standards and did not boost inequality.

Part of the reason why this country is in such a mess is people who must surely know better going around loudly pretending that things which worked perfectly well for long periods of time and which enjoyed support from both main parties are in fact crazy extremism / fantastical nonsense, and that what’s common sense / realism are the things that benefit them - even though there are blatantly massive problems with those policies.

I mean there's a lot of things being said there with not much evidence to back them up other than sepia-tinged nostalgia. As we're discussing academia, a bit more working out would be good.

As an aside though, when tuition fees were introduced in 2012, they were supposed to rise with inflation (that's in the statute), which would make the £9,000 originally charged worth £12,300 today. If that was indeed the fee, universities would have somewhere in the region of £1.5bn extra. I'm sure that high pay for a few CEO earn though, especially as they're ultimately heading up pretty substantial organisations (I believe Oxford earned just shy of £3bn last year, which would put them firmly in the FTSE 250 were they a listed company. Incidentally, the average salary for a FTSE 250 boss is £1.77 million.)

But yes, over to you for your workings.

 

[Rita_Poon]

hoyle is to the commons what kuenssberg is to political questioning. both egregious tory boot lickers.



Gimme Derbyshire any day.

 

[tsubaki]

I mean there's a lot of things being said there with not much evidence to back them up other than sepia-tinged nostalgia. As we're discussing academia, a bit more working out would be good.

As an aside though, when tuition fees were introduced in 2012, they were supposed to rise with inflation (that's in the statute), which would make the £9,000 originally charged worth £12,300 today. If that was indeed the fee, universities would have somewhere in the region of £1.5bn extra. I'm sure that high pay for a few CEO earn though, especially as they're ultimately heading up pretty substantial organisations (I believe Oxford earned just shy of £3bn last year, which would put them firmly in the FTSE 250 were they a listed company. Incidentally, the average salary for a FTSE 250 boss is £1.77 million.)

But yes, over to you for your workings.

Bruce did the University system (pre-1992 or 1997, whichever you prefer) cost the equivalent of twenty billion a year? Is there any CEO in the FTSE whose entire business is dependent on customers having to get into government- backed debt in order to obtain nothing tangible in return?

Or since you wanted workings, in 1992 (and within living memory for anyone who remembers the last time we won something) the national debt for the entire country was around £250 billion. Within a few years of the current rate of accrual, the level of debt within the SLC will be at that figure. What happens when it becomes obvious that a huge chunk of it is never going to be paid back?

 

[Daveysgingerlovechild]

I mean there's a lot of things being said there with not much evidence to back them up other than sepia-tinged nostalgia. As we're discussing academia, a bit more working out would be good.

As an aside though, when tuition fees were introduced in 2012, they were supposed to rise with inflation (that's in the statute), which would make the £9,000 originally charged worth £12,300 today. If that was indeed the fee, universities would have somewhere in the region of £1.5bn extra. I'm sure that high pay for a few CEO earn though, especially as they're ultimately heading up pretty substantial organisations (I believe Oxford earned just shy of £3bn last year, which would put them firmly in the FTSE 250 were they a listed company. Incidentally, the average salary for a FTSE 250 boss is £1.77 million.)

But yes, over to you for your workings.

Bruce did the University system (pre-1992 or 1997, whichever you prefer) cost the equivalent of twenty billion a year? Is there any CEO in the FTSE whose entire business is dependent on customers having to get into government- backed debt in order to obtain nothing tangible in return?

Or since you wanted workings, in 1992 (and within living memory for anyone who remembers the last time we won something) the national debt for the entire country was around £250 billion. Within a few years of the current rate of accrual, the level of debt within the SLC will be at that figure. What happens when it becomes obvious that a huge chunk of it is never going to be paid back?

Just to chuck a crucial point in - HE has expanded significantly post 1997, kick started by New Labour's focus on 'education, education, education' and aiming for 50% of folk attaining a degree.

I'll try and dig out an excellent analysis I found not so long ago, but put simply, a significant reason the sector costs so much compared to pre-97 is that it has literally doubled (staff, students etc).

Also tuition fees came in in 1998, but have slowly increased. Frankly, a HE at scale costs. Blair and every government since has gone down the route of a slight of hand on funding- ostensibly it sits with individuals, but there's a good chance much gets written off.

 

[peteblue]

How dare you question the man of many fake careers

Jealousy is strong in this one…Just keep practicing flipping those burgers……

 

[Rita_Poon]

Jealousy is strong in this one…Just keep practicing flipping those burgers……

flipping something...

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Bruce did the University system (pre-1992 or 1997, whichever you prefer) cost the equivalent of twenty billion a year? Is there any CEO in the FTSE whose entire business is dependent on customers having to get into government- backed debt in order to obtain nothing tangible in return?

Or since you wanted workings, in 1992 (and within living memory for anyone who remembers the last time we won something) the national debt for the entire country was around £250 billion. Within a few years of the current rate of accrual, the level of debt within the SLC will be at that figure. What happens when it becomes obvious that a huge chunk of it is never going to be paid back?

Again though, you're trying to make a point by asking a question, when I'd have thought that as you're making a point you would have the answer already. But yes, I'd imagine most FTSE-listed companies will be in businesses where the customer pays for what they're getting rather than expecting the government to foot the bill on their behalf. There's nothing to force someone to take on a student loan if they have the money to pay for it themselves. The loans system is there to help those who can't afford it not have to pay for their education until they earn enough "to" be able to afford it.

One thing I will touch upon though, in the absence of facts that cover any of this, is that the innovation landscape has changed considerably in the last 30 years or so, and it's changed in two considerable ways. Firstly, the cost of doing research has gone up considerably, such that the returns now are much less than they were in the past (I can dig out papers on this should you wish). The second major trend is that companies have scaled back their investment in primary research. Whereas once Xerox, AT&T, BT et al had expansive research labs, these are now far less common, so universities are being asked to do more research (indeed, you'll note that the main anti-Brexit argument from universities was not about access to students but access to Horizon). There is an expectation (whether implicit or explicit) that universities are now part of the innovation pipeline, so there is a lot more investment going into not just research but also entrepreneurship. In the last decade there have been over 1,000 spinouts from universities, and commercializing IP is now something a lot of (research-based) universities spend a lot on.

 

[Daveysgingerlovechild]

Again though, you're trying to make a point by asking a question, when I'd have thought that as you're making a point you would have the answer already. But yes, I'd imagine most FTSE-listed companies will be in businesses where the customer pays for what they're getting rather than expecting the government to foot the bill on their behalf. There's nothing to force someone to take on a student loan if they have the money to pay for it themselves. The loans system is there to help those who can't afford it not have to pay for their education until they earn enough "to" be able to afford it.

One thing I will touch upon though, in the absence of facts that cover any of this, is that the innovation landscape has changed considerably in the last 30 years or so, and it's changed in two considerable ways. Firstly, the cost of doing research has gone up considerably, such that the returns now are much less than they were in the past (I can dig out papers on this should you wish). The second major trend is that companies have scaled back their investment in primary research. Whereas once Xerox, AT&T, BT et al had expansive research labs, these are now far less common, so universities are being asked to do more research (indeed, you'll note that the main anti-Brexit argument from universities was not about access to students but access to Horizon). There is an expectation (whether implicit or explicit) that universities are now part of the innovation pipeline, so there is a lot more investment going into not just research but also entrepreneurship. In the last decade there have been over 1,000 spinouts from universities, and commercializing IP is now something a lot of (research-based) universities spend a lot on.

I'd go as far as saying there's an expectation from government that universities are drivers of innovation.