Wednesday 26th July 2017

[PaulfromYorkshire]

They don't. Most continental universities are complete crap compared to the UK.

Don't believe me, go do a first year of study in a French University. (Not an exchange: what they are expected to do in their first year.)

One way French (and Dutch and other) Universities sustain themselves is by admitting huge numbers of students who cannot cope with degree programmes, packing them into huge lecture halls, and then failing them after the first year. These suckers then re-apply (and pay) over and over.

Outside of a few elite places, the standard is unbelievably bad.

The reason we do so well in international league tables, and why so many students want to study here generating huge amounts of revenue, is that our Universities are, in fact, better.

If you try to fund Universities out of general taxation it is clear what will happen.

First, funding will be squeezed, as it was before the introduction of fees. Universities are a low priority compared to, say, the NHS.

Second, and as a result, Universities will do what they threatened to do. Go private. Look at the LSE, it is essentially already mainly a private university for foreign students because that is the only way it is financially viable as the fees are too low.

Ok, you say, pass legislation preventing Oxford, Cambridge, LSE etc from going private.

What that will do is that the good academics will leave, and go to work for new private institutions that can pay properly (or go abroad).

I am afraid I don't trust any government to fund Universities properly out of general taxation. Which is why Blair brought in fees in the first place.

Those Universities were better under the previous regime too weren't they?

I note you omit Scandinavia and Switzerland from your analysis.

The problem IMHO with the French system is that the government wants control of the academic side as well as the finances. The quasi-autonomous nature of our institutions is a great asset and it is under threat! In France, the minister essentially appoints the professors. Can you imagine if Gove had that job?

How do the Scandanavians and Swiss do in the international league tables?

I don't see the point of this. Our top Universities have always been excellent. What does introduction of fees have to do with it?

Nevertheless, I think universities in Sweden and Switzerland, examples I have some knowledge of, are truly excellent. I'm not sure about fees in Switzerland, but Sweden at least until recently was free.

[howsillyofme1]

Swiss universities very good especially ETH and EPFL but others excellent too

i interview a lot of people from them and standards very good

Cost a few hundred francs but have some benefits as well so pretty much neutral

[Willow904]

They don't. Most continental universities are complete crap compared to the UK.

Don't believe me, go do a first year of study in a French University. (Not an exchange: what they are expected to do in their first year.)

One way French (and Dutch and other) Universities sustain themselves is by admitting huge numbers of students who cannot cope with degree programmes, packing them into huge lecture halls, and then failing them after the first year. These suckers then re-apply (and pay) over and over.

Outside of a few elite places, the standard is unbelievably bad.

The reason we do so well in international league tables, and why so many students want to study here generating huge amounts of revenue, is that our Universities are, in fact, better.

If you try to fund Universities out of general taxation it is clear what will happen.

First, funding will be squeezed, as it was before the introduction of fees. Universities are a low priority compared to, say, the NHS.

Second, and as a result, Universities will do what they threatened to do. Go private. Look at the LSE, it is essentially already mainly a private university for foreign students because that is the only way it is financially viable as the fees are too low.

Ok, you say, pass legislation preventing Oxford, Cambridge, LSE etc from going private.

What that will do is that the good academics will leave, and go to work for new private institutions that can pay properly (or go abroad).

I am afraid I don't trust any government to fund Universities properly out of general taxation. Which is why Blair brought in fees in the first place.

Those Universities were better under the previous regime too weren't they?

I note you omit Scandinavia and Switzerland from your analysis.

The problem IMHO with the French system is that the government wants control of the academic side as well as the finances. The quasi-autonomous nature of our institutions is a great asset and it is under threat! In France, the minister essentially appoints the professors. Can you imagine if Gove had that job?

How do the Scandanavians and Swiss do in the international league tables?

Does it matter? The funding of HE is an investment in skills and research. Are international league tables relevant? Does Scandinavia lack engineers, pharmacists and chemists? I doubt it. I doubt they have hundreds of media studies graduates working in Costa Coffee at great taxpayer expense either.

I like the idea of everyone being able to study for the sake of studying, but how many students are genuinely happy about living a lifetime with huge debt hanging over them just for the privilege of 3 years of HE they never actually need or use in the work they ultimately do? Our current system is hugely inefficient, investing huge sums in surplus degrees whilst starving FE and under-investing in skilled apprenticeships.

[SpinningHugo]

I don't see the point of this. Our top Universities have always been excellent. What does introduction of fees have to do with it?

Nevertheless, I think universities in Sweden and Switzerland, examples I have some knowledge of, are truly excellent. I'm not sure about fees in Switzerland, but Sweden at least until recently was free.

Because the one and only reason our Universities still are excellent, and open to UK students from poor backgrounds, is because of fees. The reason fees were brought in was because of a funding crisis in Universities. Over decades they were underfunded, even before the increase in numbers.

Fees helped, but they're too low. Universities have a perverse incentive to take students from outside of the UK because they can charge them the market rate (which is above the fee level). Universities make a loss on every Home/EU student they take in most subjects.

Now, maybe if we abolished fees Universities will be even better funded out of general taxation in a bright new Corbynite future.

Experience, and the examples of elsewhere, tells us that won't happen.

Abolishing fees is a middle class sop, that is deeply distributionally unfair, that will trash the University sector.

It will also, in the medium term, be counter productive as what will happen is that the better universities will go private, with much higher fees. Fees were introduced to try to stop that. As I've said, that has only been partially successful as some institutions are partially private already, keeping a proportion of Home/EU students as a figleaf.

[SpinningHugo]

I like the idea of everyone being able to study for the sake of studying, but how many students are genuinely happy about living a lifetime with huge debt hanging over them just for the privilege of 3 years of HE they never actually need or use in the work they ultimately do? Our current system is hugely inefficient, investing huge sums in surplus degrees whilst starving FE and under-investing in skilled apprenticeships.

You think the number of "surplus degrees" will fall when those taking them don't have to pay?

[Willow904]

I like the idea of everyone being able to study for the sake of studying, but how many students are genuinely happy about living a lifetime with huge debt hanging over them just for the privilege of 3 years of HE they never actually need or use in the work they ultimately do? Our current system is hugely inefficient, investing huge sums in surplus degrees whilst starving FE and under-investing in skilled apprenticeships.

You think the number of "surplus degrees" will fall when those taking them don't have to pay?

If the government funds courses rather than students, yes. Isn't that how it used to work?

[HindleA]

Same as Paul,though slight miscalculation on the beer(and other essentials),a bit of borrowing to pay for accomodation,when I say a bit I mean all,though I worked as,a stevedore during the hols,enjoying the hard hat,steel toe capped boots(albeit shitting myself I hadn't put a strop on incorrecly etc,causing a container to kill a few people or inadvertent misplacing (never fucking ending) pipe stacking today a phrase still makes me shudder,though heard very rarely to be fair,caused a landside of twenty thousand pipes , mass destruction,closure of plant costing billions,suspension of North Sea Oil operations and an appearance on News at Ten.My nickname was dipstick,for some reason.

[SpinningHugo]

I like the idea of everyone being able to study for the sake of studying, but how many students are genuinely happy about living a lifetime with huge debt hanging over them just for the privilege of 3 years of HE they never actually need or use in the work they ultimately do? Our current system is hugely inefficient, investing huge sums in surplus degrees whilst starving FE and under-investing in skilled apprenticeships.

You think the number of "surplus degrees" will fall when those taking them don't have to pay?

If the government funds courses rather than students, yes. Isn't that how it used to work?

No.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

I don't see the point of this. Our top Universities have always been excellent. What does introduction of fees have to do with it?

Nevertheless, I think universities in Sweden and Switzerland, examples I have some knowledge of, are truly excellent. I'm not sure about fees in Switzerland, but Sweden at least until recently was free.

Because the one and only reason our Universities still are excellent, and open to UK students from poor backgrounds, is because of fees. The reason fees were brought in was because of a funding crisis in Universities. Over decades they were underfunded, even before the increase in numbers.

Fees helped, but they're too low. Universities have a perverse incentive to take students from outside of the UK because they can charge them the market rate (which is above the fee level). Universities make a loss on every Home/EU student they take in most subjects.

Now, maybe if we abolished fees Universities will be even better funded out of general taxation in a bright new Corbynite future.

Experience, and the examples of elsewhere, tells us that won't happen.

Abolishing fees is a middle class sop, that is deeply distributionally unfair, that will trash the University sector.

It will also, in the medium term, be counter productive as what will happen is that the better universities will go private, with much higher fees. Fees were introduced to try to stop that. As I've said, that has only been partially successful as some institutions are partially private already, keeping a proportion of Home/EU students as a figleaf.

So they managed to be world class for centuries and the only way that could be maintained in the last decade was through fees.

It's laughable

There's so many interesting points hiding behind your Blairite analysis, but you let your political agenda swirl all over them to the extent that they are barely discernible.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

I'm certain the true agenda at work in HE is a desperate attempt by the upper classes to reverse widening participation and make sure the elite universities remain their domain.

But that's just a guess.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Swiss universities very good especially ETH and EPFL but others excellent too

i interview a lot of people from them and standards very good

Cost a few hundred francs but have some benefits as well so pretty much neutral

Thank you.

Those two universities certainly are world class.

ETH in particular has over the years produced some of the finest chemistry research anywhere I'm sure you'll agree.

And it's basically free to study there.

[SpinningHugo]

I don't see the point of this. Our top Universities have always been excellent. What does introduction of fees have to do with it?

Nevertheless, I think universities in Sweden and Switzerland, examples I have some knowledge of, are truly excellent. I'm not sure about fees in Switzerland, but Sweden at least until recently was free.

Because the one and only reason our Universities still are excellent, and open to UK students from poor backgrounds, is because of fees. The reason fees were brought in was because of a funding crisis in Universities. Over decades they were underfunded, even before the increase in numbers.

Fees helped, but they're too low. Universities have a perverse incentive to take students from outside of the UK because they can charge them the market rate (which is above the fee level). Universities make a loss on every Home/EU student they take in most subjects.

Now, maybe if we abolished fees Universities will be even better funded out of general taxation in a bright new Corbynite future.

Experience, and the examples of elsewhere, tells us that won't happen.

Abolishing fees is a middle class sop, that is deeply distributionally unfair, that will trash the University sector.

It will also, in the medium term, be counter productive as what will happen is that the better universities will go private, with much higher fees. Fees were introduced to try to stop that. As I've said, that has only been partially successful as some institutions are partially private already, keeping a proportion of Home/EU students as a figleaf.

So they managed to be world class for centuries and the only way that could be maintained in the last decade was through fees.

It's laughable

There's so many interesting points hiding behind your Blairite analysis, but you let your political agenda swirl all over them to the extent that they are barely discernible.

Well

1) "Centuries" is essentially nonsense, Universities in their modern form are a creation of the last few decades.

2) The way it worked post war was that the numbers going to University were tiny. In 1950 17,000 students were awarded degrees. Today it is more than twenty times that number.

The expanding numbers funded by the state became unsustainable. Which is why we had fees.

Check out the admissions at the top Universities in London. They market themselves as 'Global' for a reason. They've gone private in all but name. If you want to accelerate that, abolish fees. The bits left in the public realm will not be the good bits.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Another triumph for Grayling, These were his fees.

The court primarily decide the case at common law, not under the ECHR or under EU law. It is thereby insulated against Brexit and and repeal of the HRA.

I think that Grayling's utter hideousness is something that we can all agree on

[Willow904]

You think the number of "surplus degrees" will fall when those taking them don't have to pay?

If the government funds courses rather than students, yes. Isn't that how it used to work?

No.

Because I think it must have been and the amount of money open to universities was limited as a result as you say. Because government had to justify the cost of the degree in terms of an investment.

Student loans didn't begin under Tony Blair. They began under John Major and they coincided with the almost doubling of degree earning places that began with the conversion of polytechnics to universities in 1992. The aim was to grow the sector as a commercial entity, not to secure the quality of our elite universities. Practical and useful, but expensive to provide, HNDs dwindled to be replaced by cheap to teach degrees in humanities subjects that nevertheless attracted the same fee. Blair continued and expanded the commercialisation of the HE sector that had already been started. Student loans aren't about quality, they are about quantity and they are basically a sleight of hand to distract us from the lack of return we get from our investment, delaying the hit to the treasury so we fail to scrutinise just what we as a nation, let alone as individuals, are getting for our money. Old rope, in many cases. Student loans don't just fund Oxbridge. They also fund London Met and the University of South Wales.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Because the one and only reason our Universities still are excellent, and open to UK students from poor backgrounds, is because of fees. The reason fees were brought in was because of a funding crisis in Universities. Over decades they were underfunded, even before the increase in numbers.

Fees helped, but they're too low. Universities have a perverse incentive to take students from outside of the UK because they can charge them the market rate (which is above the fee level). Universities make a loss on every Home/EU student they take in most subjects.

Now, maybe if we abolished fees Universities will be even better funded out of general taxation in a bright new Corbynite future.

Experience, and the examples of elsewhere, tells us that won't happen.

Abolishing fees is a middle class sop, that is deeply distributionally unfair, that will trash the University sector.

It will also, in the medium term, be counter productive as what will happen is that the better universities will go private, with much higher fees. Fees were introduced to try to stop that. As I've said, that has only been partially successful as some institutions are partially private already, keeping a proportion of Home/EU students as a figleaf.

So they managed to be world class for centuries and the only way that could be maintained in the last decade was through fees.

It's laughable

There's so many interesting points hiding behind your Blairite analysis, but you let your political agenda swirl all over them to the extent that they are barely discernible.

Well

1) "Centuries" is essentially nonsense, Universities in their modern form are a creation of the last few decades.

2) The way it worked post war was that the numbers going to University were tiny. In 1950 17,000 students were awarded degrees. Today it is more than twenty times that number.

The expanding numbers funded by the state became unsustainable. Which is why we had fees.

Check out the admissions at the top Universities in London. They market themselves as 'Global' for a reason. They've gone private in all but name. If you want to accelerate that, abolish fees. The bits left in the public realm will not be the good bits.

Are you really sure you are more knowledgeable than me on this?

[HindleA]

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... s-doorways" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[SpinningHugo]

Are you really sure you are more knowledgeable than me on this?

Oh yes.

Why?

[AnatolyKasparov]

Looks like Keir Starmer will still be concentrating on his political brief after all - good to hear.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Here's a list by % of people completing tertiary education (admittedly not exactly the same as University). It's from Wikipedia

Look the UK is right there with the other countries we are discussing, who have found other ways to fund this.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Are you really sure you are more knowledgeable than me on this?

Oh yes.

Why?

I thought you were a lawyer.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Lawyer with an academic background was my guess some time ago tbh - SH is based in one of our main university cities after all.

[SpinningHugo]

Looks like Keir Starmer will still be concentrating on his political brief after all - good to hear.

Will he?

Not heard anything from him about Corbyn's repudiation of the single market or the shadow trade secretary saying we must leave the Customs Union.

Not a squeak.

[HindleA]

Libdem press office Jo Swinson on Supreme Court tribunal fees ruling - Govt has wasted workers' taxes trying to undermine workers' rights



https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/c ... htm_brev15" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Lawyer with an academic background was my guess some time ago tbh - SH is based in one of our main university cities after all.

[Willow904]

@SpinnngHugo

2) The way it worked post war was that the numbers going to University were tiny. In 1950 17,000 students were awarded degrees. Today it is more than twenty times that number.

Good point. The question you have to ask yourself is - have the number of genuine degree requiring jobs increased by the same amount over that same period?

Take accountancy for example. Yeah, sure, you can do a degree in accounting and will probably get a job that way, but is it necessary for the government to pay for you to get a degree in order to ensure we have enough accountants? The answer is no. We can just as easily train accountants on the job from "A" level. Instead of starting earning at 21 with £50k debt sitting on their shoulder, much of which the government will end up paying, accountants could be earning from 18, paying tax, possibly paying into a pension, and the cost to the government in terms of investment in such training programmes being considerably less.

Some things require access to university facilities, some careers really do need a degree. But an awful lot do not. Why encourage people to waste 3 years they could be earning, running up debts that feel like a burden even if they don't repay them, when they could go straight to work and access a myriad of career progression and on the job training funded by government instead. There could even be enough money to fund free online and night school classes for people who just want to learn for the fun of it. Recent changes to fees and student loans has been pretty negative for the Open University, unfortunately. There are doubtless some winners from our current system. But there seem to be an awful lot of losers as well. I think our whole training and education system could be done an awful lot better than it is now.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Looks like Keir Starmer will still be concentrating on his political brief after all - good to hear.

Will he?

Not heard anything from him about Corbyn's repudiation of the single market or the shadow trade secretary saying we must leave the Customs Union.

Not a squeak.

Not in public, no - certain media outlets do seem to have been briefed though. And lo and behold, a "clarification" from Jez yesterday.

Maybe he's better at this lark than you give him credit for?

[PaulfromYorkshire]

@SpinnngHugo

2) The way it worked post war was that the numbers going to University were tiny. In 1950 17,000 students were awarded degrees. Today it is more than twenty times that number.

Good point. The question you have to ask yourself is - have the number of genuine degree requiring jobs increased by the same amount over that same period?

Take accountancy for example. Yeah, sure, you can do a degree in accounting and will probably get a job that way, but is it necessary for the government to pay for you to get a degree in order to ensure we have enough accountants? The answer is no. We can just as easily train accountants on the job from "A" level. Instead of starting earning at 21 with £50k debt sitting on their shoulder, much of which the government will end up paying, accountants could be earning from 18, paying tax, possibly paying into a pension, and the cost to the government in terms of investment in such training programmes being considerably less.

Some things require access to university facilities, some careers really do need a degree. But an awful lot do not. Why encourage people to waste 3 years they could be earning, running up debts that feel like a burden even if they don't repay them, when they could go straight to work and access a myriad of career progression and on the job training funded by government instead. There could even be enough money to fund free online and night school classes for people who just want to learn for the fun of it. Recent changes to fees and student loans has been pretty negative for the Open University, unfortunately. There are doubtless some winners from our current system. But there seem to be an awful lot of losers as well. I think our whole training and education system could be done an awful lot better than it is now.

Good analysis. The rub is that if we wanted to reduce the % going to Uni AND still widen participation to underrepresented groups, some rich kids from fee paying schools would have to miss out on Uni.

Until that nettle is grasped we will have to get to nearly 100% to achieve equality of representation in our universities. Which is clearly absurd.

This underlies all these conversations and is rarely discussed.

[howsillyofme1]

the arrogance of Hugo knows no bounds

He is an expert on everything dontcha know...

If he is an academic lawyer then it does nothing to support his argument regarding UK university quality

EPFL is tbe one I normally deal with....very impressive

[Willow904]

@SpinnngHugo

2) The way it worked post war was that the numbers going to University were tiny. In 1950 17,000 students were awarded degrees. Today it is more than twenty times that number.

Good point. The question you have to ask yourself is - have the number of genuine degree requiring jobs increased by the same amount over that same period?

Take accountancy for example. Yeah, sure, you can do a degree in accounting and will probably get a job that way, but is it necessary for the government to pay for you to get a degree in order to ensure we have enough accountants? The answer is no. We can just as easily train accountants on the job from "A" level. Instead of starting earning at 21 with £50k debt sitting on their shoulder, much of which the government will end up paying, accountants could be earning from 18, paying tax, possibly paying into a pension, and the cost to the government in terms of investment in such training programmes being considerably less.

Some things require access to university facilities, some careers really do need a degree. But an awful lot do not. Why encourage people to waste 3 years they could be earning, running up debts that feel like a burden even if they don't repay them, when they could go straight to work and access a myriad of career progression and on the job training funded by government instead. There could even be enough money to fund free online and night school classes for people who just want to learn for the fun of it. Recent changes to fees and student loans has been pretty negative for the Open University, unfortunately. There are doubtless some winners from our current system. But there seem to be an awful lot of losers as well. I think our whole training and education system could be done an awful lot better than it is now.

Good analysis. The rub is that if we wanted to reduce the % going to Uni AND still widen participation to underrepresented groups, some rich kids from fee paying schools would have to miss out on Uni.

Until that nettle is grasped we will have to get to nearly 100% to achieve equality of representation in our universities. Which is clearly absurd.

This underlies all these conversations and is rarely discussed.

Yep. Exactly.

[SpinningHugo]

we will have to get to nearly 100% to achieve equality of representation in our universities. Which is clearly absurd.

This underlies all these conversations and is rarely discussed.

Yep. Exactly.

If you want to damage access, the quickest way to do so would be to push the Universities private, so that they are no longer beholden to government dictats about who they admit.

In addition to the money, that is another reason why our best Universities have got out of the business of teaching UK undergraduates. When it comes to foreign undergrads, and graduate students, they can admit who they like.

The way to make them go private is to abolish fees.

[HindleA]

https://www.epfl.ch/index.en.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


https://www.ethz.ch/en/the-eth-zurich.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[howsillyofme1]

thanks Hindle

Most courses in English too so the graduates come out bilingual.....

[PaulfromYorkshire]

we will have to get to nearly 100% to achieve equality of representation in our universities. Which is clearly absurd.

This underlies all these conversations and is rarely discussed.

Yep. Exactly.

If you want to damage access, the quickest way to do so would be to push the Universities private, so that they are no longer beholden to government dictats about who they admit.

In addition to the money, that is another reason why our best Universities have got out of the business of teaching UK undergraduates. When it comes to foreign undergrads, and graduate students, they can admit who they like.

The way to make them go private is to abolish fees.

This is a false dichotomy. Fees vs private.

What Labour is proposing is a move back towards public funding, as seen in highly successful competitor countries around Europe, as discussed by other posters here above.

There is clear evidence that this can be a successful model in Europe in 2017. What has been missing is the political will.

[howsillyofme1]

Hugo's Britain of the future is an awful thought to behold....a right wing hellhole

And he is the first to go on about Brexit but doesnt seem to realise it is arrogant wankers like him who pretend to care about the disadvantaged who largely to blame for the conditions that led to the vote

I find more moderate views on ConservativeHome

[HindleA]

There's some interesting research stuff,so partly for personal future reference.

[RogerOThornhill]

Take accountancy for example. Yeah, sure, you can do a degree in accounting and will probably get a job that way, but is it necessary for the government to pay for you to get a degree in order to ensure we have enough accountants? The answer is no. We can just as easily train accountants on the job from "A" level. Instead of starting earning at 21 with £50k debt sitting on their shoulder, much of which the government will end up paying, accountants could be earning from 18, paying tax, possibly paying into a pension, and the cost to the government in terms of investment in such training programmes being considerably less.

I seem to recall that some of the main accountancy firms were taking school leavers - if you're going on to do ACA then you don't actually need a degree in the first place.

http://careers.icaew.com/find-your-rout ... -programme" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I used to be first point of contact for our PwC auditors and a fair proportion had a degree with no relevance for their chosen profession.

[RogerOThornhill]

In addition to the money, that is another reason why our best Universities have got out of the business of teaching UK undergraduates. When it comes to foreign undergrads, and graduate students, they can admit who they like.

That looks like nonsense to me - where the evidence for this?

As far as Oxford goes 58% of their intake are from UK schools.

https://www.ox.ac.uk/about/facts-and-figures?wssl=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Temulkar]

@paul

I think we all know that Hugo believes he is more knowledgeable about everything than anyone. He is basically a posting embodiment of the Dunning–Kruger effect.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

In addition to the money, that is another reason why our best Universities have got out of the business of teaching UK undergraduates. When it comes to foreign undergrads, and graduate students, they can admit who they like.

That looks like nonsense to me - where the evidence for this?

As far as Oxford goes 58% of their intake are from UK schools.

https://www.ox.ac.uk/about/facts-and-figures?wssl=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What universities are aiming for is a good mix of home and international students. It's true that international students are more lucrative, but that income stream is much more risky. In the Asian Tiger economic crash, there were a couple of years where applications from South East Asia plummeted. Unis are also vulnerable to idiotic governments making it harder for students to get visas!

[PaulfromYorkshire]

@paul

I think we all know that Hugo believes he is more knowledgeable about everything than anyone. He is basically a posting embodiment of the Dunning–Kruger effect.

That made me grin from ear to ear thanks

[gilsey]

Take accountancy for example. Yeah, sure, you can do a degree in accounting and will probably get a job that way, but is it necessary for the government to pay for you to get a degree in order to ensure we have enough accountants? The answer is no. We can just as easily train accountants on the job from "A" level. Instead of starting earning at 21 with £50k debt sitting on their shoulder, much of which the government will end up paying, accountants could be earning from 18, paying tax, possibly paying into a pension, and the cost to the government in terms of investment in such training programmes being considerably less.

I seem to recall that some of the main accountancy firms were taking school leavers - if you're going on to do ACA then you don't actually need a degree in the first place.

http://careers.icaew.com/find-your-rout ... -programme" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I used to be first point of contact for our PwC auditors and a fair proportion had a degree with no relevance for their chosen profession.

I trained as an ACA starting in 1977, which was 5 years after I left school, and saw no reason to do a degree and take six years to qualify when I could do it in 4 with a 1 year foundation course at the local poly and a 3 year training contract. At that time the big firms only took graduates for training, I trained with one of the larger local firms and moved on to an international one after I qualified.
The vast majority of graduates I met in the profession had non-relevant degrees, bio-chemistry seemed to be a favourite for some reason. Later on accounting degrees became more widespread and the right one cut the training contract down to two years, so you could qualify in five overall.
I was pleased to see the big firms moving back to taking people straight from school.

[Willow904]

we will have to get to nearly 100% to achieve equality of representation in our universities. Which is clearly absurd.

This underlies all these conversations and is rarely discussed.

Yep. Exactly.

If you want to damage access, the quickest way to do so would be to push the Universities private, so that they are no longer beholden to government dictats about who they admit.

In addition to the money, that is another reason why our best Universities have got out of the business of teaching UK undergraduates. When it comes to foreign undergrads, and graduate students, they can admit who they like.

The way to make them go private is to abolish fees.

Can you name a "top" university that is completely private, enjoys no government tax breaks or subsidies and has no publically funded scholars on its rolls?

I'm not convinced the "go it alone" option is quite as simple and attractive as you suggest.

[SpinningHugo]

In addition to the money, that is another reason why our best Universities have got out of the business of teaching UK undergraduates. When it comes to foreign undergrads, and graduate students, they can admit who they like.

That looks like nonsense to me - where the evidence for this?

As far as Oxford goes 58% of their intake are from UK schools.

https://www.ox.ac.uk/about/facts-and-figures?wssl=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(1) That includes the graduates. Oxford is now half graduate students, with that % increasing year on year. 25 years ago they were a small fraction. As elsewhere, Oxford has gone into the business of expanding their taught masters programmes, with consequent lack of emphasis on traditional undergraduates. because they can charge what they like and are not government regulated for admissions. UK students doing masters or doctorates are fine: Unis can charge them what they like and the government doesn't care.

(2) Yes "only" 42% of total students are now from overseas. 25 years ago it was a small fraction.

(3) Oxford and Cambridge are special cases. Unlike, say, UCL or LSE , they have huge endowments that cushion them, to an extent, from the full impact of the cost of undergraduate teaching not being met. Which is why other Russell Group Unis have been more aggressive in getting out of Home/EU undergraduate teaching. Because they are under much more of a financial imperative to do so.

(4) If you go back 25 years, Oxford was made up of UK undergraduates, with a small graduate community. Today it is transformed, and that process is accelerating. The reason for this is commercial pressure: it loses money on every undergraduate it admits. Instead of being pushed around by the government, it has moved into graduate teaching. Plenty of graduates with first class degrees who want to study there. This has been hidden by the growth in the universities. Abolish fees, return to underfunding by the state, and it will just get out of this loss making part of its business. Other institutions with smaller endowments will do so even more quickly.

[tinybgoat]

Lawyer with an academic background was my guess some time ago tbh - SH is based in one of our main university cities after all.

what about Bentham connection?
https://t.co/W9kwTv4YFw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[SpinningHugo]

Can you name a "top" university that is completely private, enjoys no government tax breaks or subsidies and has no publically funded scholars on its rolls?

I'm not convinced the "go it alone" option is quite as simple and attractive as you suggest.

Wholly? There are none. But if you look at the LSE, the teaching of UK undergraduates is now a small part of its business. It has got out of it quite deliberately.

[RogerOThornhill]

In addition to the money, that is another reason why our best Universities have got out of the business of teaching UK undergraduates. When it comes to foreign undergrads, and graduate students, they can admit who they like.

That looks like nonsense to me - where the evidence for this?

As far as Oxford goes 58% of their intake are from UK schools.

https://www.ox.ac.uk/about/facts-and-figures?wssl=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(1) That includes the graduates. Oxford is now half graduate students, with that % increasing year on year. 25 years ago they were a small fraction. As elsewhere, Oxford has gone into the business of expanding their taught masters programmes, with consequent lack of emphasis on traditional undergraduates. because they can charge what they like and are not government regulated for admissions. UK students doing masters or doctorates are fine: Unis can charge them what they like and the government doesn't care.

(2) Yes "only" 42% of total students are now from overseas. 25 years ago it was a small fraction.

(3) Oxford and Cambridge are special cases. Unlike, say, UCL or LSE , they have huge endowments that cushion them, to an extent, from the full impact of the cost of undergraduate teaching not being met. Which is why other Russell Group Unis have been more aggressive in getting out of Home/EU undergraduate teaching. Because they are under much more of a financial imperative to do so.

(4) If you go back 25 years, Oxford was made up of UK undergraduates, with a small graduate community. Today it is transformed, and that process is accelerating. The reason for this is commercial pressure: it loses money on every undergraduate it admits. Instead of being pushed around by the government, it has moved into graduate teaching. Plenty of graduates with first class degrees who want to study there. This has been hidden by the growth in the universities. Abolish fees, return to underfunding by the state, and it will just get out of this loss making part of its business. Other institutions with smaller endowments will do so even more quickly.

For a so-called lawyer, your use of language is somewhat loose...which is a little odd.

UCL?

UCL has 38,900 students, of whom 18,300 are undergraduates and 20,600 are postgraduates. More than 15,500 students come from countries outside the UK. This diversity brings us a unique community of committed, engaged and intellectually curious students.

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/about/who/student-body" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So about 40% from overseas.

I know a fair number of UCL postgrads and have never heard any of them had a ny problems about getting in.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Can you name a "top" university that is completely private, enjoys no government tax breaks or subsidies and has no publically funded scholars on its rolls?

I'm not convinced the "go it alone" option is quite as simple and attractive as you suggest.

Wholly? There are none. But if you look at the LSE, the teaching of UK undergraduates is now a small part of its business. It has got out of it quite deliberately.

They may be somewhat exposed to the "risk" I mention above now they are only bronze rated for Teaching Excellence!

I wouldn't want to be in charge of admissions at LSE this year....

* I'm no fan of the Teaching Excellence Framework btw I just use it to show relying on international student income could be highly risky.

[SpinningHugo]

For a so-called lawyer, your use of language is somewhat loose...which is a little odd.

UCL?

UCL has 38,900 students, of whom 18,300 are undergraduates and 20,600 are postgraduates. More than 15,500 students come from countries outside the UK. This diversity brings us a unique community of committed, engaged and intellectually curious students.

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/about/who/student-body" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So about 40% from overseas.

I know a fair number of UCL postgrads and have never heard any of them had a ny problems about getting in.

Right, and what do you think the % of graduates was 25 years ago at UCL?

And what was the % of foreign students?

And why has there been such a shift away from undergraduate teaching?

UK graduate students are great. You can charge them whatever the market will take and nobody cares where they come from.

[SpinningHugo]

Can you name a "top" university that is completely private, enjoys no government tax breaks or subsidies and has no publically funded scholars on its rolls?

I'm not convinced the "go it alone" option is quite as simple and attractive as you suggest.

Wholly? There are none. But if you look at the LSE, the teaching of UK undergraduates is now a small part of its business. It has got out of it quite deliberately.

They may be somewhat exposed to the "risk" I mention above now they are only bronze rated for Teaching Excellence!

I wouldn't want to be in charge of admissions at LSE this year....

Nobody sensible takes that seriously. It was a tick box exercise.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

They may be somewhat exposed to the "risk" I mention above now they are only bronze rated for Teaching Excellence!

I wouldn't want to be in charge of admissions at LSE this year....

Nobody sensible takes that seriously. It was a tick box exercise.

See my edit * above.

Funny that you invoked the International League Tables earlier but now dismiss the TEF

In any case, LSE will be very worried about it I'm sure.