IT IS NOT STUDENTS’ JOB TO FIX H.E. CASH CRISIS, SAYS GRADUATE FOG
When did it become automatically – and solely – the responsibility of students to balance the books of our nation’s universities?
Graduate Fog doesn’t usually get involved in the tuition fees debate. This website is about what happens after graduation, not before.
However, the latest news coverage has really got my back up.
Frankly, I’m sick of the universities insisting they are being forced to put up tuition fees because they are facing a funding crisis.
I see no reason why it is automatically – and solely – the students’ responsibility to make the universities’ sums add up, now that the government has removed much of their funding.
University funding is a complex thing – and I’m no expert on it. But whatever happens:
I strongly believe that students should only pay what their degree is worth – and not a penny more.
Already, too many graduates are complaining your degree wasn’t ‘worth’ anywhere near what you paid for it.
And that’s with tuition fees at their existing level.
I’m sorry that universities’ funding has been cut. I know that lands them in a serious pickle.
But it is not students’ job to balance the universities’ books. And it is certainly not right for universities to ask students to pay more than their degree is worth just to help them stay afloat.
Steve Smith, of Universities UK, who claimed universities faced losing £2.5bn-£3bn from their teaching funds, said:
“Aaron Porter [NUS President, who opposes the rise in tuition fees] does not want the university system to go into meltdown but we are at a situation where most political solutions [other than tuition fees] do not solve the funding problem and some of them make it far worse.”
And Dr Wendy Piatt, director general of the Russell Group of research-intensive universities, insisted that graduate contributions were the only fair way to secure the future of the “UK’s world-class higher education system”.
See what I mean? The universities are not looking at this from the students’/graduates’ perspective.
It is all about what the universities need – and who is the softest target to squeeze the money out of.
(Students and your families).
I understand that there is a serious funding problem here. But the universities’ undignified scramble for cash is not a good enough reason to slap a price tag on a degree that is far beyond what they know it is worth to their students.
The universities must find another way.
Either they change the way they operate, to become more efficient (welcome to 2010, folks!) – or they seek funding elsewhere, from those with deeper pockets.
Hm, let’s think… Who else benefits from our highly educated workforce?
Oh yes, business.
Is anybody going to ask them to contribute?
Of course not – because that would upset them, and we can’t have that.
On the other hand, it’s apparently absolutely fine to continue robbing our young people of tens of thousands of pounds for a university education that doesn’t deliver anything close to what it promises…
*How much did you pay for you degree – and was it worth it?
Do you agree that universities should be forced to justify increased tuition fees – or should students simply have to pay whatever unis say they need? What advice would you give to sixth-formers considering spending £7,000 a year on going to uni now?
Hi Tanya,
Interesting article. I definitely agree with what you said about universities not looking at this from the students’/graduates’ perspective. When commenting on funding in the media universities always talk about their research reputation, and they seem to have forgotten that students are paying to go to university so that they can be employable in the future and so that the UK can have a healthy job market and economy not just a reputation for research. What about teaching quality? Class sizes? The value of the degrees? It’s always just about ego. I didn’t pay tuition fees to support the UK’s international standing in terms of research, I paid for tuition! Sadly no-one seems to be concerned with tuition, most lecturers would prefer to spend as few hours teaching (or should I say lecturing as teaching seems to be a dirty word) as possible and as many hours researching. Perhaps in some disciplines this can benefit students, and yes a percentage of students want to go into a research career themselves, but why is no-one asking themselves if research is actually conflicting with the interests of students?
Or asking themselves whether perhaps the money that is available needs to be spent differently, on tuition perhaps. As a languages undergraduate I got about 10-15 hours teaching per week, hardly value for money.
“Not only is UCL now one of the richest universities in the UK, posting a £12 million surplus in its accounts last year on a budget of £713 million, but Professor Grant has also overseen a pay revolution at the top of the college. When he joined in 2003, there were only three members of staff earning more than £200,000 a year, but that has jumped to 18. And 311 staff now earn more than £100,000, double the number of Cambridge and more than any university in Britain.”
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23881460-ucl-chief-paying-a-living-wage-would-cost-pound-1m-a-year-and-8201-and-8201and-i-dont-have-it.do
I think the kind of pay mentioned in this article caused this funding problem. The staff earning more than £100,000 should be taking a pay cut so the money can go on the university. It is not reasonable for universities to charge more for degrees and would put many people of going to university.
@Marcia
I completely agree with your points. Tuition is so often overlooked and undervalued when it is what we, as students, are paying for. We expect high standards of teaching in return for our high tuition fees and instead our money is funding obscure research and building reputations rather than equipping us, as paying customers, with the very skills and knowledge we need in order to be successful as graduates in the job market.
@Grad26
Those figures actually make me incredibly angry. It is nothing short of disgraceful that university staff are earning that sort of money in the current economic climate in which graduates are increasingly struggling to pay off their debts and secure work. Shocking and atrocious. They should be ashamed of themselves.
Something needs to change.
“Hm, let’s think… Who else benefits from our highly educated workforce?
Oh yes, business.
Is anybody going to ask them to contribute?
Of course not — because that would upset them, and we can’t have that.”
When you say contribute – presumably through some system whereby the government take a percentage of any money they make to help pay for merit goods, such as university education. We could call this a short, snappy name…something like a ‘tax system’.
For the record I am entirely opposed to the fee hikes, but your constant business bashing is, at best, naive. Business already contributes a lot to society, including through tax. It is not a question of upsetting them, it is a question of striking a balance between fair taxation and encouraging enterprise which is the engine room of the economy. If many more levies are imposed on companies there will be even fewer jobs available than there are now.
@Marcia
and
I agree! But I’m not an expert on H.E. funding – so perhaps somebody else reading who knows more can enlighten us on whether we have a fair point?
@Grad26
You’re right to highlight this case – it does seem a bit rich (fnar) that these uni bosses are asking you lot to stump up for their monster salaries and lavish lifestyles…?!
@Christopher
I agree! Let’s hope the students can find their voice and make it heard! Aaron Porter (President of the NUS) is doing a fab job I think… It looks unlikely that students will take this lying down – and quite rightly…
@Sean
You’re 100% right that these companies already pay a lot in tax – and in suggesting that I do not have a full policy fleshed out there on exactly how business could contribute to the university funding crisis! But I would still like to see it explored as an option. The unis keep insisting that the money must come from somewhere – but so far I have only seen the powers that be looking at one group – the students.
Although I take your point about businesses being hammered in the recession (and the impact this has on jobs), I feel you are being too soft on big business here. Although small businesses are struggling, big businesses are not – and every day I read the business pages and see various companies continuing to make enormous profits. It is simply not true that all businesses are struggling. If they were, we wouldn’t be seeing all the expensive sponsorship and advertising we’re still seeing – that costs them zillions!
As for my ‘business bashing’, you probably have a point here too – I do tend to think they should do more. Perhaps it’s because of all the work I’ve done exposing unpaid internships with companies that we all know can totally afford to pay their junior staff – they just choose not to.. Or perhaps it’s since reading Malik and Howker’s book Jilted Generation and seeing in black and white how young people’s wages have stalled in recent years… I think our NMW is not enough (why else would we have to continue giving benefits to people who are working?) and yes, I find it pretty disgusting to read in last week’s Evening Standard how the bankers are enjoying spending their £7bn bonuses this winter…
But it’s not just the City – I see so many companies who are guilty of taking advantage of young workers – and failing to invest in you. I also see that they are increasingly asking universities to do their job for them, training you up so that you are ‘work ready’ the second you leave uni. This has never been the case before, and I don’t see why it should be now. They are also asking YOU, the graduates, to pay for your own training, in the form of unpaid internships.
So yes, small businesses are struggling, but the big ones still have very deep pockets. The just have very short arms…! Perhaps we should look at some sort of scheme where companies making over a certain level of profit every year should be asked to contribute towards the education system that allows them to recruit such great graduate candidates each year, who help their company make yet more money…??
As I say, the unis keep saying the money must come from somewhere, so I think it is reasonable to ask that this sort of option be explored further. The assumption that students should be the only ones to make up this shortfall is unfair.
I don’t believe research tends to be funded via tuition fees. Certainly mine isn’t. Most funding comes from Research Councils funded via the tax system. Staff salaries can be split, i.e., 40% teaching time, 60% research. Research time would tend to be financed through bids to external bodies for research grants. This is my experience, anyhow. So, for example, 2/3 of my salary comes from Research Council, 1/3 comes from industry in exchange for a share of rights in findings. None of this comes from tuition, teaching is paid for hourly. I think there is an issue here about what students want from a university. The original intent was research and the production of academically minded individuals. This was viewed as valuable in the market, but that wasn’t the ultimate goal. Times have changed, and I think the value if a split system, like that in France might be worth considering?
@Lauren
Thanks for clarifying a little how this works… So do you have any idea why tuition fees are the amount they are? Given the size of most lecture theatres and the number of hours of teaching that most grads say they receive, where does this figure of £7,000 per year come from?
For that kind of money, students could hire a personal tutor, surely?! But then they wouldn’t get the ‘qualification’ at the end of it.. So, wait a second, are students paying for the teaching, or the qualification? My head hurts. Either way, for 21k (7 grand x 3 years), it doesn’t sound like a bargain to me.
Just a thought, but is anybody else getting the impression that university is a total swizz? ; )
I’d need to look at a university budget to be sure, but the cost of maintaining facilities and non-academic staff costs are probably a lot of it. They do operate as businesses, the big benefit they have is excess demand. If people start rethinking the value of a degree, they’d have to drop prices. I’d not rush to blame research though. A few professors might get silly salaries, but generally pay rates aren’t great given the level of training required, it’s shockingly competitive and research funding has seen massive cuts. I work longer hours now than I did in industry! Don’t get me wrong, I understand how lucky I am to be doing a job I love, but it’s no easy ride and we’re graduates too!
In looking for a budget, I found this article:
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=190219
It highlights research as actually being a main source of income for universities via grants – rather than needing supplementing from tuition fees – along with international student fees. If anything, I’d say investing in research is a way of reducing tuition fees as it is an obvious way to encourage industry and research councils to invest. It can be the “profitmaking” arm of academia; the universities that do manage to break even are big research institutions. One might go so far as to say that professors who earn big money are the equivalent of top businessmen, they are employed with the very explicit intention of bringing in research money that justifies their payment. That is no secret in departments I’ve been in. The follow up article on the US is also worth a read, for means of comparison, and I think that is the way Cameron seems to want to head.
As a sidenote, the issue of international student recruitment as a means of increasing income is very interesting indeed. But enough from me for now!
For many courses teaching undergraduates actually cost more than the fees they bring in. As Lauren says above most of the funding comes from research grants, with a smaller amount from block government funding. The student only pays a small proportion of what the degree truly costs.
The expense comes from the infastructure. Libraries,labs and overheads swallow most of it. Then come capital investments that allow facilities and building work to cope with the expansion in student numbers. Salaries are generally low in academia apart from a few senior people, but even they don’t cost that much as a proportion.
The Browne recommendations are nasty, but are due to chronic underfunding and lack of long term planning. Note some businesses and organizations DO pay, e.g the Nhs, Rolls Royce, but only for some courses, and only a few select students.
As for value for money, no one is forced to go. The fact that people do, and still will, show that people still value the positional advantage a degree brings, even though it has been devalued. That’s why they know they can charge whatever, and people will still pay.
An interesting debate to be sure and wanted to contribute these thoughts…
1. Business does fund graduates but only once they’ve graduated and by that point it’s meritocratic in that the “best” grads get the best jobs with supposedly the best pay. Even the larger businesses (who may be making profits but have challenging stakeholders in “the city” to assuage) are having to do things differently given the current economic climate. I agree with Sean that corporate taxation is high enough and in this country ALREADY high enough to make the UK uncompetitive globally so simply parking this problem at the door of business does not seem like the quick fix
2. In most areas of life (business, sport, entertainment) success depends on results and could higher education not explore making tution fees linked to results? (this would need some serious verification built in) and may also act as an incentive to keep those students who maybe take a more laissez faire approach to their degrees engaged in their courses.
3. I don’t know the exact statistics but I’m sure if you look over the last 30 years university entrance has gone up. Given the current economy and demand for graduates (or lack thereof) is this the moment to question whether too many people are going to university?
4. (and finally I promise) I think it’s unfair to value a degree based on the salary earned in the first job. I graduate around 10 years ago and my first job paid £12K… I am fortunate enough to have climbed the ladder both in terms of position and renumeration in the meantime but it strikes me that the value in my degree has been over the duration of my career not simply in the September in which I graduated. Shouldn’t we start to think of the cost of education in terms similar to capital investment – if you invest £25K in a piece of industrial equipment you spread the cost (balance sheet wise) over the life of the kit so if it lasts 10 years it’s only £2.5K per annum. I seriously think we need to think more long term about the value of education and past the here and now
That’s all (I think!)
@Lauren @Ian
I understand that funding for research from third parties, i.e. research councils etc makes up a significant portion of the funding allocated to research, specifically to paying the salaries of lecturers however I disagree that the tuition fees paid by graduates are not being used to fund research in a significant way. The calls from universities to increase tuition fees have been justified as follows: “Higher education needs to be better funded to maintain the international reputation of British universities.” (Source: http://tinyurl.com/23ycqyr)This, to me, means that the fees are being increased in order to maintain reputations in terms of research output therefore directly linking the money students pay with the money lecturers receive.
The same article, which lays out the case for increasing fees says that: “A university education gives a huge benefit to individuals, opening minds, enabling them to get good jobs, earn more money and enjoy a good and fruitful life. So long as grants and bursaries are in place to support young people with the living costs of gaining a degree, we would argue that graduates earning decent money should be able to pay back the cost of their fees over time.”
I don’t disagree, in principle that this is what we are all going to university for and this should be (and at one point clearly was) reality. However, with the exception of graduates in very vocational and in-demand subjects (I’m thinking NHS related jobs- Dentistry, Medicine, Nursing etc) it is simply NOT REALITY that graduates are “earning more money and enjoying a good and fruitful life”-indeed many are living at home on unemployment benefits unable to secure even jobs paying the minimum wage! It is also not reality that sufficient financial support exists at present (or would exist should fees be increased). Very few of my peers, even at post-graduate level, received any sort of funding apart from their loan. I graduated in 2008 from a humanities degree. The vast majority of the people doing my course (at a Russell Group London university with a very good reputation) were doing so in order to improve their employability and not because they wanted to have a career in academia. I would estimate that less than 10% went on to further study and less than half of that 10% pursued academic further study. And I believe that this is quite representative of the higher education system in the UK as a whole in terms of what people want and what we have been led to believe that we will get from their university education- a good job. And yet, practically all of the graduates from my degree are now working in badly paid clerical roles and would readily admit that there are other members of staff in their individual businesses who are doing the same work they are without a degree, and that they are disappointed with the real impact on their employability and earning potential that 4 years of hard work (including a year studying/working abroad and knowledge of 3-4 languages in the case of my specific degree) and accruing 20k+ of debt has actually had. We need to assess how much the emphasis placed on research is taking away from teaching and equipping graduates with marketable skills.
I believe that there needs to be a major overall of our higher education system. I don’t deny the importance of some academic research-medical and scientific research can change our world for the better and improve our quality of life- however the sort of research conducted by the lecturers I was taught by (which was clearly much more important to them than actually teaching) in obscure medieval poetry or in classic works of literature which have already been studied for many years is at best a personal interest, albeit a passionate one, and has no real impact on our economy or society. I resent being asked to fund that sort of research and that my money is being funneled into pointless academic pursuits and not being used to provide me with a quality education which will improve my employability, skills and knowledge as opposed to preparing me for a career in academia. If there was any doubt as to where the lecturers’ interests lie the following explains it quite clearly:
“The lecturers’ union also urged the government not to introduce two-year degrees, which it feared would reduce the time university staff could spend on research and damage the reputation of British higher education. Hunt said: “Two-year degrees may sound great on paper but are in effect education on the cheap. They would be incredibly teacher-intensive and would stop staff from carrying out vital research and pastoral duties. Our universities are places of learning, not academic sweatshops, and we need to get away from the idea that more can be delivered for less.”” (Source: http://tinyurl.com/325w6g2)
Our universities are indeed places of learning however a more intensive teaching schedule (I had around 12 “contact hours” per week which is woefully inadequate in my opinion) would surely mean we would learn more in less time and why is that a negative thing…ah yes, because lecturers’ don’t actually have any interest in lecturing and are only doing it to fund their own academic pursuits.
I think that we need to create two groups of university students, two pathways: an academic one, and a vocational one. As Lauren says, this already works very well in many countries. The word vocational seems to be very badly perceived in the UK but it shouldn’t be. I’m not suggesting that we all study plumbing instead of history (although most plumbers are probably earning a lot more than the average history graduate and hence enjoying “a good and fruitful life”) but that degrees simply have a more academic or vocational focus from the outset and that this is clearly explained to students who are making their decision on where and what to study. This is actually already the case with most degree subjects however, somewhat ironically, students tend to choose the universities with the best “reputation” (read “highest position in league tables”) as I did, over those (generally newer and less research intensive universities) which provide more vocational training with greater links to industry and greater employability. And yet we are encouraging our young people to study at research intensive “prestigious” universities; all well and good should they want to pursue a career in academia but HOW MANY OF THEM DO?! Very few. Most would rather secure a well remunerated and interesting job after they graduate. The key is to make this distinction clearer- in fact it should be explicit. A-level students should be looking at course options in terms of employability and that is simply not what is happening. It’s the difference between a degree in “Hispanic Studies” (a broad academic overview of the literature, history, languages and culture of Spanish speaking countries designed to help you establish your research interests) and “Applied Spanish language with Translation”, for example, which would focus on improving oral, aural and written competence in the Spanish language, applying it to everyday situations as well as to business, therefore improving fluency and ensuring that the language can be used in all manner of professional situations and linking these skills to a profession, such as translation, providing training in an actual in-demand industry and equipping students with the skills needed to enter into an actual industry linked to their studies when they graduate with knowledge and expertise which are marketable. And I also see no reason why we can’t make our degrees more intensive. I often wondered why I was forced to pay 4 years of tuition fees when I could have easily done the work (albeit with a much more intense and concentrated schedule) in half that time, therefore saving me money and getting me into the workforce quicker. We need to be looking at how other countries are handling this and improving the situation in the UK because the way it’s going at present is very frightening. Denmark, Sweden and Norway don’t charge any tuition fees and yet they have world-class universities, and are among the wealthiest countries in the world, with buoyant economies and an extremely high quality of life… And shock! horror! they offer much more vocational tertiary education choices than the UK does.
I think it is important to look at different disciplines separately. I completely understand the value of research in biomedical sciences and pharmacy and it is obviously beneficial to students, industry and the general public. However, in certain disciplines, for example modern languages, there needs to be a shift away from research and a splitting of the system into research-based and vocational pathways.
It was very sad during my undergraduate degree in modern languages to see students forced to take classes in medieval French literature (taught in English) because this is where the lecturers’ research interests lie, who would then struggle to hold a basic conversation in French because of the lack of language teaching. This seriously hinders language graduates from entering language professions such as translation, interpreting and language teaching and also means that employers would prefer to hire people who weren’t educated in the UK for bilingual positions within their companies because they know that UK educated language graduates language skills are poor. The EU too has openly complained about the poor language skills of UK language graduates and their shortage of native English speaking interpreters.
It is shocking that a whole university language department can exist with a sole focus on pre-twentieth century literature when 95% of students do not want to go on to research in this area, and perhaps some of those 5% who do want a research career would actually prefer to research into something more relevant like linguistics, applied language, terminology or translation. Language departments desperately need money to go to highly trained language teachers and practicing language professionals (who are in touch with industry demands) so that students and industry actually reap some benefit.
In many countries reading the list of available degree courses is like reading a list of professions, e.g. teacher, nurse, doctor, translator, radiographer etc. whereas reading a list of degree courses in the UK is like reading a list of A-level subjects e.g. history, english literature, geography. When will universities wake up and realise that the job market has changed and that traditional subjects have little value anymore and the market needs tangible skills.
Why are “skills” and “vocational” still dirty words and equated with a lower level of education or intelligence than the word “academic”? Medicine is a highly valued degree and it is VOCATIONAL in that it leads to a profession, hence the very low un-enployment and under-employment rates.
I think much of this stems from the dual requirements of universities. For me, being at a university doing cutting edge research has been a career necessity. I understand that it isn’t for others, though. I still believe research can be a profit leader, but a split system whereby more academic work is kept separate could work, particularly given increased participation rates. A reworking of the old poly system, perhaps, without the stigma? One set of schools with vocational aims, another designed to produce academics and researchers? Could be better for everyone in terms of giving a less confused focus.
@All
Loving this debate – why didn’t Lord Browne ask YOU how to fix the uni funding crisis?!
I’ve also found this in the New Statesman, which I think is interesting…
Will sky high tuition fees turn grads into “obedient corporate drones”?
@Lauren
I agree with you on the idea of a split system and think there definitely needs to be more transparency regarding whether or not a given degree course is vocationally focused or focused on preparation for a career in research. However, I think that it would be mad for any split to be on a 50-50 basis, as in reality far from 50% of students want to go on to be academics and researchers, and in any case with more people studying PhDs, gaining a position in academia is becoming increasingly competitive as well
Oh, not 50/50 obviously. Maybe more 90/10, I think it’s more 95/5 in France. Doing a PhD is more like getting a job in a competitive field, really. It’s rarely feasible for people to self fund, plus it doesn’t look great on the CV not to have a scholarship. More and more, however, people take their PhDs into industry research rather than become career academics. Also, because of funding, as you might expect there are (in my experience, not based on stats) far more sciences PhDs. There’s something like 110 in my current, science, department – vast majority funded by industry. It was more like 15 when I was in the social sciences. Arts there are even less, in my experience. Obviously, there’s more market demand for the sciences.
This is also interesting – a poll by The Student Room shows 60% of grads say they wouldn’t have bothered with uni if fees had been £7,000.
There is a false idea that you can somehow separate research from teaching. Teaching, especially at university level, demands research as an evidence base, or you end up with nothing to teach. Research isn’t just the creation of new knowledge but it’s putting together existing knowledge and dissemination -which is what is taught to undergrads and postgrads.
The reason why the academic path originally became attractive for employers was not because uni provided skills or directly usable knowledge. Think of all those empire builders with their classics degree. It was because academia was seen as place where the best and brightest were taught how to think, test and apply. This is the same for arts and science and the medium for that is “research”.
This has been eroded somewhat since, as attending a university became a mass goal, and mixed up cause and effect. But academia still allows some bright people to prosper which is why we have developments like MRI scanners.
Tanya says about businesses “I also see that they are increasingly asking universities to do their job for them, training you up so that you are ‘work ready’ the second you leave uni.” Graduates have paid thousands of pounds to do their degree, taken out a student loan and spent three years doing their degree so I would expect the universities to be training their students. Thousands of pounds was paid to my university, not to businesses so I expect more from my university than from businesses. Any university that say degrees help their graduates to get work (this is what I was told by my university) is making it their job to ensure this is the case which means providing training when necessary.