Nick Clegg ...

[Machiavelli]

... has just said that the new fees 'system' introduced by the Coalition government is "actually cheaper than the old system."

I wonder if students will blithely accept this claim, or critically interrogate it.

 

[Frampler]

It's a terrible system - aptly described yesterday as the worst of both worlds. The students think that the universities have trebled their income, and are thus becoming more argumentative and consumer-like. Many universities are actually losing out financially, because the Government has reduced their central funding by a greater amount than the increase in fee income. And the Government is facing a much higher loss on the loans than it had anticipated.

We were told this policy change was necessary to deal with the deficit, but it's actually led to higher Government borrowing. It's been ideologically driven by the assumption that everything America does, we should do in Britain.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

Without the student vote in Sheffield Hallam it will be to Nasty Nick next May

 

[sten_super]

... has just said that the new fees 'system' introduced by the Coalition government is "actually cheaper than the old system."

I wonder if students will blithely accept this claim, or critically interrogate it.

From memory, it was designed to be (more or less) no more expensive to students, because increased fees were supposedly matched with increased grants (across the student population as a whole). The fact that repayments have been lower than originally anticipated would then mean that what Clegg has said is true, across the whole population, although it won't feel like that for individual students.

It's a terrible system - aptly described yesterday as the worst of both worlds. The students think that the universities have trebled their income, and are thus becoming more argumentative and consumer-like. Many universities are actually losing out financially, because the Government has reduced their central funding by a greater amount than the increase in fee income. And the Government is facing a much higher loss on the loans than it had anticipated.

We were told this policy change was necessary to deal with the deficit, but it's actually led to higher Government borrowing. It's been ideologically driven by the assumption that everything America does, we should do in Britain.

I agree. It was terribly designed and terribly 'advertised'. It should have been a flat (in % terms) graduate tax for a fixed period of working life, but I think that was politically unpalatable because they still wanted the overall message to be that more people should be going to university, rather than making it a cost-based decision.

 

[Machiavelli]

From memory, it was designed to be (more or less) no more expensive to students, because increased fees were supposedly matched with increased grants (across the student population as a whole). The fact that repayments have been lower than originally anticipated would then mean that what Clegg has said is true, across the whole population, although it won't feel like that for individual students.

Whatever it was designed to be, its net result is to increase average annual tuition fees from c£3k to c£8.5k. So, just like Clegg's 'pledge' to end tuition fees (end, that is, not maintain at the then extant level), the claim he has uttered today is utter tosh.

 

[sten_super]

Whatever it was designed to be, its net result is to increase average annual tuition fees from c£3k to c£8.5k. So, just like Clegg's 'pledge' to end tuition fees (end, that is, not maintain at the then extant level), the claim he has utter today is utter tosh.

I agree that he's factually wrong, but it's really because of semantics. What he should have said was something akin to 'the average student will repay less, in real terms'. A flat tax would have made that more obvious - couching it still as 'student debt' makes the whole thing horribly complicated.

 

[Peteinblack]

Clegg is talking bollocks (what's new?).

http://www.theguardian.com/educatio...loans-must-change-higher-education-commission

I always supported the LD's original policy that graduates would pay an extra 1% income tax - that meant that they would not actually start adult life with £40-60,000 actual debt, which in turn means that they often can't afford to buy a house and/or start a family until they are in the late 30s or 40s; unless, of course, Tarquin and Francesca have a rich mummy and daddy who'll pay off their debts for them as a 21st birthday present (or a reward for passing their degree).

Also, instead of raising academic standards (as NuLab & Tories dishonestly or ignorantly claim), fees are leading to grade inflation as universities compete to say 'study here, and you've more chance of getting a 2.1 or 1st in return for your £9,000.'

Also, if you don't give students a 2.1 or 1st (even though they might not deserve it), they will often give you a bad rating in their end of term 'satisfaction survey' or the National Student Survey (NSS), whose results are then published as league tables.

And academics who want to fail or kick out weak or lazy students are over-ruled by university accountants and 'business managers' who say 'we can't afford to kick them out, because we'll lose £X,000 pound in fees - and that might mean we can't afford to carry on employing you'.

The whole system is corrupt - but, hey, that's what happens when you treat education (or hospitals) as businesses - as if they are simply selling dog food or bog rolls.

 

[Peteinblack]

It's a terrible system - aptly described yesterday as the worst of both worlds. The students think that the universities have trebled their income, and are thus becoming more argumentative and consumer-like. Many universities are actually losing out financially, because the Government has reduced their central funding by a greater amount than the increase in fee income. And the Government is facing a much higher loss on the loans than it had anticipated.

We were told this policy change was necessary to deal with the deficit, but it's actually led to higher Government borrowing. It's been ideologically driven by the assumption that everything America does, we should do in Britain.

As an academic myself, I can say that your analysis is absolutely spot-on 100%.

 

[Machiavelli]

Clegg is talking bollocks (what's new?).

http://www.theguardian.com/educatio...loans-must-change-higher-education-commission

I always supported the LD's original policy that graduates would pay an extra 1% income tax - that meant that they would not actually start adult life with £40-60,000 actual debt, which in turn means that they often can't afford to buy a house and/or start a family until they are in the late 30s or 40s; unless, of course, Tarquin and Francesca have a rich mummy and daddy who'll pay off their debts for them as a 21st birthday present (or a reward for passing their degree).

Also, instead of raising academic standards (as NuLab & Tories dishonestly or ignorantly claim), fees are leading to grade inflation as universities compete to say 'study here, and you've more chance of getting a 2.1 or 1st in return for your £9,000.'

Also, if you don't give students a 2.1 or 1st (even though they might not deserve it), they will often give you a bad rating in their end of term 'satisfaction survey' or the National Student Survey (NSS), whose results are then published as league tables.

And academics who want to fail or kick out weak or lazy students are over-ruled by university accountants and 'business managers' who say 'we can't afford to kick them out, because we'll lose £X,000 pound in fees - and that might mean we can't afford to carry on employing you'.

The whole system is corrupt - but, hey, that's what happens when you treat education (or hospitals) as businesses - as if they are simply selling dog food or bog rolls.

Agree with most of this, although:
-- NSS is collated prior to the end of degrees
-- it's up to academics to ensure that grades aren't artificially inflated to attract 'new customers', and that academic standards are rigorously enforced, and to publicise any attempt by management that might compromise this position. (I suspect you wouldn't disagree with this.)

 

[mac04]

It is true to say that an individuals monthly loan repayments will be lower under the new system when they start repaying, but they are likely to have to repay more over a longer period.

 

[Peteinblack]

Agree with most of this, although:
-- NSS is collated prior to the end of degrees - but after essays and assignments have been marked!
-- it's up to academics to ensure that grades aren't artificially inflated to attract 'new customers', and that academic standards are rigorously enforced, and to publicise any attempt by management that might compromise this position. (I suspect you wouldn't disagree with this.)

- As long as you don't mind losing your job - HR and the legal team will accuse you of 'bringing the university into dispute' (ironic, I know), which is a sackable offence. Do not underestimate the climate of fear and management bullying in universities these days, as academics daren't speak out.

Also, if you complain that your students are lazy or thick, management will say that you're obviously a crap lecturer who can't motivate them, so you'll be out of a job anyway.

 

[beorhthelm]

The whole system is corrupt - but, hey, that's what happens when you treat education (or hospitals) as businesses - as if they are simply selling dog food or bog rolls.

though there is a good argument, not often heard, that if you are going to treat education as a business, then jolly well do so. provide products and services that meet the demands and price points of the customer. i feel that universities have assumed they have a captive audience and not changed anything much from how it used to be. there's far too little differentiation on price, and a lack of differentiation on product. for example why are universities not offering 2 year degrees? we've just ended up making the system worse and to compensate, made it worse.

 

[Rodney Thomas]

It's a terrible system - aptly described yesterday as the worst of both worlds. The students think that the universities have trebled their income, and are thus becoming more argumentative and consumer-like. Many universities are actually losing out financially, because the Government has reduced their central funding by a greater amount than the increase in fee income. And the Government is facing a much higher loss on the loans than it had anticipated.

We were told this policy change was necessary to deal with the deficit, but it's actually led to higher Government borrowing. It's been ideologically driven by the assumption that everything America does, we should do in Britain.

Agree with this.

Additionally, students pre-coalition change are play interest on their loans at around the same level as standard interest rates currently. However students post change are paying around 6%. This means that once these students finish uni (and throughout uni on what they have borrowed up to tat point) they'll e play 6% interest on c£50,000. Now thats a lot of money, especially if the Tories have their way and privatise the Student Loans Company which could lead to these debts effecting peoples credit rating pretty servery in the future.

 

[Goldstone1976]

Also, instead of raising academic standards (as NuLab & Tories dishonestly or ignorantly claim), fees are leading to grade inflation as universities compete to say 'study here, and you've more chance of getting a 2.1 or 1st in return for your £9,000.'

Also, if you don't give students a 2.1 or 1st (even though they might not deserve it), they will often give you a bad rating in their end of term 'satisfaction survey' or the National Student Survey (NSS), whose results are then published as league tables.

Absolutely agree with both points. My companies employ about 75 new STEM graduates each year - it is crystal clear that, in the main, there has been grade inflation of about 1 degree class over the last 10-12 years - a candidate who used to get a 2:1 now gets a first; except at the very academic universities, where grade inflation is about half a class over the same period.

Consequence for new graduates now?

1) We will only offer interviews to new graduates of c90% of UK universities if they have a first. Those applying from the other 10% we will consider with a 2:1 or above. The 90% figure is headed to 95+% within 5 years if the situation doesn't change.

2) As from last year, all candidates who pass the first round interview have to sit a 3 hour exam in their subject area as their second interview. We pitch this exam at final year undergraduate level from the early 90s in terms of academic difficulty. Results from this exam inform our decision about which universities we will require a first from in the following year's intake.

It is true that that the type of work the companies do tend to require really smart people, but we never had to do these things until the last few years.

The whole thing is a cock up of monumental proportions.

 

[Gwylan]

though there is a good argument, not often heard, that if you are going to treat education as a business, then jolly well do so. provide products and services that meet the demands and price points of the customer. i feel that universities have assumed they have a captive audience and not changed anything much from how it used to be. there's far too little differentiation on price, and a lack of differentiation on product. for example why are universities not offering 2 year degrees? we've just ended up making the system worse and to compensate, made it worse.

But the question is: what are the demands of the customer (ie student). If you have two universities, both charging the same, but one that marks rigorously so all the best get a first and the very, very good get a 2.1: the other university passes everyone, hands out 2.1s like sweeties and gives a quarter of the students a 1st - which one is the most attractive from a student point of view: it's clearly going to be the second one. As Goldstone points out, this is clearly not the most attractive from an employer's position, but as they're not the customer, that doesn't matter.

I agree with your point of lack of differentiation though: why are there not two-year degrees or part-time ones. Why not a combination of MOOCs and tutorials? When every aspect of the workplace is going through a massive change; why are we still running universities as we did in mediaeval times?

 

[Peteinblack]

Absolutely agree with both points. My companies employ about 75 new STEM graduates each year - it is crystal clear that, in the main, there has been grade inflation of about 1 degree class over the last 10-12 years - a candidate who used to get a 2:1 now gets a first; except at the very academic universities, where grade inflation is about half a class over the same period.

Consequence for new graduates now?

1) We will only offer interviews to new graduates of c90% of UK universities if they have a first. Those applying from the other 10% we will consider with a 2:1 or above. The 90% figure is headed to 95+% within 5 years if the situation doesn't change.

2) As from last year, all candidates who pass the first round interview have to sit a 3 hour exam in their subject area as their second interview. We pitch this exam at final year undergraduate level from the early 90s in terms of academic difficulty. Results from this exam inform our decision about which universities we will require a first from in the following year's intake.

It is true that that the type of work the companies do tend to require really smart people, but we never had to do these things until the last few years.

The whole thing is a cock up of monumental proportions.

I can believe this, sadly; all I would ask is that you don't blame academics themselves - we care genuinely about the subjects we teach, and want to maintain academic standards - it is politicians and university managers who are forcing this dumbing down (in response to 'the market',commercial pressures and an obsession with league tables), and if academics speak out or resist - well, it is our careers which suffer.

 

[Goldstone1976]

I can believe this, sadly; all I would ask is that you don't blame academics themselves - we care genuinely about the subjects we teach, and want to maintain academic standards - it is politicians and university managers who are forcing this dumbing down (in response to 'the market',commercial pressures and an obsession with league tables), and if academics speak out or resist - well, it is our careers which suffer.

I don't blame academics. I didn't respond to the similar points you made in the post I took quotes from because I just don't have enough personal knowledge to comment. However, I can well believe that what you say is true.

Of course, it's not just at the tertiary level that grade inflation is a major problem, it's in secondary education too. Indeed, one could easily argue that the current problems at tertiary level stem from decisions made about secondary education 20 odd years ago. One simple example: To read Maths at Bristol in 2015 the guideline "A" level requirement is A*AA; last year it was AAA; in 1981 it was CCD. Bristol has not become a materially "better" university than it was in 1981 - it has always been a very "good" uni; nor have students become that much brighter.

 

[Gwylan]

To read Maths at Bristol in 2015 the guideline "A" level requirement is A*AA; last year it was AAA; in 1981 it was CCD. Bristol has not become a materially "better" university than it was in 1981 - it has always been a very "good" uni; nor have students become that much brighter.

I got my maths A level in the mid-70s, it was pretty intense and involved a lot of calculus. I discovered from my nephew, who's reading maths at uni, that he didn't do any calculus until he got to uni - that's a hell of a big change.

 

[Southwest Seagull]

Without the student vote in Sheffield Hallam it will be to Nasty Nick next May

Students don't really live in Sheffield Hallam.