id argue they are about profit.
1 Like
Iād say it was more about income. There is a definite possibility that some institutions will become bankrupt. In fact there was a select committee discussing this only yesterday.
2 Likes
Seconded!
Thatās a lazy, cynical view.
Universities are not for profit organisations. They are compelled to reinvest any surplus they generate back in to their facilities and operations.
40% of universities are running at a deficit, and 85% report that they are either in deficit, breaking even, or running a reduced surplus.
4 Likes
Massively. I did a Civil Engineering degree. My department had a massive laboratory area. While I was there they had built a 1/6th scale section of a dam design for somewhere in Africa where flash flooding was an issue. It was built using similar materials to those that were available. It was designed to allow over topping and that was being tested in the lab. Crazy experiment recycling 6 tonnes of water a second over the dam model.
3 Likes
A university education is incredibly valuable for a pathway into a good career and young people are right to view it this way. Outside of maybe just one or two degree subjects though that does not mean students should believe themselves to be job ready upon graduation, or even pick their degree based on job preparation. It is not vocational school nor should we try to make it one.
You can have conversations about whether people are being set up to fail with the debt they are required to take on, or the lack of alignment between debt accrued and earning potential in a field, but even the most critical takes in those discussions dont change what University exists to do.
6 Likes
Itās a pity that they did away with the Polytechnics, because that is what they did. Effectively providing a degree level of education but with a vocational bent. The universities that they became still have that to a point, but they just tend to be regarded as second rate universities, which was never their intention.
3 Likes
Wasnāt it exactly funding issues that forced that through. There were, I believe, funding restrictions on Polytechnics that were answered most easily but changing their status.
The applied nature of many courses meant that the career choice was net to made particularly in the minds of recruitment. The university status moved this some what and permitted greater course flexibility O think.
However in many ways your correct. Still thereās some, I know a little about, like Plymouth that improved their status considerably with the change.
1 Like
I think it made the funding switch from local to central government, but as far as I remember, it was largely a snobbery thing, because polytechnics were associated with industry and the working classes, whereas universities were for the elite.
Not all of them were polytechnics anyway. I went to UWIST which was the science and technology college of the University Of Wales (Manchester had the similarly named UMIST). Possibly the polytechnics had to have their degrees monitored by a university. Iām not sure if there were many other differences.
1 Like
These people you ask the question of, have they stated they think division and persecution are the answer or do you just assume that is what they think?
Does the fact you have used inverted commaās when you say ālegitimate concernsā mean you donāt think there are any legitimate concerns to be had?
Because thatās how it comes across, especially when you use the term āignorant racistsā in the same sentence.
Just like in evolution everything trends towards crab, in education everything trends towards the model that allows it to get the funding meaning in the end most universities end up looking relatively homogenous. The university I worked for was one of the largest in the country by the time I left to go and work in industry and by then had all the typical trappings of a big university, but started life as a local commuterās teaching college. The niche mission it was founded to achieve is long since dead
2 Likes
Itās all three, commercial, research and education they are all highly interconnected and a tension within all modern universities.
Many professors/lecturers are highly frustrated with the direction of travel of universities over last 10 years. Today you will see UK universities with campuses in Dubai, Singapore and China. Their goal if I am cynical is money. The knock on consequence is frequently a drop in standards. The same material m taught at both, the content delivery standardised. People are taught to regurgitate facts, rather than critical thinking.
The same money pressures have also driven the huge expansion in international students, because overseas students pay significantly higher fees. At the same time, some universities reduce investment in expensive lab-based disciplines while expanding courses that can accommodate far larger student numbers in big conference halls. Training people in courses they know have no or limited job prospects (Forensic science classic, approx 10,000 people in this field, but universities produce almost as many graduates a year).
You go to serval UK universities, the university not only owns student a accomodation, and a student union like the old days. But hotels, pubs, cafes, supermarkets, buisness parks, catering, sports facilities. An entire ecosystem that externally is not even branded as the university or clear association (I was shocked when I was told the hotel I was staying in and pub I was eating at was owned by the university).
At the other end of the spectrum some universities have world class researchers. Take Imperial. If a few researchers can raise Ā£100m from research funding from say Jeff Bezos, Horizon or government fundings. You obviously want to focus on research instead. Lecturing is more of an inconvenience to what you really want to do. The big risk is losing your star talent that brings in the money, and trends shift quickly (everyone spending money on AI,Quantum and Biotech at the moment).
However research performance drives university ranking and reputation that drives student numbers.
For me itās a balance of all three, many get that balance wrong. A lot of this was driven by governments reducing direct public funding and pushing universities towards a far more market driven model. Universities increasingly had to operate like businesses competing for students, grants, international markets and commercial revenue just to sustain themselves.
4 Likes
Supporters of Wes Streeting expect the health secretary to challenge Keir Starmer for the Labour leadership as soon as tomorrow.
Streeting met the prime minister in 10 Downing Street this morning for less than 20 minutes after days of intense speculation that he is preparing a bid to replace him.
The BBC has spoken to two leading supporters of the health secretary who are confident that he will trigger a leadership election tomorrow, as well as others who say they would be disappointed if Streeting backed away from a challenge at this point.
A supporter of Streeting says that if the health secretary does not challenge Starmer then āweāll have knifed ourselves for nothingā.
Under Labour rules, Streeting would need the support of 81 MPs in order to force a vote of party members. Starmer would automatically be a candidate, without any need to solicit nominations himself. Other candidates would also be able to seek 81 nominations.
Streeting is a nonentity. Labour MPs would have been better served waiting for Burnham to take a seat and then putting their lot behind him.
8 Likes
He knows he wonāt win a contest against Burnham so he is desperate to get the challenge in before he gets a seat. Strong rumour that the MP for Bootle is willing to step aside so Streeting is in a mad panic now to get it done. If the Labour party elect Streeting then I truly despair ā¦
Starmer would be better to announce he will stand down in say 6 months and give Burnham time to get his seat sortedā¦
4 Likes
Starmerās path to survival probably requires seeing off a weak challenge that leaves the Labour base irritated with the infighting, thus deterring someone like Burnham from starting his own now rather than wait for after the next general election.
1 Like
I canāt see that happening , heās already thwarted him once. I donāt get Starmer at all , does he really think that heās gonna lead a Labour revival and re-election ? On what basis ? All the polling is saying that he is the problem and if he remains leader then the Labour Party is looking at a very real existential threat. Wtf is it about this guy that he is able to convince himself otherwise ?
uncalled for.
disagree with Mascot, you get the one post of discussion then the insults start.
and ill just pull the curtains back on your world view for a moment, ānot for profitā and ālack of surplusā dont mean no one making money off the vehicle.
A good comparison from NYT of Starmerās predicament to Bidenās before he belatedly (disastrously) stood down . Free to read ;
2 Likes
I donāt think itās uncalled for at all. The easiest, most cynical view to take of anything is that itās all about profit, and a lot of the time there is merit in that. But even a cursory google on this issue reveals that most university are under financial pressure, half are running at a deficit and the whole enterprise is set up as a not for profit anyway.
I donāt think calling your view lazy and cynical is insulting. Iām having a pop at your opinion not you personally.