[Closed] University places for sale

Daily mash on the case!

[url= http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/rich-to-piss-money-away-on-degrees-for-idiot-spawn-201105103791/ ]Idiot spawn ![/url]

do you have an opinion on foreign students paying to attend UK universities?

I was equally apoplectic when i heard it!

Its a logical progression I'm afraid. Its fairly obvious that education as a right rather than a privilege is over.

Soon it'll be back to the 'rightful order' where Gideon, Dave, Boris and their Bullingdon chums go to Oxbridge ready to take their place ruling over the uneducated Serfs

Pass the petrol bombs please

Stoner: yes.

I'm very annoyed that my daughter will count as a foreigner and can't get her fees paid if she goes to a Scottish university 👿

Soon it'll be back to the 'rightful order' where Gideon, Dave, Boris and their Bullingdon chums go to Oxbridge ready to take their place ruling over the uneducated Serfs

Sorry, I must have missed a step. When was it ever any different ?

I'm very annoyed that my daughter will count as a foreigner and can't get her fees paid if she goes to a Scottish university

dont understand ❓

do you have an opinion on foreign students paying to attend UK universities?

We supported a UK university over the last year for 2 groups to do their final year project so 8 students in all. 2 of these were UK based whilst the rest were foreign. The tutor was telling us that changes in UK visa's were likely to kill a lot of foreign student coming over (non-EU) as they would no longer have a 2 year VISA to stay and work after they have completed their cause and therefore lose the benefit of studying in the UK in any case.

Having a multi-cultural and diverse education at University should help people integrate better within jobs as well in my opinion but seemed to have the opposite effect in this case as one group had a serious religious divide meaning one student didn't even turn up towards the end of the year.

When was it ever any different ?

Well... I got a university education* and it didn't cost me tens of thousands of pounds. And I'm a proper working class prole

*I know, I know - what a waste

Stoner:

I was messing with your head, man.

You see I was changing the perspective, in that I'm annoyed that my English daughter would have to pay tuition fees if she were to attend a University in Scotland, as she is 'non-Scottish' and so effectively 'foreign' for that intent and purpose.

HTH 😉

Unlucky. Probably blown her chance of marrying a prince 😉

Anyway, university "profitability" goes someway to fund access funding and hardship funds. Its also a function explicit in the new university fee structure for which the highest fees can only be charged after access funding commitments have been approvied.

I see no issue with fleecing both rich johnny-foreigners and rich british parents to improve both access and the education quality of the rest of the students.

I see no issue with fleecing both rich johnny-foreigners and rich british parents to improve both access and the education quality of the rest of the students

Me neither, I'd do it - in the case of rich Brits - via a much higher income tax bracket,

then they all chip in 🙂

Well... I got a university education* and it didn't cost me tens of thousands of pounds. And I'm a proper working class prole

Yeah well that's part of the problem right there. They throw us a few bones and it looks like the problems are solved. So a few working people got to be educated, still didn't alter the fact that we have been, are and probably always will be, ruled by an effete, public school educated elite.

So whats wrong with paying for training, get a company to sponsor you , then if youre a workshy idiot, you soon get found out instead of holding people back who really want to learn, and enjoy their training.

Its also a good way of culling toptally pointless night class quality courses.

ef·fete? ?/??fit/ Show Spelled
[ih-feet] Show IPA

–adjective
1. lacking in wholesome vigor; degenerate; decadent: an effete, overrefined society.
2. exhausted of vigor or energy; worn out: an effete political force.
3. unable to produce; sterile.

[img] [/img]

Whatever he may be, he's not effete... 😉

I see no issue with fleecing both rich johnny-foreigners and rich british parents to improve both access and the education quality of the rest of the students.

That's all well and good, but given that universities must be operating at full capacity based on the number of students (who are expected to get the necessary grades) who get turned away, surely this will put a squeeze on the number of less well off kids getting offered a place? This 'extra income' from the rich will not result in bigger lecture theatres and major recruitment drives for more lecturers in the near future.

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-13150596 ]Something similar was suggested for Scotland a wee while back.[/url]

A fair point Stoner. I feel sure that Oxford and Cambridge will soon be using their enhanced funds to trawl the council estates of the country offering scholarships to promising tracksuit-bedecked urchins.

Its all in line with both theirs, and the Tory party's, relentless pursuit of a true meritocracy. God bless 'em all

*doffs cap*

That's all well and good, but given that universities must be operating at full capacity based on the number of students (who are expected to get the necessary grades) who get turned away

No. They are running at full capacity for the level of funding they get.

And you are grouping all courses at all universities in that statement. Oversubscribed courses could be widened with the additional income. An undersubscribed one is hardly likely to attract private "investment" in someone's education is it? What would be the attraction?

Hate to pierce your sarcasm binners, but the ability of oxbridge to provide access funding is diretly linked to their income from grants, fees and investment income. There's a number of access funds and hardship funds at both college and university level at cambridge which are used to attract those that have ability but not the financial conviction to commit to the costs of university.

http://www.cam.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/finance/support.html

table text doesnt paste well, but look at second half of table.

So this is flogging places, that would have gone to foreign students, to UK students, if they want to pay for the same as the foreign students would have had to pay.

Because they can't take places away from foreign students and let UK students have them via student loans to cover fees (which are too high, but that's another issue) because they can't make the numbers work.

Can't see the problem myself, that's why I'm not getting hot and bothered about it.

For a lot of courses (exact quantity unknown, but certainly applies to healthcare) the government forecast however many physios, nurses and whatever will be needed in 3 or 4 years and fund that many places. If they open up additional self supported places then there are going to be a lot more students finishing their courses and not able to get a job for love nor money. I'm also pretty sure that those people who are able to pay their own way through uni without government support are going to benefit from nepotism more than those who can.

University education can only be a right when it's for an elite.

As soon as 50% of the population go to university it can't be free. And to make things worse you need a degree for every conceivable job!

I'm sure there will be a revolution. The best and the brightest will skip university and the best and the brightest companies will pick up on this and recruit straight from school. Leaving the gormless to do degrees.

How about rich kids pay the fee but then they have to have a coin flip with a kid that can't afford to go, the winner gets the place?

I think 50% is arbitrary.

Personally I think it should be closer to 20% of school leavers, with reinstatement of maintenance grants, no fees, but a premium tax rate of, say +2-5% at the higher tax band for earnings over the rest of their life in the UK.

Not sure how to deal with emmigration though.

Anyway, thats another thread.

Headfirst - presumably if Scotland goes for independence she'll then be able to attend a Scottish university to avoid the fees?

I see no issue with fleecing both rich johnny-foreigners and rich british parents to improve both access and the education quality of the rest of the students.

In essence, I don't have a problem with those who can afford it paying their way.

But, these things never exist in isolation - protecting funding for those who can't afford it won't happen or will, as we've seen, be eroded; applying strict entry requirements based on academic attainment won't happen, because those who can afford it will have been given better opportunity to achieve higher A Level grades than others.

I thought Justin Webb did a pretty poor job this morning.

How about rich kids pay the fee but then they have to have a coin flip with a kid that can't afford to go, the winner gets the place?

the truly wealthy would keep tossing the coin... meaning at its extension, once again the wealthiest are in a position to [i]always[/i] "win". So you dont really solve the moral question.

yes lets fleece them by making them pay higher taxes so that every citizen can have the same opportunities as their children are afforded.

Stoner - I'd think the figures quoted on the site would still fail to make a dent in the full cost of an Oxbridge education. You'd still have to have some serious financial clout behind you

I'm sorry but it just reaks of tokenism

And if a lot of thick but wealthy Tabbathas and Hugos fill up Britain's decent universities, the academic staff will continue to loathe them as much as they already do.

Which is only right and proper.

yes lets fleece them by making them pay higher taxes so that every citizen can have the same opportunities as their children are afforded.

rubbish idea. Since no tax is hypothecated, all that extra income would be wasted on public sector employee wages rather than directed at university access 😉

binners - you're kidding?

there's over £15k available there!

yeah, and when the thick Rupert come out of Oxbridge, daddy will just buy him an internship at some top financial house

The whole ****ing system is rotten to the core

Anyone who votes Tory, lives North of the home counties and/or isn't super rich needs to stop reading the Daily Mail and think if the people they are electing really have even the slightest interest in the well being of them or their families, over and above being worker drones.

Britain has the biggest gap between rich and poor in Europe.
The gap is still increasing and nothing is really being done to stop it, because it is seen as desirable by both Conservatives and sadly by Labour, to their shame.

Selling the places at the best universities to the rich is just another part of that.

People have fought so many many decades, indeed longer for social progress and fairness... and now we have this stuff being resurected.
I despair.

We had to decide if educating our population was a business like any other or something more profoundly important, of intrinsic importance to our society and future. Well, we decided all right. And I think we are about to decide in the same direction regarding the health service. Trouble is, I am not sure now how to vote to express displeasure in this trend given that all the main parties are centre right. Or does this mean I am simply wrong and/or naive and that we should let Lord Sugar run the UK PLC?

When I heard this on the news this morning any final lingering hopes that this current Tory administration actually represented ordinary right of centre people were blown completely away. Couple that with Lib Dem mass suicide attempt it rally only leaves us with Labour and we all know where that left us (with a Tory government 👿 ).

I dont quite see why all the faux anger.

Universities are not state owned. Why can't they sell a service privately?
It doesn't reduce the funding capacity from the state, nor does it restrict the number of state funded places, in fact the opposite, it widens access funds.

Sounds more like the ugly politics of envy really. Cut a nose to spite a face?

sorry - i completely fail to see anything unfair about this.

hang on, i'm still thinking...

a uni can offer more spaces if there's enough money to cover the costs, but the money available through the state-funding + fees isn't enough to cover these costs.

so if you want one of the extra spaces, it's gonna cost you.

hmm, there's something whiffy about it, but i can't quite put my finger on it.

more thinking required...

Sounds more like the ugly politics of envy really

That's right, we all really long to be just like this load of inbred half-wits

[img] [/img]

red crosss behind my firewall, but Im going out ona limb to make a brave stab and guess you've posted a pic of the bullingdon lot to make some kind of half-arsed class-based justification for not liking universities charging unsubsidised fees for places?

dont quite see why all the faux anger.

Universities are not state owned. Why can't they sell a service privately?
It doesn't reduce the funding capacity from the state, nor does it restrict the number of state funded places, in fact the opposite, it widens access funds.

That would be all well and good if the tax payer was not subsidising their existence. As soon as treasury money is paid to them they have a social responsibility.

As soon as treasury money is paid to them they have a social responsibility.

bravo.

And just how does adding privately paid for places effect that?
The tax payers subsidises the student's education, not the university's existence. The argument might be moot to you, but it's relevant. If the taxpayer ceased to fund the university, whilst some may disappear, others would still "exist".

And just how does adding privately paid for places effect that?

It does not as long as it can be shown that they are paying 100% of the cost of their education and it is in no way subsidised. If that is the case then fine.

The problem is the fact the mixed funding model makes it very difficult to ensure this.

The problem is the fact the mixed funding model makes it very difficult to ensure this.

Works fine with overseas students paying their way, doesn't it?

Or are overseas students not teh inbred toffs, innit?

Stoner - Affect/Effect. 0/10. Very poor. 😉

given the way that universities are funded on elligable enrollment numbers then you can rest assured that your tax payers pound is safe.

Stoner - Affect/Effect. 0/10. Very poor.

and I havent got the foggiest how to spell "eligable" either. Damn this expensive tax payer funded education! damn it to hell!

given the way that universities are funded on elligable enrollment numbers then you can rest assured that your tax payers pound is safe.

If that's the case then and if it actually provides spaces for less well off students then its got to be a good thing, is this the case ? Genuine question as you seem to know about the funding model.

if you look at the outline of the proposals in, say, this AFP report*, (ignore the political knee-jerk from the political knee-jerk Porter) you can see that not only is the idea supposed to INCREASE state funded places (by basically taking a rich kid out of the state funded access route) but as I said before, private fees are set at a "profitable" level, not a subsistence level so surpluses get recycled into the education function or the access funding function of the university (as universities cant run at a profit - charities usually)

* http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iI70KnIUPLYWLP_KPHkGCKXYQ77g?docId=CNG.305f12f161c9db40e901553d95ae9a35.4f1

Universities minister David Willetts said the idea was being considered as a way of freeing up publicly-subsidised university places for poorer students.

Willetts said the plans would allow companies or charities to sponsor additional places and insisted it would have to meet the government's objectives of improving social mobility

I don't get the fuss about the divide between rich and poor. There always has and always will be this divide. Why should the gap be closed? If people don't like being poor, why don't they do something about it and become rich?

If people don't like being poor, why don't they do something about it and become rich?

good fishing.
Now where's the socialists?
Ive got my biscuits...

I don't mind being poor, becoming rich looks like hard work

red crosss behind my firewall, but Im going out ona limb to make a brave stab and guess you've posted a pic of the bullingdon lot

No you were wrong, it appears to be a photo of auditions for Duran Duran or similar 80's New Romantic outfit.

easy mistake to make.

The key point is that when they say 'students have to meet entry requirements', what on earth do they mean.

For the top university courses, you have way too many people applying, and all of them will be predicted top grades.

Currently universities try and filter them out based out what ability to study they think people might have. To change it so that some places are instead filtered based purely on ability to pay would still seem somewhat unfair.

In a way though it is just entrenching officially the existing system where if you go to a fancy school, it is much easier to get the a level grades to get into a fancy university. I'm sure I remember from when I was at Cambridge, there was some hoo hah about this, when they discovered that once they got to Cambridge, there was a very big difference between the attainment of state and private pupils, the difference in average grades was almost the difference between a middle II:I and a medium II:II.

I guess it is a bit shocking because in the past governments used to pretend that they were in favour of making universities more meritocratic, rather than blatantly wanting to increase the proportion of their rich kids at them.

Feeeeel the "market" forrrccceeeee ... 😆

Got the grades, got the money, rich parents, you're in.

Got the grades, no money, poor parents, got the loans, you're in.

Got the grades, no money, got scholarship, you're in too.

Got the grades, no money, got no loans, poor parents, be a slave.

Got poor grades, no money, got no loans, poor parents, blame self & the parents.

Many poor foreign students I used to know in the past funded their education privately with their parents sacrificing/gambling everything just for their education. i.e. selling their own house etc or borrowed from relatives, so why can't the British parents do so for their kids hhmmmm? Do they expect to breed and let the society take care of their kids education? Or are they relinquishing the responsibility of parenthood to the society?

🙄

Got the grades, got the money, rich parents, you're in.

Got the grades, no money, poor parents, got the loans, you're in.

.....

That's a load of rubbish, because many high level university courses, are massively oversubscribed, and all the applicants will have the grades to get in, it'd be more like:

[b]Now:
[/b]
Got the grades - 10% chance of getting in.

[b]Future[/b]
Got the grades and poor - current system - 10% chance of getting in
Got the grades and rich - 100% chance of getting in

How can that be fair?

do you have an opinion on foreign students paying to attend UK universities?

Indeed. And on my course, exclusively awarded all the 1st class degrees, when clearly some of them did not deserve it, while some of the British students did.

I don't get the fuss about the divide between rich and poor.

We will when the disaffected poor burn our society to the ground.

Education is, arguably because there are exceptions, the hope for prosperity for young people who don't have the advantage of family money. Don't destroy their hopes and waste their talents, by letting rich people buy them out of an education.

If people don't like being poor, why don't they do something about it and become rich?

Well they could move house to a good "state" school's catchment area. They could go to a private school, or they could get private lessons for their children. And then pack them off to university.

All of which costs money they don't have.

There simply has to be a level playing field when it comes to education, privilege and money must not be allowed carry favour over those who don't have it.

Of course those who support what's currently happening don't want the competition.

Don't destroy their hopes and waste their talents, by letting rich people buy them out of an education.

jeez, and just where does the the risk of "buying people out of education" come in?

Less of the knee-jerk phobia to markets in education and a little more thought into the genuine impact of reducing subsidised place blocking eh?

Less of the knee-jerk phobia to markets in education and a little more thought into the genuine impact of reducing subsidised place blocking eh?

Unfortunately the type of market you are referring to is going to price out many people.

joemarshall - Member

That's a load of rubbish, because many high level university courses, are massively oversubscribed, and all the applicants will have the grades to get in, it'd be more like:

Now:
Got the grades - 10% chance of getting in.

Future
Got the grades and poor - current system - 10% chance of getting in
Got the grades and rich - 100% chance of getting in

How can that be fair?

If everyone got the grades like you and you are rejected then you need to find out the reason exactly or perhaps find out how they select candidates before applying.

Crikey. If the course is over subscribed then why still apply for that? Doesn't that mean more competition for your future career prospect? i.e. more people with the same degree as you?

I am sorry but choose another course or other Univs that will accept you even if it means taking one year out and reapplying again.

🙄

the massive hit that universities are taking directly and indirectly from the spending cuts have already led to big layoffs of staff and more on the way

which is why it was innevitable that virtually all unis would be pricing their courses at the 9grand a year maximum, despite the platitudes of the condems that only a few courses would be the full whack

the reduction of student visas is also a huge blow to the universities, who were previously able to rake in the cash on foreign students

its blatantly the case that the best courses will be targeted by the well off and in certain careers the right course at the right uni really does mean the best jobs (i work with a lot of oxbridge graduates and the doors it opens for them is impressive/shocking)

this move will hinder social mobility, simply because the unis will find a way to squeeze in more high fee paying rich kids at the expense of the plebs, they need the money desperately

if it wasnt for the uber privileged upbringing of the condem front bench id think this would never happen (so in this respect the bullingdon photo is relevant)
if not for that id think this whole thing was a set-up by the torries so that the limp dems can come in and act all tough and negotiate this away, thus making them look not quite as useless, dishonest and incompetent than they currently do on universities

the sad thing is as cameron pointed out the intake of black children at oxford is incredibly low, and it speaks about a large chunk of the population (i mean poor not just black) that missed out entirely on the labour university boom

social innequality starts well before uni, poorer kids underperforming pretty much from their first day at school

which is why the the condem plan to axe sure start was so clearly wrong

this is yet another boot in the nuts for the poor folk from a 'cabinet of millionaires'

Honestly the only issue I'd have with it is that if it puts less able students into university that'll divert teaching time away from more able students- much like putting a low-standard english speaker into a regular class (which in turn is my only objection to foreign students)

People are talking of oversubscription but the university I work at is artificially capped by the limited number of places that are funded. This leads to some absolute madness- within the last couple of years the university's actually ended up teaching some students for free as they've recklessly offered a place to a UK student and gone over quota. We've gone from growing to shrinking entirely because of this. Several courses despite being oversubscribed are going to make the university a loss for the forseeable future because the budgeting's based on a higher number of students than they're now allowed to recruit.

So we compensate, by bringing in more fees-payers. And then you get some more madness, which is that an EU student gets their fees paid by SAAS and goes into the same quota as home students, whereas english students don't. I'm a europhile but it's obviously screwed that we're paying for german students but not english, you don't need to be a daily mail reader to think there's an issue here.

So we go further afield- middle east and china largely. Which brings with it huge visa issues, language issues, cultural issues... We do insist on a decent IELTS standard but the system's not hard to abuse, we've had students turn up with an IELTS or equivalent of 6.5 who can't read a word of english. And visas and funding guarantees are a blimmin nightmare, and getting worse.

It's pretty messed up in all honesty. And one solution is more fees-paying students, done right and in small volumes it could fund an increase in regular places. I've my doubts about how well it'd actually be run- once you've taken £20000 from a student, there's a big economic incentive to keep them on even if they're not up to scratch obviously.

Or such is my opinion based on my understanding of the current university economy 😉 Which to be fair is based mostly on a range of local unis and may not be nationally representative. But if you're worried that money can buy an education, frankly that ship's sailed.

Will entrance exam, in addition to good A-level grades, be the way forward? This way everyone will have equal chance to gain entry to University if they consider themselves worthy. ❓ Which means the rich cannot buy their way around and the poor, with loans, should have a fair chance if they are capable.

Will entrance exam, in addition to good A-level grades, be the way forward? This way everyone will have equal chance to gain entry to University if they consider themselves worthy. Which means the rich cannot buy their way around

Entrance exams have been shown to make matters worse - a private school is far, far better placed to tutor pupils for such an exam. Hence why the college I went to had a higher than average proportion of state school pupils on my course (a course for which it was one of only a handful not to use entrance exams). Potential for private tuition improving things is yet another way for the rich to buy their way around (my state school teachers actually offered to tutor me for free in their own time, but I was too lazy to want to take on extra work 😉 ).

Having removed the barrier to entry that was A-level grades, demand for places outsripped supply which has allowed the raising of prices to achieve a new economic equilibrium.

France hands out Bacs with even greater ease than British students now get four A*s but has alternative non-financial strategies to deal with excess demand. The main one being lots of first year places followed by radical culling. On some courses 250 students start but only 40 graduate. It has the advantage of being a true méritocratie but generates more people who feel a failure than a success.

There aren't many jobs for 16 to 18 year olds in Britain's post-indusrial ecomonmy so kids end up in the university entrance system by default. Declining A-level difficulty means they have the grades so financial barriers to entry have been chosen as the means to limit numbers. There are fairer ways of doing it, harder A-levels or first year culling for example.

With higher fees comes increased use of access funds to subsidise places for poorer students. That means some students will be paying less than half that of their peers, this could create issues if not handled correctly. Introducing another tier of fees is going to exacerbate the issue, particularly if they go to arrogant rich kids.

Fortunately Willets has done a massive u-turn, and embarrassed himself at the same time by suggesting charities are one group who'll fork out thousands to pay for places. That makes no sense, unless the charities he has in mind are private schools.

is be very dubious of a u-turn by willets all I saw was man of the people Cameron racking up the pr points after the lies we were fed about only a few unis charging 9 grand
by the time its gone thru the house we will be too busy whinging about the next big cut
the proposals have not been removed from willets white paper