Is fair that top unis accept internation students over uk students?

Thanks. European Social and Political Studies

I am an international student (American), and I have been accepted at four british universities so far: University of St. Andrews, SOAS, University of Edinburgh, and University College London.

Does this make you mad?

Also, consider the fact that the more international students, the more money is available to the university; hence more money can be spent on departments or in the forms of bursaries etc...

Top universities want the best students, be they from the UK or elsewhere.

Im sorry but you are missing the point. Firstly, The UCL course that I was alluding to (economics and something cant quite remember; joint honours) only has 70 places in total- 8 for internationals, and 62 for Home applicants. Hence, no internationals are not, as this thread posits, stealing all our places. And as I clearly outlined in my previous post, there is not "a lot on offer" for international students at top unis.
Secondly, I was merely using the gender bias argument as an example of a rejectee's paltry and pathetic attempt at blame-shifting, other than this "all the the foreigners stole my place!" one.
Thirdly, your link with current affairs about how from next year there will be restrictions-you obviously dont realise that even nowadays all universities are subject to very strict limitations and fines regarding numbers of Home and international students, especially the latter.
It will always be easier for a British student to get into UK universities (I admit, perhaps certain mathematical courses may be exceptions {I know its a stereotype}).
If you need prove, take a look at the number of International students vs Home at Oxbridge.
And finally, universities set out quotas which they have to meet regarding the fee statuses of their students. If we use the UCL course mentioned above as an exemplar, internationals compete for those 8 places, Home students compete for the rest. The places are not free for all- they are reserved for Home, and international respectively to keep in line with government outlines. So no, "the foreigners" are not nicking our places. The best they can do is raise the bar in terms of the calibre of the successful applicants, which, frankly, is a good thing.
Oh and one last point, if someone can be bothered to research the numbers of British students studying at Ivy league unis, I think that might just about drive my point home.
This thread is verging on racism. What would you like to do next, expel all the internationals out of uni/ the country/the universe so you can get your offer? That doesnt ring a bell (think Nazi).

I think that a better way to sort it out is to not vote for parties which propose to massively cut university funding: that doesn't help young people in the least.

you do realise if there was less international students that WOULDN'T mean that there could be more home students right?

Technically it would, as theres plenty of demand e.g. 2010 where more than 100,000 UK students didnt have places. And a restriction on international places would open more placeswhich will be filled with domestic students, so it should.

Unis like LSE and other UK universities have a quota on the number of home students they can take in. This is because the government subsidises their fees, lowering it by (as at 2010/11 academic year) as much as 75-80%. The government has a limit on the amount of money that it can give to these unis per students, because, quite obviously, there are other parts of society which the government needs to fund. As such, it places a quota to make sure it can actually pay for the students.

International students are on a separate quota, determined largely by the uni itself but following guidelines. This, as well as the quality of applications that the unis receive from international students, is partly why the percentage of international students vary across unis.

At the end of the day, for unis like LSE, it is not necessarily who they 'prefer' to take on that reflects their student statistics. LSE might want, and provided they receive all the fees, be able to accommodate 1000 students a year. And they wouldn't mind 800 of them to be qualified home students. However, the UK government places a quote on home students, ensuring that the maximum number of home students LSE can admit is 300, because that is all the government can afford to subsidise.

LSE will then accept the home students it deems to be the most deserving of a place, and this may or may not reach the maximum of 300, but most likely will. LSE still has 700 places left over for that year, and thousands of applications from deserving international students. With the facilities that LSE has and needs to maintain, it would be illogical for them to decide that they need to have more home students and therefore admit only 150 international students. The uni would hardly function because not enough funds would be coming in.

As such, LSE admits 700 international students. The international student thus does not prevent the home student from being admitted, rather the UK government restricts the number of home students that can be taken in for justified reasons.

So, unlike you've stated, unis do not 'prefer' international students. And at the same time, international students do not prevent home students from getting a place.

You've also mentioned that UK unis receive taxpayer moneys which is then used up by international students. The truth is, the taxpayer money given to UK unis are the subsidies from the UK government for the home student. So in our fictitious LSE admission class above, the UK government will pay, to the uni, the rest of the fees which the home students have not paid (essentially the point of a subsidy). This is to pay for the education of the home students ALONE. The international student, on the other hand, pays their entire fees, which in LSE, for example, is £13,000+. They thus pay the full price of their own education.

All of the money received from both home students (whether direct fees or subsidy) as well as international students is used to manage the uni, including new buildings. So if you argued that international students shouldn't use facilities paid for by the UK taxpayer, at the same time, the UK taxpayer shouldn't use the facilities also paid for by the international student. The buildings should thus be used by no one, which is obviously quite silly.

EDIT: Just thought I should add, I am an international student at the LSE.

Technically it would, as theres plenty of demand e.g. 2010 where more than 100,000 UK students didnt have places. And a restriction on international places would open more placeswhich will be filled with domestic students, so it should.

No there wouldn't, as universities wouldn't be able to afford all those places without the money from international students.

it doesnt matter what the demand is. as you have pointed out many times throught this thread uk taxpayers contribute towards universities. this contribution comes in the form of substidising the fees of home students. because of this the government places a limit on how many home students the universities are allowed to accept in order to have a limit on how much it costs the tax payer. so if a university currently accepts 100 international students and you suddenly tell them they can only accept 10, they will still only be allowed to accept the same amount of home students.

and I'm pretty sure this has been explained on this thread many times

I'm not saying there should be that much of a strictlimit but 10% should do fine. And you have to realise the economically the education of the population is very important as in the long run government revenue wil increasing significantly otherwise we r gonna hav a labour market whose salaries/wages lower therefore less money to spend on things such as education.

theres no reason for any limit, and you ignored my actual point about why limiting internationals wouldn't increase the amount of home places...

and YOU have to realise in terms of the economy the amount of people going to university is already more than enough so paying for even more is a waste of money that could be better spent else wear on things that actually would boost the economy more

theres no reason for any limit, and you ignored my actual point about why limiting internationals wouldn't increase the amount of home places...

and YOU have to realise in terms of the economy the amount of people going to university is already more than enough so paying for even more is a waste of money that could be better spent else wear on things that actually would boost the economy more

If that was the case then many UK students would be going to place like londont met or something

The UK universities recieve a lot of money especially to fund building projects which cost millions, the international students fees go tuition fees and buildings as these are long term projects which require large amount of money from the local and central government.

As you mentioned lse dont have quotas nor do they follow guidelines otherwise there internation students would cover 60%+ of the student population now would it. I also am talking about the fairness of how some uni's run and how the government mishandles these situation as they give in to the demands of universities. I do economics, and i can tell you this is how it should work uk student education > better educated population > more firms will come to uk to use the more qualified labour market > higher wages/salaries > more money to spend on economy > more tax revenue collected > better gdp growth > no more deficits > more money to spend on education. This is much better in the long run as uni's such as lse would hav greater funding from the government. Otherwise other countries would hav a better educated population , leading to them doing much better in the long term. I'm not saying international students should be banned, i think there should b a 10% limit so that the UK labour market aheadof other countries.

Limiting places on internationals, would open up places as uni's have certain amount of places, by restricting international students, it open up places at uni's such as lse, imperial, ucl, etc where the amount of students coming from overseas is 30%+. The reason behind such high numbers is simply due to the fact they pay high fees. By stopping uni's from doing this, it would obvious open up places.

What do you mean?