Turn on thread page Beta

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

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wucker)
    Thanks. European Social and Political Studies
    Oh ok. I've applied for eng lit. Had my interview a month ago and apparently should hear back next week! So scared! Ucl is my first choice!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wucker)
    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?
    No, i'm just saying there should be a greater limit on international students, so there are more place avaliable for domestic students especially as theres not enough places for UK demand.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by de_monies)
    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...
    If this was the case, then all the top uni's wud be full of international students, because of how many of them want to come here. You can't be sayign that lse requires 60%+ of there students to be international to provide busaries. I would be happy if the limit was like 10% on international students at undergraduate courses, so theres more places of UK places. Plus many universities recieve grants from both the central government, local councils and endowments.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by S129439)
    Top universities want the best students, be they from the UK or elsewhere.
    If that was the case then many UK students would be going to place like londont met or something
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Princess of Hearts)
    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 you should my replies, i'm not being racist at all, i think u r being very biased, i dont mind international students as i have said many times, the problem is some uni's such lse, imperial, etc accept more international students then home students. I think these uni's should be scrutinised for their pursuit of extra money. I never said these people are 'foreigners' , ur just putting words in and making seem as though i'm being racist to other nationalities which i am NOT.

    You gave one joint honours course at UCL which shows theres limits on international students, but thats one course , i looked at the stats at UCL approximately 34% are internationals, so how can u say there are high restrictions. I think there should be a 10% restrictions on undergraduate courses. And u have to see this from the economic point of view, last year more 100,000 UK students get places. So dont u think it would be better if more places were available for UK students and make the economy better in the long term.

    And we cant bring in american universities, as thats a completely different story, there fees are extremely high, restrictions r lower, less demand for uni's in comparison for uk unis and they are extra space in comparison.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    you do realise if there was less international students that WOULDN'T mean that there could be more home students right?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IQ Test)
    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.
    Agreed and a party more focused on increasing the education of
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by boba)
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iqbal007)
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by maghreblover)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iqbal007)
    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.
    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
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Princess of Hearts)
    No there wouldn't, as universities wouldn't be able to afford all those places without the money from international students.
    Yes they can, through more government funding, but obviously this government isnt exactly friendly with funding. But in the long run it makes sense.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by boba)
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iqbal007)
    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
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by boba)
    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
    Most secretaries have some form of english or business degree today so yeah I agree with you.
    Uni isn't what it used to be.
    I remember when there used to be 1-2 people from each small town that went to university and they were usually the local lawyer or head teacher of the town.

    Now?
    Pay go come back shove it up your ass.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by boba)
    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
    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.

    I dont think you understand that the economy is more complicated then u think. If you havent realised in the last 20 years the British economy has moved away from being a secondary economy (manufacturing, etc ) to an tertiary (services) and now is on the verge of moving into what people call R&D ( research and development). You can't be telling me that the labour market is fine and peoples education are fine when so many people are out of work as they dont have the educational qualifications as they work mainly labour intensive jobs. By paying more to uni's ensure that the economy will work properly in the future, but short term wise they will incur a deficit.

    You should also realise these new government plans such as economic zones, wont work unless large multinational firms have well educated empolyees available otherwise they wouldnt want to invest in the UK. Do u actually think a builder or people with just alevels r qualified enough to being able to work in a office environment with computers, maybe they can work in the call centre or sales team, but thts it. Multinational firms require at least a 2:1 degree these days such companies like Barclays, etc.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iqbal007)
    If that was the case then many UK students would be going to place like londont met or something
    What do you mean? :lolwut:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iqbal007)
    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.
    From your first paragraph, it is quite clear to me that you have misconstrued the university funding system. Yes, UK universities receive a lot of money from the government. However, the money each university receives is based on the number of home students in the uni, as well as other factors like the research facilities of the university. So if there were 3,000 home students in LSE, and the subsidies provided 9,000 per student to the uni, then the UK government will pay the uni circa 27 million for that year. This is, of course, a lot of money, but is simply the grant the HEFCE owe to the uni, having regulated home and EU student fees. International students pay their own equivalent by paying their full school fees. All of this money, the 27 million from the government which is effectively the fees of the home students paid indirectly via government subsidy, and the international student's fees, as well as any charitable donation from organisations/alumni is put together. The total amount is used to fund building projects, pay staff salaries, maintain the school, etc.

    The reason it may appear that there is a certain 'building fund' provided by the government is that the HEFCE, having calculated the amount of money each uni should receive based on the number of home and EU students, then also allocates the total amount for the unis. So, in giving LSE its 27 million, for example, it also tells LSE that 5 million should be spent on teaching, 4 million on building fund/maintenance, 5 million on research...etc. But in a lot of cases, unis receive a large percentage of their funding as a 'block grant' which means they can spend it on whatever they want. The amount received from international students on the other hand is fully allocated by the uni itself, and some will be used to pay staff, some for research, some for building, etc. It may be called 'tuition fee', but as someone mentioned earlier on the thread, tuition only costs about 5,000 per student, as opposed to the 13,000+ students pay. The funding received from the UK government is also to complete the 'tuition fees' of the home and EU students, so go figure.

    The funding of long term projects is thus provided not only by the government but also by international fees as well as donations from organisations and alumni.

    So what if you do economics? I studied economics for five years and got distinctions in all of my exams, that doesn't prove anything. And I repeat that the UK government places a quote on HOME AND EU students because that is who they fund and they have a limited amount of money to fund a limited amount of students. They may provide guidelines for international students, but they can't provide quotas because they know that even with the millions they may give to a particular university in one year, that will not be enough to maintain its facilities. Unis like LSE will thus decide on the amount of international students they can accomodate and who will pay enough to help the uni continue to maintain its standing as well as improve its facilities. It would be stupid if the UK government, having said it can only provide subsidies for 300 students to then tell a uni that can accomodate and needs about 1000 students in a year to only admit 150 international students. This will bring the total number of students to 450, meaning the uni receives less than 50% of what it needs to function and will deteriorate. I wouldn't ordinarily follow your slippery-slope logic, but since it seems that would make it better for you to understand, that would result in less graduates overall and poorly educated graduates > companies all going offshore/ leaving the UK> lower wages > less tax > less funding > the system becomes worse.

    Moreover, your logic is wrong as, even if ceteris paribus, your premises do not (in correlation with practical reality) imply your conclusions. Economics is much more complicated than that. A better educated population does not necessarily mean more firms will come to use the more qualified labour, firms are also looking for cost effectiveness and will go to the places where wages are lower, thus maximising their profits. See how many firms have relocated to places like China and India in the last decade, even traditional UK firms like Wedgwood. The relationship between wages, taxes, spending and GDP growth is also dependent on a wide range of other factors which you should be aware of, including interest rates, inflation, the exchange rate, and particularly the global economy. In the wrong conditions, such as high inflation or a weak pound or a global economy like we had in 2008, higher wages and tax revenues would not necessarily imply GDP growth or more money to spend on universities. But this is only picking at how illogical your slippery slope was.

    As I've shown above in the paragraph before the last, it would make little sense to limit the number of international students unis need to take in to maintain their facilities, especially if the UK government is unable to subsidise enough students for the unis to maintain their standards. The government may provide guidelines, but the uni boards, knowing what they need to survive and being themselves people of a far more educated standard than you, will decide what is best.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iqbal007)
    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.
    On this point, as I made clear two posts ago, this is FALSE.

    Limiting international students would have no effect on the number of places unis have for home and EU students. This is because there is a quota placed by the government on the number of home and EU students the unis can admit. Whilst LSE and Imperial may be able to admit 1000 students a year, they government may tell them that they can only afford to subsidise 300. As such, the maximum number of home and EU students they can take in is 300.

    Whether or not they thus went on to admit 5 or 500 international students, it doesn't matter, the quota placed by the government will still remain 300, because that is all the government can fund.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by S129439)
    What do you mean? :lolwut:
    If they allowed so many international students in, then top unis would prefer to take all the international students as the ones who apply are very bright and are able to pay high tuition fees. And many top uni's would go for them instead of domestic student and therefore unis with low rankings e.g. met wud only hav places.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

1,342

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
Useful resources
Uni match

Applying to uni?

Our tool will help you find the perfect course

Articles:

Debate and current affairs guidelinesDebate and current affairs wiki

Quick link:

Educational debate unanswered threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.