Turn on thread page Beta

Privatisation of Top 5 UK universities? watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Doonesbury has already told us that a course costs the universities £18,500 annually on average. There is no profit.

    Charging £12,000 annually per head is a recipe for catastrophe.
    Sorry, I didn't see that post.

    They could always follow suite by giving out loans in addition to government loans.

    but without maths, the empirical net benefit between consumer and college won't be known.

    How much does Nat Sci cost compare to English?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kyber Ninja)
    They could always follow suite by giving out loans in addition to government loans.
    Who will lend to whom? You cannot sustainably plan to make up for lost revenue by borrowing.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Who will lend to whom? You cannot sustainably plan to make up for lost revenue by borrowing.
    The labour government does
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    (Original post by Kyber Ninja)
    Sorry, I didn't see that post.

    They could always follow suite by giving out loans in addition to government loans.

    but without maths, the empirical net benefit between consumer and college won't be known.

    How much does Nat Sci cost compare to English?
    See my post about international fees, which are the best proxy for "market rate":

    NatSci (or Engineering or CompSci or PBS) is in the £37k bracket, History is £26k (including college fee of approx £8k). By contrast Maths is £29k.

    They could realistically only offer loans on a commercial rate, and secured against what, or guaranteed by whom? If unsecured they would have a very high interest rate. And unlike the government, they can't enforce automatic repayment via PAYE.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kyber Ninja)
    The labour government does
    So, your plan is to privatise them and they will charge £12k for a service that costs £18.5k, and borrow the shortfall. Who will buy the shares of an obviously massively loss-making industry? How long do you think this will go on for before it collapses? How can the taxpayer be asked to pump such large amounts of cash into private industry?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    So, your plan is to privatise them and they will charge £12k for a service that costs £18.5k, and borrow the shortfall. Who will buy the shares of an obviously massively loss-making industry? How long do you think this will go on for before it collapses? How can the taxpayer be asked to pump such large amounts of cash into private industry?
    In all Fairness, the tax payer actually indirectly pays for a lot of these universities research - once they do they research, they pass it on to the private sector to do something with it - hence the number of Cambridge uni spin off companies for example.

    There's also the case of people falsely attending college to get fees to buy cars and etc, so really the fee system is leaky currently too.

    I currently can get a max £20,500 in tuition fee and maintenance loan. If you're at the economic bottom, you can get all that in grants via the govt. that surpasses the average for tuition fees and then you'd likely be left with working part time and studying - which isn't impossible.

    Alternatively, why don't they just seek exemption status instead of private status and not charge as much as an Ivy, but charge more than other unis - since frankly, its graduates are making the most. So the student is paying that extra bit, while the uni is still getting money from the govt.

    Edit: all hypothetical of course, I wouldn't dream of drafting a bill for this - when you consider that a cabinet of Oxbridge grads (admittedly when it wasn't too competitive) created a fee system and are now in talks to significantly change it because of how negative it is, I think I should get a C at least
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kyber Ninja)
    In all Fairness, the tax payer actually indirectly pays for a lot of these universities research - once they do they research, they pass it on to the private sector to do something with it - hence the number of Cambridge uni spin off companies for example.

    There's also the case of people falsely attending college to get fees to buy cars and etc, so really the fee system is leaky currently too.

    I currently can get a max £20,500 in tuition fee and maintenance loan. If you're at the economic bottom, you can get all that in grants via the govt. that surpasses the average for tuition fees and then you'd likely be left with working part time and studying - which isn't impossible.

    Alternatively, why don't they just seek exemption status instead of private status and not charge as much as an Ivy, but charge more than other unis - since frankly, its graduates are making the most. So the student is paying that extra bit, while the uni is still getting money from the govt.

    Edit: all hypothetical of course, I wouldn't dream of drafting a bill for this - when you consider that a cabinet of Oxbridge grads (admittedly when it wasn't too competitive) created a fee system and are now in talks to significantly change it because of how negative it is, I think I should get a C at least
    You lost it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    You lost it.
    Nah, if you go to Oxbridge or the London unis, you'll struggle to find someone economically poor; people want to whine, but there are plenty of rich guys and girls at these unis that would in all probability be able to pay higher to attend.

    Also more research money

    Also more places to study at university
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kyber Ninja)
    Also more research money
    Also more places to study at university
    How? Please explain how a private company running an unsubsidised service at a loss can use those losses to extend research and provide a wider service.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    How? Please explain how a private company running an unsubsidised service at a loss can use those losses to extend research and provide a wider service.
    Change from privatised to exempt from normal fees to get govt subsidies

    That is the intention of the govt after all, to allow higher quality institutions to charge higher fees, problem is that its legislation is weak that every uni frolics to charge higher fees because even the poorest UK university is still good by global standards.

    Also less staff strikes like this one over pensions because of the $$$
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kyber Ninja)
    Change from privatised to exempt from normal fees to get govt subsidies

    That is the intention of the govt after all, to allow higher quality institutions to charge higher fees, problem is that its legislation is weak that every uni frolics to charge higher fees because even the poorest UK university is still good by global standards.

    Also less staff strikes like this one over pensions because of the $$$
    I'm sorry but your argument gets less and less coherent. I have no clue what you are now advocating, and I'm not convinced that you have.
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    (Original post by Kyber Ninja)
    Nah, if you go to Oxbridge or the London unis, you'll struggle to find someone economically poor;
    "struggle to find someone economically poor"? About 1 in 3 qualify for the Cambridge Bursary.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Doonesbury)
    "struggle to find someone economically poor"? About 1 in 3 qualify for the Cambridge Bursary.
    Its a minority and you can qualify for it if your household income is above average
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    I'm sorry but your argument gets less and less coherent. I have no clue what you are now advocating, and I'm not convinced that you have.
    I changed stance from privatisation to exemption.

    Parallel to charging quality unis 9250, but to a more extreme scale and this time make sure it isn't every university in the UK
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    (Original post by Kyber Ninja)
    Its a minority and you can qualify for it if your household income is above average
    What's the average household income for the subset of households that include a student? And 1 in 3 might be a minority but it's also not a "struggle" to find them.

    And those 1 in 3, and a significant proportion of the other two-thirds will be unable to pay the much higher fees you are planning.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Doonesbury)
    What's the average household income for the subset of households that include a student? And 1 in 3 might be a minority but it's also not a "struggle" to find them.

    And those 1 in 3, and a significant proportion of the other two-thirds will be unable to pay the much higher fees you are planning.
    The average household income is ~40,000 and the bursary goes slightly past that. I'd argue a minor proportion of people on the bursary are better off than most. There's 2 people per household to the nearest person, and 2.3 on average.
    I think the hh income would be higher if students are involved simply because you have to earn more to support your children. It's problematic if you're a family of 5 and you plan on sending a child to uni on £40,000 hh. Cambridge doesn't differentiate between number in a hh right?

    Also it's mildly flawed, particularly if you consider students with divorced parents. Unfortunately a student played the fees system this way, not at Cambridge but SFE.

    So really it's probably less than 1/3 that are at least below average economically. And then there's a debate where below average necessarily = poor.

    Not up front, but with govt subsidy in the form of loans and grants they will. Plus it's probable their bursary would cover more people as a result.

    Unless of course you could just avoid all this and have the govt just pump a lot more money in to the 4. Only problem is, is that there's usually requirements on how the money is spent. Ie research grants can only go to research etc

    Some have also proposed a tuition fee based on income - though it's unknown whether this would damage or enhance uni funding
 
 
 
Poll
Cats or dogs?
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.