Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Education United Kingdom

Britain's Bankrupt Universities Are Hunting For Cheaper Models (economist.com) 88

British universities face mounting financial pressures with four in ten institutions running deficits, according to the Office for Students regulator. Half have closed courses to save money, while Durham and Newcastle each shed 200 staff members. Lancaster's cost-saving plan could eliminate one in five academic positions. The crisis, writes Economist, stems from frozen tuition fees for English students, which will rise by only a few percent in August for the first time in eight years.

Britain's Bankrupt Universities Are Hunting For Cheaper Models

Comments Filter:
  • by PPH ( 736903 ) on Thursday July 17, 2025 @02:14PM (#65527396)
    Page three.
    • Page three.

      Is that where we find the naked campus “administrators” tenured by the dozen? ‘Cause I have an idea as to why costs are so pointlessly high..

      • In California, the number of administrative staff at state-funded colleges has tripled since 1980.

        Some of the increase, but not all, is due to unfunded federal mandates.

        • In California, the number of administrative staff at state-funded colleges has tripled since 1980.

          Some of the increase, but not all, is due to unfunded federal mandates.

          "Some" yes, but the event's leading up to the student loan crisis allowed Universities to have more administrators than professors and researchers.

          Where I retired from, when I started, and until the early 1990's, we had three people doing our accounting. When I retired, Accounting was the largest group in the place, they even put accountants in each group. With a total budget not much more than before. Sure was a strain on overhead. Actually eliminated it.

          But my requirement to take professional devel

      • Is that where we find the naked campus “administrators” tenured by the dozen?

        Not in the UK because UK universities no longer have tenure. Unless something has changed since I left the government forced universities to employ lecturers on fixed term contracts that do not have to be renewed when they expire.

    • I'm still available, if they need a balding, dying cancer patient for some hot photo sessions.

      Given my situation, I am afraid I'm going to need to have cash payment up front, and all expenses paid.

  • by shilly ( 142940 ) on Thursday July 17, 2025 @02:23PM (#65527422)

    I have a friend who worked for Jo Johnson (ex higher ed minister under the Tories) and who was an exuberant backer of tuition fees and student loans. I pointed out to him that the administrative costs and profits of the loans model, plus the timeshifting effects of costs being incurred by unis immediately but revenues taking years to generate, inevitably meant that the system would come under immense financial strain, all for the nominal moral principle of introducing a user-pays element that was clearly done to satisfy nasty old cunts who never went to uni themselves and resented paying into a general taxation pot for anyone else to go. He insisted that the model was sound, and made clear that he thought the Scandi model of just funding three years of tertiary education via general taxation the same way the previous 13 years of education is funded was totally ridiculous.

    Well, I was right, and he was wrong, despite his giant brain. This has been a cluster of massive proportions, and proves that once you break certain types of thing, it's an enormous pain to fix them. And New Labour and the Tories absolutely broke higher ed, and I won't forgive them for that. My son's at Durham, and in common with almost every other British uni, he had virtually no teaching at all in his third term. It's a fucking joke.

    • by kalpol ( 714519 )
      When you say "virtually no teaching", what do you mean? No professors, just teaching assistants? or none at all? If none at all, what did he do? Classes taught by teaching assistants is quite common in the US, even at well-regarded flagship research universities, and especially in the larger lower-level classes. More specialized higher-year classes usually have at least graduate students teaching them, and usually lecturers/professors.
      • by kalpol ( 714519 )
        sigh.....*are* quite common. Interrupted mid-sentence and continued wrongly.
      • by shilly ( 142940 )

        Virtually no teaching = a single lecture and a couple of seminars in the third term, plus a single exam.

        • Virtually no teaching = a single lecture and a couple of seminars in the third term, plus a single exam.

          Are they doing a sandwich course?

          • by shilly ( 142940 )

            Nope. This is now standard practice outside Oxbridge, Imperial and a couple of other places, and some specific courses eg medicine. Even 30 years ago, there was some of this. But now it's rampant.

    • As the student population grows larger and larger and entrance standards become more and more, shall we say, 'democratic', it becomes difficult to justify funding higher education. Especially when kids that didn't go to uni are effectively subsidising the ones that do. "Oh but electricians will be treated by doctors who studied at university" goes the tired argument - it no longer holds water when you have 50%+ of kids going to university and only a fraction make use of that degree (I mean actually using it
      • "Oh but electricians will be treated by doctors who studied at university" goes the tired argument

        The argument for funding universities used to be that they were funded by the increased tax rate that higher earners pay because, with very few exceptions, higher earners have either benefited from a university education themselves or have benefitted from the works of others with university educations.

        The great thing with that system was that those who needed a university education but who ended up in a lower paying job like teacher or nurse were not saddled with massive debts and instead had their educ

        • "Oh but electricians will be treated by doctors who studied at university" goes the tired argument

          The argument for funding universities used to be that they were funded by the increased tax rate that higher earners pay because, with very few exceptions, higher earners have either benefited from a university education themselves or have benefitted from the works of others with university educations.

          The great thing with that system was that those who needed a university education but who ended up in a lower paying job like teacher or nurse were not saddled with massive debts and instead had their education paid for by those going into business and earning far more employing an educated and healthy workforce. the great thing with that old social contract is that it justified higher taxes for the more wealthy and they, along with the rest of society, got to benefit from it. Instead now we have a system where it's hard to justify higher taxes on those earning more because they are almost entirely excluded from the benefits and jobs critical to society, like teachers, are becoming increasingly hard to fill.

          The system is indeed pretty messed up. It's a conglomeration of several issues.

          One of the really big issues is that we aren't students forever. At some point, a person graduates, and needs to support themselves. I knew that way back in the day. I looked at my abilities, and what would allow me to make a living afterwards. I know people drone on about GS or Philosophy majors, but where exactly did they think their knowledge gained from listening to each other's opinions in an echo chamber would take them

      • Huh? What's next? As the road using standards become more and more, shall we say, "democratic", it becomes difficult to justify building and maintaining public roads. Especially when people with no cars are effectively subsidising the ones that have them. (etc)

        Public education is an intellectual infrastructure, just like the public road system is a physical infrastructure, and the public hospital system is a service infrastructure. When one's civilization privatizes and removes its public infrastructure

    • by Xarius ( 691264 )

      This is another Brexit dividend! International students used to make up a significant amount of uni funding here. That dropped off a lot after the right-wing cunts (Tories mostly, new labour include) made the UK hostile to our best-paying students.

      • right-wing cunts (Tories mostly, new labour include) made the UK hostile to our best-paying students.

        2nd best paying students. Those from outside the EU pay more as they were not entitled to treatment equal to that of UK citizens.

        I wholeheartedly agree with the name-calling though.

        • Brexit didn't just make the UK hostile to EU students, the impact followed through to a drop in all international registrations, not just those from the EU. We also lost quite a lot of good staff who didn't want to live outside the EU (there were pension and professional registration impacts).

      • by shilly ( 142940 )

        Brexit definitely made things worse, but even without that, universities were facing real challenges financially thanks to the student loans system

  • by Felix Baum ( 6314928 ) on Thursday July 17, 2025 @02:32PM (#65527452)
    Two-thirds of UK universities have more administrators than faculty. This is why one in five academic positions is now being threatened. We could have seen this coming, 2017 article https://www.theguardian.com/co... [theguardian.com]
    • Bloated administration departments are a problem everywhere.

      Once administration is put in control the first thing they always do is expand the administration department.
  • Maybe post secondary institutes wouldn't be broke, if they focused on education, and useful education. What's useful? Well, perhaps instead of having programs like "The music of Taylor Swift", "Feminism theory", "Women's Studies", "Understanding the Simpsons", and so on, you could just drop them and focus on core programs like Engineering, Maths, the Sciences, and then have on the side programs like History, ART, Philosophy, and make sure the bulk of your funding is come from the STEM programs.

    If that'
    • by JBMcB ( 73720 )

      The large university near me has a 10-1 staff to faculty ratio. Not administrators, or academic staff. Janitors, groundskeepers, support, librarians, maintenance workers, aides to the higher-ups, etc.. This seems a bit excessive.

      Fun story. I have friends who work for a smaller, though still quite big, local university. When a new president came on board, his wife was dismayed that he only had one personal aide and a secretary, and she didn't get one (at the larger university, the president has something li

      • I believe your account 100%. In my first year of university I had an issue, doesn't matter what it was. For weeks, I spent time trying to contact people in Student Services, to help. Always got a run around and nothing happened. The answer was: The next person will be able to fix this, every time, yada, yada, yada.

        After ~5 weeks, I got pissed off, and walked to the office of the assistant dean, the second or third person in charge. I didn't schedule an appointment, I didn't email anyone, I just walk
      • She didn't happen to want a crowbar upside her head did she?

        Cause I don't think anyone would have a problem funding that.

    • by gurps_npc ( 621217 ) on Thursday July 17, 2025 @03:11PM (#65527534) Homepage

      Most of your post is repeating false propaganda. While classes like "The Music of Taylor Swift" etc do exist, they are the equivalent of the inter mural sports program - they cost very little money, have small classes, and are add-ons that attract attention and students rather than loss leaders. What you call the 'side programs' do wonders to educate the students again at low cost. They do not cost the university money.

      The STEM classes are the expensive ones that many people join and then quit the program. Everyone and their uncle wants to be one of the 'smart, valuable students', but most don't have what it takes. All those people trying to make the cut but failing cost the university far more money for far less return.

      The atriums etc that you dislike, they are usually gifted by the wealthy. People give 50 million and demand an atrium to have their name.

      Similarly, the licensed software is often gifted by the corps. They want people to learn how to use their license stuff, not the free-ware which is just as/almost as good.

      There is no "better not be white service", and your inclusion of that indicates that you are prejudiced. You and the snide comments you make are why we need those services. Yes, these things are expensive. The easiest way to deal with that cost is to just kick anyone out that thinks like you. Stop coddling racist and prejudiced shmucks rather than paying for therapy for everyone else.

      The real costs problems tend to be 1) administrative, 2) failed students, 3) healthcare is growing.

      • I never made a racist statement because I'm not racist, my point was simply to collapse and consolidate the N services into a few or one. The Accessibility Service department, was just a waste of resources. People needed help, but it was over funded and overstaffed, and still is. I wasn't joking about completing 12-weeks of work in 2-days.

        Healthcare was a shit show at the school. The school required you to have insurance, and if you didn't have private insurance, you had to buy the school's insurance.
      • I'd add that higher education is where corporations outsourced their training programs to, which is why people don't get out of uni with an education, but with a training.

        I saw this on myself: from the 1st year it was always "in preparation for your future job" . No, fuck you, I want to learn stuff, and gain critical thinking, not become a trained monkey for corpos.
        I am a monkey now though.

        • I'd add that higher education is where corporations outsourced their training programs to, which is why people don't get out of uni with an education, but with a training.

          I saw this on myself: from the 1st year it was always "in preparation for your future job" . No, fuck you, I want to learn stuff, and gain critical thinking, not become a trained monkey for corpos. I am a monkey now though.

          You'd love some of my instructors. minored in art with a focus on Photography. When I'd press them on what a class was worth to a career, the universal response was "We' aren't training you for a job, your question is irrelevant". Another one once told me my work looked like the work of 5 different photographers. I thanked him. He said it wasn't a compliment. I told him that it looked like 5 different photographers because I had the chops to make work that looked like 5 different photographers, so I could d

      • the licensed software is often gifted by the corps

        You do live in a little fantasy land all your own.

    • Maybe post secondary institutes wouldn't be broke, if they focused on education

      Actually, focusing on sports is more profitable.

      The classes are a money sink. Why have them at all?

      • Fair enough, but speaking more practically, as in my province that's not really an option.
      • Maybe post secondary institutes wouldn't be broke, if they focused on education

        Actually, focusing on sports is more profitable.

        The classes are a money sink. Why have them at all?

        And the sports departments fund a lot of scholarships, at least half must go to women.

        One of my favorite points to make is when women, who make up a majority of the people who utterly hate the athletic departments and want them eliminated, get reminded that they are suggesting the elimination of hundreds of women or thousands at the big unis being kicked out of college.

        Crickets is the usual response.

        Do you want the elimination of scholarships for women?

    • I am doing projects in FreeCAD that I believe would tax AutoCAD beyond its practical limits. By way of saying that, while FreeCAD does not trounce AutoCAD in every single way, it already beats it in some ways and is moving far more rapidly than AutoCAD. Rather reminiscent of the progress of Linux or Blender or Krita, all of which now rule their worlds.

      • Obviously, there are great open-source alternatives in numerous instances, but, some applications are staples to the point you can't swap them, yet.
      • by jp10558 ( 748604 )

        One of the things that Autodesk has that AutoCAD works with is Vault Professional. This is customized source control for groups of drafters. It's integrated with and in AutoCAD, Inventor and more. It's not just SVN or Git with binary file support, it's into the linked assemblies and custom parts that are linked into the larger drawings etc.

        Then, much like Office from 2003 era or Adobe or whatever, there's likely decades of history all organized, commented, linked, and integrated into other processes in at l

  • UK here. When I went to uni in 2005, it was £1300 a year (I did four years), when I did my masters in 2009 it was £3000. My younger brother started his degree in 2010 and it was £9000 a year. Did he get 7x as good an education as me. I DOUBT IT.

    You can always tell whatever the UK equivalent of a boomer is when they talk about 'the grant', where they lived in a crazy fantasy world that existed up to 1998 where the state supported its students. "Oh don't you have the grant" "but you've got t

    • The old fuck over the young. It's an old tale. And the young are so fucking stupid, they don't vote.

      • Vote for who?

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          Better candidates in primaries.

          • by Sique ( 173459 )
            I quote the parent poster: "UK here". The voting system in the UK does not know primaries as the U.S. has. Only the Conservative Party has experimented with open primaries since 2009. The last one was 2019 in the Constituency of Gower. If the parent poster were a resident of Gower by chance, he could not vote in any primaries in the last five years, if not, he probably has never had the chance to vote in any primary ever.

            U.S. defaultism...

        • The lesser evil.

          It sucks, but it's better than the alternative.

          Not voting only leads to the shittier candidate winning by default and the slightly better candidate ignoring you since you're not a voter. The loser's faction will move to the middle since that's where the people who actually vote seem to be. The winner's faction will push further toward their side, since they can afford to. Democracy takes a long time, but look what the conservatives have accomplished by sticking together and voting, year afte

          • by spitzak ( 4019 )

            Unfortunately it does not look like "the loser's faction will move to the middle". Witness what Democrats are getting the biggest buzz. It is obvious that extremism on one side makes the other side say "hey we can be just as extreme in the opposite direction!". This is despite the fact that the stupidest person working for either party knows that if they just put out a MODERATE candidate that they would wipe the floor with the opponent.

            I voted against Trump. But I am seriously afraid what we are going to ge

        • by MikeS2k ( 589190 )

          Vote for any of the smaller parties. I've voted for small far-left parties, right wing parties, joke parties, single issue parties. Anyone who votes for the Big 2 (or 2.5 in the UK) in my opinion is an idiot and is directly resonsible for the state the UK is in now. Maybe go so far as to call them a Traitor to the People of the UK.

          People say "muh wasted vote" - half of it is about showing the big parties they aren't invulerable. If enough people went out and voted for the smaller parties the large ones mi

      • No, in general, they don't.. The old tend to try and look out for the young, and help where they can.. That's been my experience anyway..

        • Not when it comes to politics.
          They'll help out when needed, but voting for the interests of the young, potentially against theirs, that ain't happening, and we have the entire world to prove that.
          To prove my point: has there been a US GenX president?

          • by malkavian ( 9512 )

            So, you would have the young vote against their own interests to help the aged (who really do need help) as well?
            Everyone votes with what they believe will work best both for themselves and for everyone. Believing that just because someone votes other than the way you think they ought to shows that you have a massive bias. I've literally voted for every major party in the UK, all based on manifestos of what they say they're going to attempt to do, on the basis that I think that manifesto makes the most s

            • > Believing that just because someone votes other than the way you think they ought to shows that you have a massive bias.

              What? I never said anything remotely close to that.
              I'm not saying they vote wrong, I'm saying they vote in their own interest.
              Commenting in direct opposition to "The old tend to look out for the young" , which I maintain doesn't apply in politics.

              > Honestly don't care if there's been a GenX president, as I'm not from the USA. I'm fairly sure there will be at some point.
              You missed w

      • The old fuck over the young. It's an old tale. And the young are so fucking stupid, they don't vote.

        It's also an old tale that it is such a handy excuse. "I failed at life because of those fscking Boomers!"

        Because it is easier to fail with a bucket of excuses blaming everyone else than to put in the work to succeed.

        And actually, a lot of people, especially young men did vote this past year. Being marginalized and dehumanized by the far left and Democrats for so long, they didn't vote the way that Democrats and far left told them to vote. Gotta give the Dems credit, they demolished a demographic that

    • https://rugbyoldbloke.wordpres... [wordpress.com]

      Never ever forgive.

    • by job0 ( 134689 )
      you do realise that the government was also paying the universities to teach you. So while you paid 1700 the tax payer paid the rest.
    • by pjt33 ( 739471 )

      The Lib Dems should maybe have gone for a confidence and supply arrangement rather than full coalition, but the point of coalition is that both parties have to compromise, and the junior party/-ies have to compromise more. Compare the 2010-2015 parliament to the 2015-2019 one and tell me that the Lib Dems didn't have a moderating effect.

  • Wow, who could have predicted that trebling fees back in 2012 [wikipedia.org] would cause a problem?

    • ??

      I think you're missing something. That caused a problem for the students. What caused a problem for the universities was that the newly trebled fees were meant to cover the entire course. Then the fees stayed the same through Brexit and Trussnomics, leaving the universities with very little money.

  • by Bruce66423 ( 1678196 ) on Thursday July 17, 2025 @03:23PM (#65527558)

    Being a graduate is now of little real world use, but has become a positional good which employers use to reduce the number of applicants to a reasonable amount. So more and more kids are taking Masters, for the same reason. This is a self destructive arms race that merely advantages those employed in the tertiary education sector. Stop it now - with a 25% cut in the number of undergraduate loans available, with the cuts focused towards those subjects that have graduates earning less 20 years down the line.

  • lectures via internet and ai ... oh wait ...
  • They can go to the US student loan system

  • by malkavian ( 9512 ) on Thursday July 17, 2025 @05:21PM (#65527854)

    The courses used to be fully funded by a grant here in the UK. All you needed was to have the academic credentials to get in, and that was the tough part. About 15% of people went on to higher education (in the early 80s); the theory was that over your working life, you'd more than repay to the government in taxes what was spent on your training for your reasonably "high flying" job. Which was fairly true.
    The wonderful thing about that was that selection was entirely on how academically competent you were (rather than practically competent, which was more for vocations and apprenticeships); it opened up social mobility quite nicely.

    Then more courses were added. with increasingly niche and impractical subjects, many of which had a handful of hours of lectures a week, and by the mid 90s, about 25% of the school leavers went to University. The government decided it could no longer afford to send all these people to Uni, so introduced Student Loans instead of Grant, which had the immediate effect of starting to dissuade the poorer (though sometimes academically gifted) people from going to Uni.
    Then after that in 1998 came tuition fees which needed to be paid (introduced by a Labour government, who were the last ones anyone would think would do this due to the chilling effect on social mobility that the extra financial encumbrance brought).

    As parents weren't used to the eye-wateringly high cost of higher education that existed in places like the US, there was only so much that could be politically asked of people to pay, so course fees were capped. Still too expensive for poor, and quite a millstone around the necks of recent graduates.

    All the increased degree taking (around 50% of the UK population now have degrees by the time they're 30) means degrees aren't worth what they were, and command far less salary, rendering them not such a great pathway (except you now almost need a degree to flip burgers in McDonalds).

    Seeing as there's a limited amount of people you can funnel through the degree channel, and the cap definitely hasn't been keeping up with inflation, then something needs to give. Fixed costs of buildings and utilities remain the same, so the only factor left is to reduce the courses and the academic staff involved with those (fewer courses means fewer administrators, along with fewer lecturers).
    I don't think most families see the allure of vastly higher tuition fees that would allow Universities to continue in their current mode, as the return on investment simply isn't there. Apprenticeships are starting to find the appeal that they used to have (two of the most successful youngsters that I know did Engineering apprenticeships, and are now on salaries not far short of mine, while I know a boatload of Degree graduates with crippling debt over their heads, and without the grounding to do a role that would pay that back in any comfortable timespan.

    Couple this with the financial crash of 2009 (which is having a generational financial impact) and COVID (which will definitely be having a generational financial impact), there really isn't the money anywhere to pass along to these institutions.

    • It's a good post. Almost all analysis of this topic looks at resources "per student" instead of "per capita" (i.e. the whole population of the nation). These tell a different story, but it is very difficult to find per capita statistics, and per student statistics are warped by greatly increased enrollment over time.
    • The only note I'd add is that "selection was entirely on how academically competent you were" should be replaced with "selection was entirely on how well coached you'd been to pass exams". There were certainly people there based just on how academically gifted they were. There was also a large cohort there based on how much money had been thrown at tutors and private schools, or who had happened to live near a sixth-form college skilled at getting people into university.

      It's not a trivial exercise to design

    • by mccalli ( 323026 )
      It was not entirely based on how academic you were, it was also based on how many places existed and were funded. There was a cap on university placements to fit within the funding. A key part of the thinking for the tutorial fees (which I am personally against, but for this post will argue its rationale for existing) was to remove that cap and have placements based on demand.

      Student loans came in early 90s rather than mid - I'm from the first year ever to have them, and I gradated in 1992.
  • Aside from the regularly cited (and very real) bloat in administration in education, there's another important factor [wikipedia.org] driving up education costs: productivity gains in areas like manufacturing and technology tend to drive up prices in services sectors like education and healthcare. When productivity rises in some parts of the economy wages ultimately end up rising across the board, but for sectors (particularly in services) where productivity can't rise as fast, those wage increases turn into real value pr

  • I still don't understand why higher education is so expensive. Nearly every college/university is so old that all their property and buildings are long paid off. I get research is expensive, but tuition shouldn't cover research, grants should. So, other than slightly better paid educators and possibly smaller classes, why does higher education often cost 2 to 10 times as much?

    • by jp10558 ( 748604 )

      The University I'm near and the college I went to regularly build new buildings for numerous reasons. A new college (Computer Science became a degree path maybe 20 years ago at a lot of places), a new research center (some things need new buildings to house newer technologies), new dorm buildings so they can increase admission / house more people coming to college. Some buildings age out and need stuff like more power plugs, or wifi, or are just falling apart (depending on various things), or are up for mee

"Everybody is talking about the weather but nobody does anything about it." -- Mark Twain

Working...