One under-appreciated aspect of the funding crisis for UK universities (see latest round up from Phil Baty here https://lnkd.in/e2xMkyvM ) is how it is opening up unprecedented differences in funding for UK students at different types of universities. We’ve combined Times Higher Education course fee information with UCAS data on recent entrant numbers and type to estimate this in the graph. What is going on? Higher tariff (i.e. high entry grades, like Russell Group of Universities) universities have the twin advantages of (1) high proportions of higher fee students and (2) being able to command a high tuition fee in that market markets. By growing the share of international students in their intake, and increasing their fees, this has mean that higher tariff universities have stopped the key measure of real-funding-per-student-on-course weakening too much. But medium and lower tariff universities don’t enjoy this advantage. So they have been more fully exposed to the erosion of the value to the fee cap. This means that UK students going to these universities will be getting meaningfully less funding per student (about 25%) than their peers – paying the same fee – going to selective universities. All universities are really struggling in different ways through this funding crisis, but this new differential funding dynamic makes it harder and harder for medium and lower tariff universities to offer what students want and so to attract the numbers they need.
Stephen Rimmer
8mo
Yes higher tariff institutes offer more but this is because: THEY DO RESEARCH AND THEY WIN OVERHEADS BY DOING RESEEARCH. THEN AT THE HIGHER LEVELS RESEARCH GROUPS SUBSIDISE TEACHING. Should low tariff institutes exist? Institutes WITHOUT Higher performing research are actually doomed and they do not offer value for any realistic fee; certainly I would not study at an institute that spends on management rather than teaching and research; why would one do that? So much has to change and this requires nationalisation.
Dr. Paul Penn
8mo
The emerging narrative around the looming funding crisis in HE is that it's strange that the government don't seem to care. Perhaps this is something of a cynical view my part, but looking at this data I think I might just be able to venture a guess as to why they don't seem especially bothered.
Gideon White
8mo
Taking a whole mission perspective, just musing on the extent to which that gap contributes to subsidising research endeavour.
This is really insightful Mark Corver. The funding differential will also limit the ability of mid and lower tariff institutions to invest in developing alternative income streams such as TNE and in increasing their attractiveness to international student offer holders e.g. through better international student employability support.
Brilliant insight Mark 🙏
Kim Nisbett
8mo
Really powerful slide
Head of Accommodation and Student Living at LJMU
8moVery useful analysis as always. We obviously also need to factor in the greater cost base at the higher tariffs - staffing of course but also a more expensive estate in many cases plus cross subsidy from teaching to research. Some medium and lower tariff institutions are arguably well placed to survive and even prosper in the current climate, especially those that are efficient at teaching, not exposed to international markets, targeted in the research they fund and that spend a high percentage of income on student support. The challenge as always is to persuade applicants (and parents) to choose a lower tariff institution if they have the academic ability to also go to a higher tariff. But I don't think anyone would dare argue today that there is a correlation between the quality of the student experience and the tariff of a university.