Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday August 24 2017, @02:56AM   Printer-friendly
from the giving-them-a-lecture dept.

Meaningless tasks and faux-business strategies prioritised by British universities have skewed their real roles of teachinig and research. Looking at decades of university growth, most expansion has been by university administration, not faculty. On the other side of the pond, one US study found that between 1975 and 2008 while the number of faculty had grown about 10% the number of administrators had grown 221% during the same period. In the UK, the large majority of universities have more administrators than they do faculty members. We are on the way to realizing an “all-administrative university” if nothing is done. André Spicer at The Guardian comments that since universities are broke, we should cut the pointless admin and get back to teaching.


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 24 2017, @03:02AM (18 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 24 2017, @03:02AM (#558286)

    Less overhead. It is a simple enough concept, I wonder what the reasons are for such a massive increase in administrative personnel.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 24 2017, @03:15AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 24 2017, @03:15AM (#558291)

      At the university I went to one building I was in the roof leaked and the heat/cooling did not work (except in the office). Which was fun in the midwest. The football team however had 2 practice fields plus the main field and 4 state of the art gyms they could use. The admins there were solidly in the mid 6 figures. Many of the 'students' there could not read their diploma. With a few token 'awesome' dudes to trot out when the subject came up. The 'college' system has been fucked up for a *long* time.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 24 2017, @03:48AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 24 2017, @03:48AM (#558299)

      First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational bureaucracy, many of the engineers and launch technicians and scientists at NASA, even some agricultural scientists and advisors in the former Soviet Union collective farming administration.

      Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself. Examples are many of the administrators in the education system, many professors of education, many teachers union officials, much of the NASA headquarters staff, etc.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Thursday August 24 2017, @04:44AM (2 children)

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday August 24 2017, @04:44AM (#558314) Journal

      I wonder what the reasons are for such a massive increase in administrative personnel.

      Because they either can; or can't even teach gym classes**

      **

      He who can, does. He who cannot, teaches (GBShaw). He who cannot teach, either:
      - teaches gym classes (cf Woody Allen - Annie Hall); or
      - is a manager (the reality of life)
      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday August 24 2017, @06:33AM (1 child)

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday August 24 2017, @06:33AM (#558342) Journal

        (in bad taste, I know... I mean, replying to myself)
        The "(reality of life)" point has a "scientific basis": Peter principle [wikipedia.org] (promotion to the level of minimal incompetence) and Dilbert principle [wikipedia.org] (managers can advance beyond the level of minimal incompetence through promotion until reaching the level of minimal damage on the system)

        Second, a TFA snippet

        In some courses, like business administration, students’ capacity to think got worse for the first few years.

        There are your tomorrow's university administrators.

        (Careful how you deal within a system that has positive feedback capabilities - such as the education system)

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Thursday August 24 2017, @01:52PM

          by bzipitidoo (4388) on Thursday August 24 2017, @01:52PM (#558442) Journal

          I RTFA (really!) and nowhere did I see any mention of corruption and nepotism as one of the explanations for this expansion. Mostly, it was blamed on mandates and bureaucratic creep and expansion.

          Powerful politicians' relatives with all this training in leadership need suitable jobs, and what better than some sort of university admin position? They get to brag about serving in education. There's not much that's as lily white as that. These positions just happen to pay extremely well (which keeps Uncle Sugar happy to hand the uni more fat grants for more initiatives) and are in fact useless and powerless so that the upper class twits who eventually are handed the positions can't do much damage.

    • (Score: 5, Funny) by krishnoid on Thursday August 24 2017, @05:43AM

      by krishnoid (1156) on Thursday August 24 2017, @05:43AM (#558330)

      A very old joke, but ...

      Once upon a time the government had a vast scrap yard in the middle of a desert.

      Congress said, "Someone may steal from it at night." So they created a night watchman position and hired a person for the job.

      Then Congress said, "How does the watchman do his job without instruction?"

      So they created a planning department and hired two people, one person to write the instructions, and one person to do time studies.

      Then Congress said, "How will we know the night watchman is doing the tasks correctly?" So they created a Quality Control department and hired two people, one to do the studies and one to write the reports.

      Then Congress said, "How are these people going to get paid?" So They created the following positions, a time keeper, and a payroll officer, then hired two people.

      Then Congress said, "Who will be accountable for all of these people?" So they created an administrative section and hired three people, an Administrative Officer, Assistant Administrative Officer, and a Legal Secretary.

      Then Congress said, "We have had this command in operation for one Year and we are $18,000 over budget, we must cutback overall cost."

      So they laid off the night watchman.

    • (Score: 2, Funny) by realDonaldTrump on Thursday August 24 2017, @06:15AM (2 children)

      by realDonaldTrump (6614) on Thursday August 24 2017, @06:15AM (#558340) Homepage Journal

      Above all else, I love to teach. If I had a choice of making lots of money or imparting lots of knowledge, I think I'd be as happy to impart knowledge as to make money. I'd be lying if I said I don't think about my legacy. The values I hold true and the buildings I've put up are intended to carry beyond the here and now, beyond my own time on earth. I'm particularly interested in my legacy as an educator, which is part of the reason I started Trump University. The next best thing to being my apprentice. I put all of my concepts that have worked so well for me, new and old, into a seminar. Teaching what I’d learned. Very proud that I helped to shape future generations of entrepreneurs and business managers! With priceless, priceless information. 🇺🇸

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 24 2017, @03:48PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 24 2017, @03:48PM (#558476)

        You have steadily improved your vocabulary sir, which system helped you best? Hooked on Phonix? Or Presidential Speaking for Dummies?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 24 2017, @05:52PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 24 2017, @05:52PM (#558525)

          Not the real trump, didn't use the words sad or great.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by canopic jug on Thursday August 24 2017, @08:32AM (4 children)

      by canopic jug (3949) Subscriber Badge on Thursday August 24 2017, @08:32AM (#558378) Journal

      Less overhead. It is a simple enough concept, I wonder what the reasons are for such a massive increase in administrative personnel.

      One person I spoke with close to ten years ago said that their institution had administrative overhead consuming over 68% of the budget. That has only grown since so I would not be surprised if it has passed 70% there at that institution. One of the larger items was the cost of renting M$ software and the growing army of monkeys used to hold it in place.

      The growing armies of M$ monkeys are a real problem even at smaller institutions. Another contact had mentioned recently that the M$ department at their not large institution had bloated from 5 FTE back in 2003 to well over 200 by the beginning of this year.

      Not on the list was the staff time lost due to problems inherent in the M$ software itself, such as the perenial problem of lost mail at institutions attemting to use M$ Outlook/Exchange in place of e-mail.

      However, aside from M$ monkeys, one aspect that is important to take into account is the co-opting of teacher and researcher time for pointless administrivia. Many places have now deployed expensive, hard-to-use, online boondoggles to track hours. Just doing the bare minumum with those online time systems can often add up to the equivalent of two full work-days per month. Those are two completely wasted days as far as the core activities of teaching or research. That's a far cry from the old paper timesheet method which took less than an hour per month per faculty member.

      --
      Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
      • (Score: 2) by kazzie on Thursday August 24 2017, @08:49AM

        by kazzie (5309) Subscriber Badge on Thursday August 24 2017, @08:49AM (#558381)

        My supervisor is often bemoaning the online timesheets he has to complete for my funding body. Luckily, I have to fill them out on paper instead. (Technically it's an excel spreadsheet printed out, so it can have an ink signature on it.)

      • (Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Thursday August 24 2017, @01:36PM

        by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Thursday August 24 2017, @01:36PM (#558437) Journal

        Why would a progressive, forward-looking place like a university want software with open source? Open source software is inherently misogynist. All men keep the knowledge of how to use it a secret from womyn-born-womyn, because all men are intimidated by powerful, capable womyn. Open source software is a tool of sexual harassment and rape.

        If it weren't for open source software, womyn-born-womyn would be programmers. If it weren't for men and their open source software, womyn-born-womyn would be able to program computers with ease, fixing the problems in Outlook and Exchange that were put there by men to oppress womyn.

        You know that the first computer programmer was a womyn-born-womyn, right? Men have been trying to prevent womyn from being able to program computers ever since then with misogynist software like open source. Using Microsoft software is a step in the right direction, away from open source. If we can put enough pressure on Microsoft, then we can finally vanquish open source, and womyn-born-womyn will all be able to finally program their Microsoft computers and change how they work in any way, as is womyn's birthright.

        Hmm, this post is missing something. Oh, here it is, I forgot these: <sarcasm></sarcasm>.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by bradley13 on Thursday August 24 2017, @02:15PM (1 child)

        by bradley13 (3053) on Thursday August 24 2017, @02:15PM (#558444) Homepage Journal

        At my college, 10 years ago, we had just over 50% teaching staff. That's now down to 40%. Looked at another way: the ratio of admin to teachers used to be 1:1; it is now 1.5:1. That's a dramatic increase.

        Needless to say, we are under continuous budget pressure. Equally needless to say, the budget pressure doesn't lead to the obvious solution: eliminating 1/3 of the administrative positions, to bring us back to 50% teaching staff.

        --
        Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
        • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday August 25 2017, @02:36AM

          by Reziac (2489) on Friday August 25 2017, @02:36AM (#558704) Homepage

          Each teacher has their own administrator??!

          --
          And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
    • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday August 24 2017, @04:03PM (1 child)

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday August 24 2017, @04:03PM (#558482) Journal

      I wonder what the reasons are for such a massive increase in administrative personnel.

      Those who can, do.
      Those who cannot do, teach.
      Those who can't teach, administrate.
      Those who can't administrate, leave academia and become managers.
      Those who can't manage, give talks on the subject.
      Those who can't give talks, become paid insultants.
      Those who can't succeed in consulting, run for office.
      Those who can't get elected, become lobbyists.

      The problem is that everyone lower down than "those who can" incorrectly perceive the value hierarchy to be inverted to make themselves feel better.

      Now looking at the above list, you might think that there wouldn't be so many people in administration. That they would filter down to lesser and lesser levels of competence. But the fact is, there are so vastly many who are incompetent, that they fully saturate all of the levels lower than "teach".

      Hope this answered your question.
      (please stay on the line to answer a brief survey about how satisfied you are with this post.)

      --
      People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 24 2017, @08:50PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 24 2017, @08:50PM (#558590)

        What an excellent way of looking at it!! Explains pretty so many problems with humanity.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 24 2017, @08:43PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 24 2017, @08:43PM (#558583)

      all those useless morons they graduated had to get jobs somewhere.

    • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday August 25 2017, @02:34AM

      by Reziac (2489) on Friday August 25 2017, @02:34AM (#558703) Homepage

      "I wonder what the reasons are for such a massive increase in administrative personnel."

      Junk fills the space allotted.

      --
      And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by aristarchus on Thursday August 24 2017, @03:54AM (1 child)

    by aristarchus (2645) on Thursday August 24 2017, @03:54AM (#558301) Journal

    Once again, a long view of the history of Universities is in order. For example, Oxford, one of the great medieval universities:

    Oxford is a unique and historic institution. There is no clear date of foundation, but teaching existed at Oxford in some form in 1096 and developed rapidly from 1167, when Henry II banned English students from attending the University of Paris.

    https://www.ox.ac.uk/about/organisation/history?wssl=1

    But as for administration, it did not exist until a hundred years later?

    Grosseteste may also have been appointed Chancellor of the University of Oxford. However, the evidence for this comes from a late thirteenth century anecdote whose main claim is that Grosseteste was in fact entitled the master of students (magister scholarium).

    " rel="url2html-31930">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Grosseteste

    Someone once asked, how did Oxford get along without a Chancellor for a hundred years or more? The answer is, that the Chancellor is not a member of the Faculty, nor of the students (scholarium), but is in fact the King's representative on campus. Same as it ever was.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 24 2017, @06:49AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 24 2017, @06:49AM (#558346)

      Ah, good old Oxford.

      There's a picture in the Clarendon Lab, taken sometime in the early-mid 70s, of all the staff and researchers in the Clarendon.
      In that picture, there are two 'admin' staff.
      When I was there, you couldn't throw a stick down any of the corridors without hitting one, Heads of Departments had their PAs, the PA had an assistant, heads of groups had their PAs etc. etc.

      This disease is not confined to places like Oxfnord(sic) though, as the article points out it's endemic, you know a University is in seriously deep trouble when an engineering department has more secretaries than technicians...as was the case in a London one I worked in (I bailed, as I saw the writing on the wall).

  • (Score: 4, Funny) by coolgopher on Thursday August 24 2017, @04:03AM (5 children)

    by coolgopher (1157) on Thursday August 24 2017, @04:03AM (#558305)

    Is it time to send out a B-ark? ;)

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 24 2017, @04:42AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 24 2017, @04:42AM (#558313)

      As long as we send it at night so they don't know they're headed for the Sun...

    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday August 24 2017, @04:46AM (3 children)

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday August 24 2017, @04:46AM (#558315) Journal

      Is it large enough to hold everybody?
      If so, how come my manager is not on board?

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 2) by MostCynical on Thursday August 24 2017, @07:24AM (2 children)

        by MostCynical (2589) on Thursday August 24 2017, @07:24AM (#558357) Journal

        They don't have room fro everyone; turns out, your manager isn't *completely* useless (not even *always* incompetent). Sorry.

        --
        "I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday August 24 2017, @07:34AM (1 child)

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday August 24 2017, @07:34AM (#558360) Journal

          turns out, your manager isn't *completely* useless (not even *always* incompetent). Sorry.

          Mmmm... Ok... then I'll need to see how can I use him for something he might be competent in. (grin)

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 24 2017, @04:13AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 24 2017, @04:13AM (#558309)

    ... set their own salary, paid by student fees. The legislature has nothing to do with it.

    By rights, the regents should be unpaid.

  • (Score: 1) by mattTheOne on Thursday August 24 2017, @05:13AM (8 children)

    by mattTheOne (1788) on Thursday August 24 2017, @05:13AM (#558320)

    Its not clear if its due to reduction in gov funding, but I've noticed in the last 10 yrs the tuition at my alma mater has doubled! Salaries haven't doubled, and student/teacher ratios are constant so I'm not sure where this money is going. When I worked as a teacher assistant I observed how cheaply students could be educated, so I don't understand why costs are spiralling when they should be reduced with the growth of digital libraries.

      Its not like high school, in University folks don't need to be hand held and can learn on their own. Just go during TA office hours if there's material you still dont understand.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Thursday August 24 2017, @05:51AM

      by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Thursday August 24 2017, @05:51AM (#558335) Homepage Journal

      Caltech was ten grand a year when I attended in the early eighties. A Pell Grant covered 3k of that each year.

      I had two student loans for a total of 15k that I paid off twenty years ago.

      The federal government clued into that student loan interest doesn't get the gripes that taxes do, so These United States rake in forty billion dollars a year from the students. It's in the congresscritters' best interest to increase student lending.

      The more loans are available, the higher tuition goes. It's a death spiral.

      --
      Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
    • (Score: 2) by Whoever on Thursday August 24 2017, @05:57AM (2 children)

      by Whoever (4524) on Thursday August 24 2017, @05:57AM (#558336) Journal

      It's going into the paychecks of the "administrators".

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Thursday August 24 2017, @06:38AM (1 child)

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday August 24 2017, @06:38AM (#558343) Journal

        It's going into the paychecks of the "administrators".

        Not only.

        The massive expansion of administration has also fuelled an equally stark expansion of empty activities. These include costly rebranding exercises, compliance with audits and ranking initiatives, struggling with poorly designed IT systems, engaging with strategic initiatives and failed attempts at “visionary leadership”. All the while, faculty are under pressure to show they are producing world-class research, outstanding teaching and are having an impact on wider society. No wonder some faculty complain that they are “drowning in shit”.

        The expansion of empty administration has some up sides. By showing universities are willing to keep up with the latest management fads and fashions, they gain credibility in the eyes of business and government. Empty administration makes some members of the university feel good about themselves.

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 24 2017, @07:23AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 24 2017, @07:23AM (#558355)

          When I was in a big US university, the dept head's vision was to get into the top 10 of highest NIH funding. His strategy to enact this bold vision was to boldly tell us his bold vision every meeting and remind us we need to boldly apply for more NIH funding. To the point where most of the faculty spent most of their time writing grants. That's how top admin earn their $600k salaries, I guess.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 24 2017, @07:04AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 24 2017, @07:04AM (#558352)

      I don't understand why costs are spiralling

      Government pours money into education, so there is little negative feedback for ineffective and inefficient institutions. In fact, those are the ones that flourish under these circumstances. I thought this was well known? The same destructive process is going on with the research, healthcare, and military industries.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 24 2017, @02:58PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 24 2017, @02:58PM (#558454)

        It's not so much that there is no incentive, but that there's often incentive in the wrong direction (I don't really know if things work the same in the US, but I guess so). Basically, if you spend less money than you got granted (because this year you happened to need less), then next year you'll get granted less money (because you just proved you don't need that much). But it may happen that next year you will need the full grant. You of course don't know yet if that will happen next year, but you certainly don't want to risk to run out of funding next year just because you were too cost-effective this year. So near the end of the year, you'll look for ways to spend that money, even if you don't really need the stuff you buy.

        In other words, if you save money, you are punished by having less available next year.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 24 2017, @05:17PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 24 2017, @05:17PM (#558506)

          I did say that the wasteful institutions "flourish". Efficient ones will be starved of funding...

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by urza9814 on Thursday August 24 2017, @04:46PM

      by urza9814 (3954) on Thursday August 24 2017, @04:46PM (#558491) Journal

      When I worked as a teacher assistant I observed how cheaply students could be educated, so I don't understand why costs are spiralling when they should be reduced with the growth of digital libraries.

      Yeah, how cheaply they COULD be educated.

      The way it worked when I was in school, the university would send you a list of required textbooks after you'd scheduled your courses. Sometimes you'd get to class and the first thing the prof would say is "You don't actually need the required textbook, all the material we'll be using is online, but the university required me to assign a textbook. Hopefully those of you who already bought it can still return it." Hundreds of dollars wasted per student (thousands if you were dumb enough to buy from the university bookstore instead of finding international editions online) all because some administrator thinks they know how to teach better than the guy actually teaching. Which makes you wonder why they're hiring people whose judgement they think is so faulty...

  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 24 2017, @06:42AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 24 2017, @06:42AM (#558345)

    The traditional way where people keep in mind the schools of thought, such as economics, leaves one scratching their head as to why they would not apply it to themselves?

    At the moment there is a Californian bubble of thought which doesnt seem to burst where established schools of thought is ignored.

    What the non Alt-Left and Left are saying, for which the latter are simply ignoring, is that the skills on offer by said universities have no applicable application to work or productivit or society.

    After many years of that criticism, and with the alt-left about a week away from crucifying the 99.7% of people who wont stand for their Nazi ideology. The parents of the students know this and have used capitalism (evil word in these circiles) to express their dislike of this revival of nazi core values.

    So here we are. Either the uni's wake up and offer traditional courses, or listen to hedge funds based in remote island chains.

    But that isnt what "The Guardian" is in the business of pointing out.

    So you can see why this is fake news - nazi's are tyrants and hate debate. Why side with them?

  • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 24 2017, @07:23AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 24 2017, @07:23AM (#558356)

    But I'm really bad at teaching, and I hate young people, and I refuse to publish! And don't even think about trying to make me work! That does it. I'm going on sabbatical until you pea brained morons get it into your thick skulls that you need to pay a basic income instead of employing useless people like me in university administration!!

  • (Score: 2, Disagree) by wisnoskij on Thursday August 24 2017, @11:06AM (9 children)

    by wisnoskij (5149) <{jonathonwisnoski} {at} {gmail.com}> on Thursday August 24 2017, @11:06AM (#558400)

    Its always about they money.
    Back when people paid for university, universities were geared towards providing the best experiment for their customers, the students. Which for the most part meant more and better teachers.
    Now that the government pays for the vast majority of the tuition, it is the bureaucrats and accountants who are the most important.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by TheRaven on Thursday August 24 2017, @11:22AM (6 children)

      by TheRaven (270) on Thursday August 24 2017, @11:22AM (#558403) Journal
      Huh? TFA (which, of course, you read) is about the British university system. We've gone from a system where the students were funded almost entirely from government grants to one in which most of the student funding comes from student loans.
      --
      sudo mod me up
      • (Score: 1, Troll) by wisnoskij on Thursday August 24 2017, @11:34AM (5 children)

        by wisnoskij (5149) <{jonathonwisnoski} {at} {gmail.com}> on Thursday August 24 2017, @11:34AM (#558405)

        No one has cut public funding to universities. In fact the government has more than doubled the amount it spends on university per student over the last few years, even after adjusting for inflation.

        The only thing that happened, is what happened everywhere. The government decided it was a good idea to pay for university, then the universities decided that students were still willing to pay on top of that so they doubled tuition costs.

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by kazzie on Thursday August 24 2017, @01:00PM (2 children)

          by kazzie (5309) Subscriber Badge on Thursday August 24 2017, @01:00PM (#558423)

          There are important limitations to what you assert.

          When UK tuition fees were re-introduced in 1998 (after being abolished in 1962), they were a "top-up" to existing funding from central government, and fixed at £1,000 per year (plus increments for inflation). In 2004 universities were allowed to choose to vary their fees up to a maximum cap of £3,000. Unsurprisingly, they virtually all leapt to the new maximum.

          Come 2013, when the cap was raised to £9,000 (and again, all Universities' fees leapt up almost immediately) the teaching element of central government funding was eliminated. The cost of teaching undergraduates is met entirely by the fees charged to students. These fees are initially paid by a government-backed loan, which like loans toward living costs, is repayable (with interest) when the graduate (or dropout) is earning above a certain threshold.

          Not all student loans are paid back in their entirety: there is a sunset clause (X years) when any outstanding debt is written off. So despite a policy change to move the cost of university education from the general taxpayer to the individual, the taxpayer will still have to foot a proportion of the bill.

          (The above applies to undergraduate courses at universities in England. Significant policy variations exist for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but they effectively operate in the shadow of the English system.)

          Sources: University fees in historical perspective [historyandpolicy.org], Timeline: tuition fees [theguardian.com], Timeline of Tuition Fees in the United Kingdom [wikipedia.org] University funding to be cut before increase in tuition fees [theguardian.com]

          • (Score: 2) by wisnoskij on Thursday August 24 2017, @01:15PM (1 child)

            by wisnoskij (5149) <{jonathonwisnoski} {at} {gmail.com}> on Thursday August 24 2017, @01:15PM (#558428)

            I am not sure how this is not what I was saying.

            The government paid for tuition, so the universities fired teachers and hired lobbyists, bureaucrats, and accountants to cater to their one customer, the government.
            And as history shows us that paid off, and they have gotten pay raise after pay raise.

            • (Score: 2) by kazzie on Thursday August 24 2017, @03:20PM

              by kazzie (5309) Subscriber Badge on Thursday August 24 2017, @03:20PM (#558460)

              Are you referring the the UK situation between 1962-1998? Yes, the Government paid for all tuition in that period. Since then, they've been contributing a progressively smaller proportion of tuition costs.

              I grant you that numbers attending university have increased over the decades, (See Tony Blair's policy that 50% of young people should go on to Higher Education, ref [bbc.co.uk]) and that probably couples in with much of the increase in admin overhead mentioned in TFA. The number of places offered by universities was strictly controlled by government until 2012 (by which time students paid for the full cost of tuition from student loans, so no direct cost to the government), when they started relaxing limits for high-graded applications. Universities can now take on (pretty much) as many students as they can get, but it doesn't cost the government anything (depending on how loan repayment is managed.) (ref [jobs.ac.uk])

              Similarly, pay rates for Vice-Chancellors has ballooned (unlike other pay grades such as academics) and is now becoming a political issue. (ref [bbc.co.uk] ref [bbc.co.uk])

              But I don't agree with you that "No one has cut public funding to universities", "the government pays for the vast majority of the tuition", or "the government has more than doubled the amount it spends on university per student over the last few years". Citation needed, perhaps?

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by TheRaven on Thursday August 24 2017, @01:45PM (1 child)

          by TheRaven (270) on Thursday August 24 2017, @01:45PM (#558439) Journal

          No one has cut public funding to universities. In fact the government has more than doubled the amount it spends on university per student over the last few years, even after adjusting for inflation.

          I draw your attention to the table on Page 3 of the relevant government report [www.gov.uk]. Since 2009, the grant for teaching has dropped from £5,030m to £2,860m. The total amount per student paid by the government has dropped in real terms from £6,050 to £5,510. If you think £5,510 is more than double £6,050, then you probably paid too much for your education.

          The amount that the government is spending on loans (overheads and expected default rates) has gone from £2,110m to £3,870m, which corresponds to more students taking on debt to cover the costs of their courses. The increase in loans and student debt is helping to cushion the reduction in government spending, and is contingent on making students pay interest 3% above inflation on the loans.

          --
          sudo mod me up
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 24 2017, @06:57PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 24 2017, @06:57PM (#558548)

            making students pay interest 3% above inflation on the loans.

            Which needs to be higher still if we are to have any chance of killing non-academic subjects like "gender studies"!

    • (Score: 2) by theluggage on Thursday August 24 2017, @11:59AM (1 child)

      by theluggage (1797) on Thursday August 24 2017, @11:59AM (#558413)

      Now that the government pays for the vast majority of the tuition, it is the bureaucrats and accountants who are the most important.

      ...except for the slight fly in the ointment is that TFA is about UK Universities where the change in funding over the last 30 years has been moving away from 100% government-funded tuition and block grants for research to tuition fees funded by student loans, and competitive tendering for government research projects. Its the need for universities to "compete in the marketplace" that has been accompanied by the rise of the bureaucrats, accountants, MBA-speak business strategies and corporate identity bullshit.

      30 years ago, in the UK, if you got the grades at school and got a university place, the government would pay your fees and there was an additional grant for living expenses, tapered according to your parents' income (and, yeah, that included Oxford and Cambridge). Then someone decided that this discriminated against kids who didn't give a shit [theonion.com] and that 50% of the population should go to university, even if this meant that the government couldn't afford to pay for it and had to replace first maintenance grants and then free tuition with loans...

      • (Score: 1, Troll) by wisnoskij on Thursday August 24 2017, @12:15PM

        by wisnoskij (5149) <{jonathonwisnoski} {at} {gmail.com}> on Thursday August 24 2017, @12:15PM (#558416)

        Except that government spending per student has been raising steadily for decades. The government did not decide that it did not want to cover 100%, the universities decided that students would be willing to pay extra on top. And that this would cause the government to give them even more money in a perpetual game of cat and mouse. The government is still the number 1, only really important customer. Going after their money is still worth more than pleasing every student and potential student in the entire country.

  • (Score: 1) by crafoo on Thursday August 24 2017, @01:48PM

    by crafoo (6639) on Thursday August 24 2017, @01:48PM (#558441)

    It's the same issue in government, corporations, education, health care. It's everywhere. Administration. Endless ineffectual planning. Talking about and not doing the core task.

    Maybe it's one of the places we are hiding the gains in efficiency instead of paying it back to the people creating the value in the first place?

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 24 2017, @02:13PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 24 2017, @02:13PM (#558443)

    Where are you today? Perhaps you could explain to us how a pure free market approach to university is best for society? I'd like to understand how the Market will weed out commie liberalism, tolerance and altruism to form the ultimate efficient patriot farms.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 24 2017, @02:59PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 24 2017, @02:59PM (#558455)

      Umm, efficiency! Bad examples of Somalian socialized education failing. Bold faced lies to try and make a point. Venezuela and Cuba, hellholes of socialism. Chiiinaa. Link to study that shows lots of budget increases and worse outcomes.

      *complete denial over basic premise of admin increases from more budget and obvious corollary that admin doesn't improve educational outcomes*

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 24 2017, @05:15PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 24 2017, @05:15PM (#558504)

        The "more admin" does seem to increase money received from the state though...

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 24 2017, @11:23PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 24 2017, @11:23PM (#558645)

      Perhaps you could explain to us how a pure free market approach to university is best for society
      Yet it is 'public' universities that have spiraling costs. The free market ones fail out. In my city 2 just closed. Yet the 'public' one continues on with ever growing costs.

(1)