Government announces 10,000 more places

Great that engineering and technology get the extra places - but not design? The three work as one and even the govt acknowledged the desperate need for innovation in design (especially in services and new product areas) in its own white paper last year. Not exactly joined up thinking...

Also, if you read the very limited detail in the BIS statement, although the govt will pay for the student support package, there will be no new HEFCE teaching funding for them - so that it looks like these are fees only students in the most expensive parts to teach...

Sorry for the off-topic comment, but I read quite a lot of news from at least 5 different countries and I'd really appreciate if the title would say clearly the government of which country you're talking about.

Well, never mind. Maybe the stagnating economy can soak up some of the existing design graduate surplus in the meantime.

so why would a University provide these 'extra' places in high cost of provison subjects when there is no direct (teaching) income to be gained? This is yet another cynical attempt to mask post-school unemployment whilst expecting the sector to pick up the bill for the extra bodies 'taught'.

Because the government is aware that after every recession there is a period of accelerated growth that we will need to fuel with a large pool of ready-qualified people. Its very sensible to get people working on educating and upskilling themseleves during down periods - do you think the army stop training in between wars or do you think they step it up??

@tryingtoavoidthecricket yup very much agree - looks like Mandie's strategy is to make it look like BIS are busting a gut to provide those much desired uni places (in much needed subjects) whilst the 'out-of-touch-with-reality' university sector quibble over who's really picking up the tab. Truly horrible cynicism.

@tryingtoavoidthecricket yup very much agree - looks like Mandie's strategy is to make it look like BIS are busting a gut to provide those much desired uni places (in much needed subjects) whilst the 'out-of-touch-with-reality' university sector quibble over who's really picking up the tab. Truly horrible cynicism.

@Hero > "Because the government is aware that after every recession there is a period of accelerated growth that we will need to fuel with a large pool of ready-qualified people." Ok, so why doesn't government properly fund the places then? And why only 10,000 extra and why only STEM?

Why only STEM? Because, in a deep recession, these are the only graduates the economy may need more of. There are plenty of humanities and social sciences graduates already facing unemployment without needlessly adding to them. There will be sufficient places in academic disciplines for students who gain admission on merit. The only losers will be those students with weak A-level grades who only get university places through oversupply and lowered entry requirements.

1. Because you can't have everything 2. Because more than 10,000 costs more and that routes back to 1. (unless you are advocating more places funded less well)... oh and also because that is quite a resonable percentage - only about 400,000 students go each year anyway. Better to ask 'if it is unemployment reduction, why not pay for more?' but I'm arguing that its NOT unemployment reduction. 10,000 off 3million unemployed isn't much I'll agree, but its 2% or so of the current uni places. 3. Only STEM? well perhaps you think that non-numeric talking-shop subjects are going to boost the economy, but pretty much all graduate employers prefer people from these backgrounds - if you are arguing that this increase in places is to boost prodictivity after the recession then it would be sensible to assume that STEM is the best investment - if you are arguing that this is a tool to get people off the dole, then you would be surprised that the subjects pegged aren't the ones likley to be taken by people who are the least employable, so I think you already have the answer - its because the motivation is not dole - avoidance.

I'm not asking for everything ; just proper funding for the 40-50,000 places that there's apparently demand for. I'm not convinced that's a great deal to ask for in the context of an economy in deep, deep trouble and in need of as well educated and flexible a workforce as we can get when we come out of recession. That workforce can't all be mathmeticians, scientists etc.. Tenor of replies betrays a prejudice against non-STEM subjects and a lack of understanding of the role of non-STEM graduates to the economy (see JB's point at the top).

I don't think we can count jolly Oxbridge types with connection-related jobs after a wishywashy classics degree in the same league as someone who can redesign a city centre

I thought that we were saying that the extra places were STEM, not ALL the places.

Do we know how (i) the amount of £££ by which these latest STEM places will be "underfunded" (i.e. the shortfall in HEFCE teaching grant); and (ii) the full cost of funding, say, each further 10,000 students - would compare with the amounts that have been poured into bailing out the banking sector? ..or indeed that bankers and other executive types are still trousering in bonuses? Somehow I imagine the cost of sending students to University pales into insignificance. As a quick rule of thumb calculation: I work in a STEM Faculty in a Russell Gp red brick. I seem to remember hearing that we get around £ 6-7 K "direct" funding from HEFCE per student per yr. This suggests to me that the answer to (i) above would be around £ 100 million pounds a year nationally, but if anyone has a better figure I am all ears.

Hope these are places for students of this country and not for overseas students who come to the post-92 universities and disappear as illegal immigrants

No, no no, no, no!!! You can't spend your way out of a recession by tipping money into higher education to create a 'well educated workforce'. We have that already and we're not making good enough use of it. We already have sociologists and biologists doing non-academic jobs and languishing in the £10,000-£15,000 band of self-employment. With the huge numbers of students we have going to university already, any extra money would be better spent getting school-level qualifications and job skills for people in minimum wage employment who left school with no GCSEs, rather than just creating more higher education places for the less bright middle class kids who wouldn't get in otherwise. And no, the workforce can't all be mathematicians and scientists, but we're still educating more than sufficient numbers of students in non-science academic subjects to meet the needs of the economy and the demand among students whose A-level results suggest them to be very capable. I have no prejudice against non-STEM subjects, having learned a non-technical academic discipline myself. But I am rather prejudiced against the policy objective of the past twelve years of increasing university student numbers for no other reason than increasing student numbers. Further to my scepticism about the need for more humanities and social science graduates in the economy, I should like to add that it's bogus to talk about the economy as a reason for expanding numbers of students in non-technical disciplines, because university shouldn't be primarily about the economic benefits of education to the individual or society. I know it's an old-fashioned idea, but getting an education used to be an end in itself. As such, there will always be a need for universities to offer a non-technical education. However, there is no necessary consequence that universities should open their doors to just anyone who wants to study for a degree, regardless of ability; therefore, we must accept that some people are going to be disappointed and may have to spend a bit more time gaining better entry qualifications.

Interesting.. but you can't complain about 'sociologists and biologists doing non-academic jobs' AND say that education is an end in itself, nor can we express shock and disbilief at 'unemployed graduate' figures. We have to firmly say 'education is just for you - fun, a hobby that might benefit you, but not your earning' otherwise what we will be doing is encouraging people to get three years behind in their careers, lose the costs of their education PLUS lose three years non-graduate (say £16K) salary, PLUS be older than their competition in seeking jobs - the more education becomes 'an end in itself' the more we are encouraging graduate unemployment and worse, the more education will be closed to anyone but people who can afford it - since if there is no salary pay-off it is just one big expensive hobby - and as Polo and yacht racing can attest - expensive hobbies are more comfortably enjoyed by the rich.

Calculation: 3 x (£3,500 fees + £16,000 lost salary + £14,000 living expenses) = £100,500 Expensive hobby indeed!

My turn to shout no, no, no! As for "there is no necessary consequence that universities should open their doors to just anyone who wants to study for a degree", why shouldn't they? Couple of reasons of my own spring to mind: i) democratic entitlement and ii) we've a relatively lower proportion of graduates compared to our natural comparators. Agree with view that education is an end in itself by the way but find it contradicts with your view that this should be restricted. Your nom de plume - where to "they" all come from - suggests a rather elitist approach to HE. I'm left wondering who you mean by "they". Finally "You can't spend your way out of a recession" - but that's exactly what we - and other countries - have been doing; why shouldn't HE be the recipient? BTW, SImon, are your for real or a joke troll from the pages of the Daily Mail?

Herbert, can't you not recognise me, I am your grandson. Look at me now, the most powerful cabinet member .OK, I am not a Foreign Secretary, but who remembers you and your non-contribution as a Foreign Secretary? i want Labour to win the next election and not branded as the party which opened up university places for illegal immigrants. In case you have forgotten Herbert, our lads are unemployed and are taking jobs in fast food chains and do we need competition for this also? Herbert, stay quiet, you had your chance and you blew it!

Oh Simon you are an idiot. 'Our Lads' - I have just held a seminar about Polish Agricultural workers (LEGAL immigrants) earning £1,000 a week in the north of england because british working class men see agricultural work as 'beneath them' - er beneath someone who drinks all day and throws matresses in the garden.. a good deal of british unemployment is snobbishness, laziness and having it too good on the sick. (Fergus - sorry! you have got me doing this now!) £81.35 a week on the sick + housing benefit, say £500 a month + council tax exemption = £11K tax free = About the same as research council guidelines paid to research students!!! Faced with the choice of working for £1,000 a week or £916 a month to sit on your ass, smoking fags, drinking and low-level dealing for some extra readies seems to be a better choice for many.

Not sure how you get to the £11k tax free; according to your figures the council tax exemption equates to £5,000 per annum - that's a nice house, and generally not the kind that people on the sick, claiming housing benefit get to live in. If you would like to get some experience of the people who claim benefits then may I suggest that you volunteer to work at a Citizens Advice Bureau for a few weeks, it may help you to overcome your own snobbishness. Simple Simon's moronic remarks are bad enough without adding in middle-class ignorance.

@where do they all come from "Why only STEM? Because, in a deep recession, these are the only graduates the economy may need more of." Earlier you made a criticism of my comment about design graduates clearly not understanding my point that design is a STEM subject. I wonder if you're typing your comments in to a computer? I assume so. Who designed that? I wonder if you drive a car, and if you're asking whether it's time the UK moved towards more sustainable modes of transport? Who do you think will design those? I wonder if you use the NHS or other public services? Perhaps you think those could be improved? Who do you think designs those? Maybe you think people should be helped to use less energy, or to take part in local politics, or to become more self-sufficient? Who is at the heart of that? Let me help you: Designers. And maybe you think advances in science are wonderful and assuming you don't use one already, maybe one day you'll be grateful for the advances that let you rly on a pacemaker to keep you alive. Doubtless you'll thank the surgeon and the team that fitted it - naturally you would. But would you think about the team of designers, working with scientists and engineers, who created it? I'm guessing your view of "design" is the rather outdated one that designers just produce pretty things and click mice all day messing with photoshop. Time to wake up to the modern world. Design is not art. And it's not just a partner to STEM subjects, it's core to them all.

er..rent for a small house is between £100 - £200 a week - that's quite common. The COUNCIL tax benefit I used was £60 a month. That's about the lowest band. Perhaps observing in the CAB would be better for you! You assume I'm middle class because I hate lazy working class people? and John if design is core to STEM and design is STEM and money is going to STEM why the complaint?

'Hero', first you seem to be agreeing with "Where do they all come from?" (all the lonely people?), saying education IS an expensive hobby and we shouldn't deceive university applicants into thinking it's otherwise, but then you seem to argue it shouldn't be, because only the rich can play. Somewhere in the middle you suggest a university education should lead to an economic payoff for the graduate to make the whole thing more equitable for poorer students. How on earth do propose we do this? Is every university place to become industry sponsored, so that every graduate has a job to go to when they finish? Who then will employ the history, philosophy and fine art graduates? Will funded university places be linked to the economic usefulness and business demand for graduates in that subject, and the state stop subsidizing economically non-productive study? Wouldn't that further reinforce the class divide of workers into science, toffs into humanities? We used to have the solution when students from lower class backgrounds got maintenance grants; then we didn't have to worry about the financial payoff from our degrees. You simply did the degree you were interested in, and looked for a job afterwards, when there were no degrees in marketing, public services or hotel management. It's by abandoning the principle of free higher education, under a Labour government, that we've arrived at a situation where a real university education has become a leisure consumption good for the well-off. And Herbert Morrison, citing 'democratic entitlement' as a reason why just everyone should get to go to university 'regardless of ability' (as the argument was originally worded by WDTACF?). We hear a lot about 'entitlement' nowadays. Nor do I see any reason why everyone shouldn't be entitled to study at university so long as they can demonstrate the appropriate level of ability, which is what 'Where do they all come from?' was saying. Why bother even having A-levels if everyone is going to university anyway, and universities are not going to use them as a basis for choosing between applicants?

Hero, You are an idiot who can't read and understand. I was not referring to EU citizens!

er..you seem to be having some difficulty with your own numbers, if the rent is £200 per week, that's £867 per month, assuming UK rental yield of 4.9%, that is a property with a value of £212,000 - which is significantly above the average UK property, let alone the average UK council property value, so not sure where you plucked this from. Also, If you take your argument about the costings, then the research student you describe will also be eligible to Housing Benefit and Council Tax rebate, so your comparison doesn't work out. The reason I know this is because I have worked as a volunteer at the CAB for 12 years. And in fairness if you can comfortably type the phrase "because I hate lazy working class people" then my assumption moves from thinking you are middle class, to just believing you are in idiot. But if you want to move the debate from Daily Mail cliches into a more informed area, please let me know.

Actually, my comments were based on observing what all my friends who work in design are saying, which is they are all wondering where their future employment is going to come from. You were speaking up for design courses. I can only presume you teach design; correct me if I'm wrong. As for the economy, I'm confident the design students going to university because they have good grades will be sufficient to meet the design needs of the economy in this recession, without the government needing to chuck money at providing all the places demanded by university applicants, when they include the places filled by clearing and those students who come up several 'A' level grades less than predicted. As for my computer, etc. I'm 100% certain they were designed at some point, and I'm expecting future consumer products and medical devices etc. to be designed, in their turn, by the people currently working in design, today's unemployed graduates if they can get into a design career, today's design students when they graduate, and tomorrow's design undergraduates, who will exist nevertheless, despite the government's willingness or otherwise to create extra university places for them next year (please note the word 'extra'). At present, the higher education system exists to pick the pockets of teenagers into their twenties, many of whom have ambition beyond their abilities, with the twin aims of delaying their addition to the dole queue and keeping university staff in gainful employment.

Well this doesn't look good. The government and quite a lot of people in HE continue to reinforce the deeply misguided notion that education should be primarily about future career prospects (and prioritise accordingly). The further we move down that 'acquisitive' approach to learning the more intellectually bankrupt our society will become. Furthermore, the Education 'for its own sake' argument fails to spell out the real point. Education should be about valuing understanding of the world above learning how to use the world for personal benefit. It is profoundly distrubing how a pure functionalist approach to education has undermined older emphases on individual and societal value. Why should anyone care how many scientists we have? Or the supposedly feckless social scientists/classicists? Much more objectionable is the large numbers of people enagaged in employment that is pointless and destructive and over which they (and we) have limited control (i.e. much of the financial services sector), and the vast numbers of people underemployed not because of lack of education/intelligence but chiefly because of the odious realities of the modern economy. The government has the gall to talk about 'skills' when knowledge/skill of real value is progressively being undermined by calls for utlity/application/relevance in the context of the business/government objectives (which are in the interests of the few and not the many.)

Well that just shows how ignorant CAB members are - unless of course your volunteering was about 30 years ago. 1. Rental Yield and propoerty values is interesting - but irrelevant - rental charges are a market value - you are allowed to make significant profit on a rent - and claim tax benefits on the income. 2. Most rented properties in the private sector are in multiple occupancy dwellings or small one and two bedroom flats. Dedicated one and two bedroom flats command higher rents per bed as they are 'real' addresses - circa £450 for a one bedroom flat is normal (varies wildy as to area) with the Mortgage on a property at about £60K being about £400 a month that's pretty realistic (especially given buy to let mortgages and business mortgages are more expensive). Multiple occupancy dwellings are often up to ten bedroom properties and are certainly well above the value of an 'average' property. Still more expensive are so-called professional or luxury flats whose rental typically starts at £650 a month for a one-bedroom flat. Council flats are priced differently, but the equivelancy is the same - if you have a family home the competitive market rate is equivalent to the free rent when you are on benefits - the expenditure for your residence is nil. There are perhaps more benefits for the working council tenant than the private sector tenant on price alone but there are other benefits of private let that come into play - not least the lack of a points system. You cannot claim housing benefit if you are on a student stipend.

Hello all - have just been looking at graduate starting salaries - only about Graduate position starting salary = £3,000 more than the average salary for the same age group. After 5 years, graduate salaries on average £5,000 more than average for age group. Assume 10 years average is £10K more (don't know this one) Paying off 100K of lost earnings and costs (payback time) crude = 3 x £3K 5 x £5k 6 x £10K i.e. the payback time is circa 14 years if you manage to achieve that progression - most don't remember! So - after 17 years (age 38) you are at the same level income-wise as someone who didn't go to university. So 20 years of earnings to keep = £200K at 10K more than the average salary, or £400K at £20K over average (bear in mind tha £20K is what about half the country are living on). SO its easy to see why all those big houses are out of reach of the average graduate career and why education is with the rich!