Huge reductions in foreign student numbers

[englishpremier]

It most certainly is not when it comes to the huge cheap to run courses treated like money making machines. Surrey university literately takes several hundred business management students which only require a few large lecture rooms to teach and under 10 hours a week per student worth of teaching. Students on those courses, international more so than domestic, fund other more expensive to run courses at universities.

From your example domestic students on that course are also funding more expensive courses (form their tuition fees plus the money the Uni gets from the government for them), or perhaps the money going elsewhere like on car parks or new buildings, or the stupid amount UEA paid for a new logo that looked like the old one.

Less students isn't necessarily a bad thing. They'll be less courses which means more competition for those courses which means a high calibre of student on those those course, it's also likely to lead to high quality teaching, and universities specialising more in certain subjects, and applying more of a focus on research which one are universities can make huge amounts.

In business it's always better to one (or a few things) well rather than doing loads of things poorly. Perhaps it's time more Universities considered this. I suppose some do, like Warwick with it's business programs, but a lot don't.

Not saying I agree with what the government is doing, especially not from the examples of rejection the OP gives.

 

[p4radox]

I know for a fact the current UK infrastructure, health care, schools and logistics are at breaking point.

Ideologically driven austerity by the Tories might be the cause of that.

 

[Tefal]

No, it's not made up and is absolutely and objectively true.

You're the one making it up - explicitly so by claiming "its not even vaguely true".

Domestic students are already prioritised over foreign students.

ok then if its "objectively and absolutely true" you'll have zero issue finding for me in the Tory manifesto from the last election the phrase "We will make University only for the rich again"


should be easy peasy for you to do right?

 

[Tefal]

It most certainly is not when it comes to the huge cheap to run courses treated like money making machines. Surrey university literately takes several hundred business management students which only require a few large lecture rooms to teach and under 10 hours a week per student worth of teaching. Students on those courses, international more so than domestic, fund other more expensive to run courses at universities.

iirc its actuals the "more expensive" science and technology courses that subsidise humanities through the vast industry partnership schemes, % owner ship of student/post grad businesses, patent licenses etc.

 

[ubersonic]

And yours are... where exactly?

That would be the part of the post you quoted that you edited out.

 

[Schlong&Stable]

Domestic and foreign students have entirely different quotas and foreign students pay ~3x the amount in fees.

As has already been said, foreign students essentially subsidise domestic students.

I've no idea where you got your information from but it is wrong.

This analysis is based on the existing flawed system though, where foreign students are required because the government had underfunded education. But what you have stated doesn't actually disprove what I have said, because I do not accept this flawed system as being the only way things can be done.

The net contribution of foreign students is about £2.1bn, which is not even 1/5th of our foreign aid budget. The idea that we need foreign students to pay for British students is false, we could easily cover the costs by cutting the inflated overseas aid budget.

 

[Dj_Jestar]

That would be the part of the post you quoted that you edited out.

This part?

Tony Blair convincing an entire generation of people that would previously have become tradesmen that they should get a degree in waster courses has done almost irreparable damage to this country.

Hardly evidence, nor an argument.

 

[Dj_Jestar]

ok then if its "objectively and absolutely true" you'll have zero issue finding for me in the Tory manifesto from the last election the phrase "We will make University only for the rich again"


should be easy peasy for you to do right?

No, that burden is on platypus and/or uerbsonic - they made the original claim that it's one step closer to the Tory plan, and that that would be better than Labour's idea of a degree for everyone (or however he put it) respectively.

I raised the point that ubersonic's claim is twaddle, and it absolutely, demonstrably is just that - to which I have demonstrated it is complete twaddle to arbitrarily limit the opportunity to further anyones education just because they cannot afford it.

 

[StriderX]

Please stop using the NHS and Medical Degrees as some sort of holy grail of reasoning.

"This year (2015) only 52% of junior doctors who finished the two-year foundation training after medical school chose to stay in the NHS and work towards becoming a GP or specialist – the lowest proportion in the health service’s history and down from 71.3% as recently as 2011."

Putting more doctors through the system will just waste money until the situation with the NHS has been resolved.

 

[Dis86]

And that's because at the moment they're free to go in to private practice straight away. If the courses are nhs subsidised that can be changed...

 

[ubersonic]

No, that burden is on platypus and/or uerbsonic

So, you have no counter argument then? (mocking posters/points isn't a argument).

And no, you can't try to put the burden on other people because you want to. I gave an opinion and backed it up, if you disagree you need more than just "lololololololololol" as a counter argument .

 

[Dj_Jestar]

Tories not gonna support anything that strengthens the NHS, and are you really surprised not as many as you'd like are staying on for a NHS career, or have you conveniently forgotten the junior doc fiasco already?

 

[Dj_Jestar]

So, you have no counter argument then? (mocking posters/points isn't a argument).

I've made it perfectly clear that what you posted is twaddle.

 

[ubersonic]

I've made it perfectly clear that what you posted is twaddle.

No, you have made it clear that you think the facts I mentioned are twaddle while making no attempt to explain why or back it up. There is a difference.

 

[Efour]

Most unwanted students are studying BSc. English at the University of Peckham Rye and other such prestigious places as the Ilford University of Carte Blanche to the Uk and abscond after 6 months.

Seriously go watch any immigration border show and 80% of them came in on a study visa to a dodgy fake college on part of the scam that gives them fake attendance records.

Its a lucrative induistry

 

[Tefal]

No, that burden is on platypus and/or uerbsonic - they made the original claim that it's one step closer to the Tory plan, and that that would be better than Labour's idea of a degree for everyone (or however he put it) respectively.

I raised the point that ubersonic's claim is twaddle, and it absolutely, demonstrably is just that - to which I have demonstrated it is complete twaddle to arbitrarily limit the opportunity to further anyones education just because they cannot afford it.

nope that's what you said

No, it's not made up and is absolutely and objectively true.

 

[Dj_Jestar]

nope that's what you said

What I said about opportunity is objective and absolute. Do try harder. I don't bite that easily.

 

[Dj_Jestar]

No, you have made it clear that you think the facts I mentioned are twaddle while making no attempt to explain why or back it up. There is a difference.

Apart from where it has been explained and demonstrated, yes. Where have you explained and backed up that limiting it to the rich is better, by the way?

 

[Dem2k]

a worth while point I think is.

If your rich and I mean rich, there isn't such a thing as a border unless your a criminal (even that's debatable, I can name a few diplomats that had freedom to travel despite being tyrants, screw diplomatic immunity) Rich business men and their families, royalty etc. I can't think of a single country in the world they aren't able to buy property, travel to, or have their family educated in if they wanted to. There isn't one. Or if there is they aren't worth going to anyway.

To universities. We're leaders in specialized subjects within Science and loads of other subjects (although I'd argue the rich if given the choice would choose universities in the US if given a placement above Oxford or Cambridge) But that's just my own view if I were stupidly rich I'd choose the US universities especially in Science any day of the week. There access to the latest and greatest technology and instruments will just be greater then ours, they have the economy to support that we don't.

Foreign students that get refused entry will be the poorer ones. Well join in the club along with the rest of us in society.

If we want to promote fairness in education we need to promote it across the board not just to the well off.

 

[Roar87]

a worth while point I think is.

If your rich and I mean rich, there isn't such a thing as a border unless your a criminal (even that's debatable, I can name a few diplomats that had freedom to travel despite being tyrants, screw diplomatic immunity) Rich business men and their families, royalty etc. I can't think of a single country in the world they aren't able to buy property, travel to, or have their family educated in if they wanted to. There isn't one. Or if there is they aren't worth going to anyway.

To universities. We're leaders in specialized subjects within Science and loads of other subjects (although I'd argue the rich if given the choice would choose universities in the US if given a placement above Oxford or Cambridge) But that's just my own view if I were stupidly rich I'd choose the US universities especially in Science any day of the week. There access to the latest and greatest technology and instruments will just be greater then ours, they have the economy to support that we don't.

Foreign students that get refused entry will be the poorer ones. Well join in the club along with the rest of us in society.

If we want to promote fairness in education we need to promote it across the board not just to the well off.

The reason we and most other countries let rich people in is because they will contribute substantial amounts of money to the host countries economy and pay a lot of taxes, poor people living in these countries benefit from the extra money brought in.