So why do we still do it? Because we’re very passionate about our fields and see it almost as a vocation as much as a career.
And that is why the pay is lower. Most positions are pretty competitive as people want to do it. The pay may be lower than other jobs but its like comparing apples and pears.
The strike is for 5 days isnt it? I like that, go hard or go home I say!! Good luck to them.
Shackleton, thanks for replying in earnest.
I am surprised there isn't a web link that outlines the bare bones of the before and after proposal. I know I could search, but I thought someone on here would have it at their finger tips.
The £9000 a year comment was from the point of view of someone with a son at York uni and someone who has spoken to several heads of faculty in a few northern unis. The fact is that students are seen as meal tickets by many heads of depts. Now you can say that this is a system that was thrust upon them so they are making the best of an enforced marketisation of the system. But many of the heads of faculty I speak to seem to take to the numbers game with a little too much zeal for it to appear reluctant. As a direct example I know that students from overseas are preferred to UK students currently as they can charge more. I also appreciate that lecturers and support staff are piggy in the middle in this game.
My perception is that Universities have more cash than ever. If this is wrong (ie if the increase in fees does not offset the removal of government funds then I missed that....any data on it?). I am not sure that Universities have much alternative but to play this game. The removal of the numbers cap has created a system where Universities can expand expand expand. It's either go big or go home. For example my own faculty in Leeds had an annual intake of 25 when I studied there in the 1990's. It then expanded to about 40, then 70 and for next year I gather they are looking at 120+ students. This is a at a Russell Group university and the faculty is still the same physical size.
Anyhow, you are right that this is not to do with the pensions debate (as I said above it wasn't). But the context that universities operate in does impact on "perceptions" even if reality for the staff is different.
Details from USS of Government/UUK backed changes. The values in this are questioned by every financial expert outside USS and the government as the basis for the calculations are that all 64 Universities that are members would have to default simultaneously without warning......not exactly realistic.
EDIT. why don't links work?
The £9000 a year comment was from the point of view of someone with a son at York uni and someone who has spoken to several heads of faculty in a few northern unis. The fact is that students are seen as meal tickets by many heads of depts. Now you can say that this is a system that was thrust upon them so they are making the best of an enforced marketisation of the system. But many of the heads of faculty I speak to seem to take to the numbers game with a little too much zeal for it to appear reluctant. As a direct example I know that students from overseas are preferred to UK students currently as they can charge more. I also appreciate that lecturers and support staff are piggy in the middle in this game.
No question, students are a meal ticket. But not a big meal, kind of like gruel that is essential to keep you alive but not much more. Universities face rising costs to perform cutting edge research, wages, infrastructure, etc. to stay afloat and the money has to come from somewhere. When the government reduced core funding to the universites but opened up student fees the natural outcome is that it commodified students. There is no other choice but to play the numbers game with zeal. We are now like any other outfit competing in the free market, trying to sell our wares.
My perception is that Universities have more cash than ever. If this is wrong (ie if the increase in fees does not offset the removal of government funds then I missed that….any data on it?).
There were some very good pieces in the THE from around the time when fees were introduced and each time they were changed but I can't find them through google. Universities may have more assets (mostly on borrowed money though) than ever (new lecture theatres, research buildings, etc.) but not spare cash. There is less now than ever and most Universities struggle to break even in good years.
I'm not sure about the 'cash strapped'.
Edinburgh Uni earned £819m last year, cash in bank of just shy of £300m and investment assets of £400m,
I can't remember the figures, but ALL the Scottish universities are wealthy in cash, income and assets.
im still on the 'it's not fair to change contract' side - but I'm not convinced of the "we're skint" argument from universities.
Well, the scottish University I work at isn't. Last year was the only recent year where we weren't in deficit. And that was only because of a one off large research grant coming in.
The values in this are questioned by every financial expert outside USS and the government as the basis for the calculations are that all 64 Universities that are members would have to default simultaneously without warning……not exactly realistic.
Thems the rules for funded DB schemes. The actuarial valuation must be on the basis of all contributions stopping so it is a real doomsday scenario. That's why private sector schemes (including my own) have been closing and are "underfunded". The govt changed the rules some time ago so, in essence, DB pensions need to be overfunded in most practical scenarios so that they can cope with the required doomsday scenario. It reduces the potential burden on the PPF.
Thems the rules for funded DB schemes.
Aha, it would appear to be a government (civil service mandarins?) attempt to pack the newer state pension funds with new members. Make the existing schemes unattractive for employers and hive all the workforce off into stakeholder defined contribution schemes.
There may well be little money for lecturers but Vice Chancellors seem to have done very well out of the funding changes since Camerons government.
<div class="bbp-reply-content">
"I can’t remember the figures, but ALL the Scottish universities are wealthy in cash, income and assets."
</div>
This is definitely not the case. Assets, probably, but those assets are mostly tied up in operation unless you relocate out of a city centre. (Edinburgh University is an enormous landowner but day to day that's more of a liability than a resource, especially since so much of their real estate is ancient and listed)
Cash is complicated because there's a lot of funds tied up for specific purposes (philanthropy comes with ties, we have sacks of money that we literally can't spend and some we're not even allowed to make interest on, we have special arrangements with our bank to hold money on a zero-return basis) but free spending cash, some will be wealthy, others not.
We've recently done some restructuring (including redundancies) which supposedly put us on a good footing though frankly I have no faith in the financial management of the institution. Other institutions are much wobblier.
And that's part of the problem- there's a lot of sector wide planning and resourcing, for instance every year the pay settlement is a bunfight because some institutions go "jesus, let's just pay a decent rate and avoid all the industrial action and bad press and bad blood" and others say "Easy for you to say on your golden throne, we're working out of a portacabin in Paisley" There's no one size fits all. Ironically most of the scottish government stuff is much more pragmatic than the university's own. With pensions in particular it's easy to see how this is a problem.
If the whole of the university teaching lot went on a full all out strike none of us other workers would notice, they have no real or imaginary power, that they misguidedly believe in, lots of students may get upset, appear on tv and in the media looking for attention and thats it.
Where as if train drivers / bus drivers/refuse collectors etc,etc, all seen as menial jobs, but skilled in their own way, where to strike for more than a few days the country would find a way to pay them what they wanted, as has been proved in the past.
Whats needed is a cull of pointless un-educational courses a cut back on numbers attending uni, just to say theyve been and getting degrees with strange and made up titles, with little hope of a job at the end of them.
<div class="bbp-reply-content">
"project:
If the whole of the university teaching lot went on a full all out strike none of us other workers would notice, they have no real or imaginary power, that they misguidedly believe in, lots of students may get upset, appear on tv and in the media looking for attention and thats it."
</div>
You mean like the last 2 times my university union went on strike, and we won an improved pay deal? Strange definition of powerless but whatevs.
Also it was sunny on the strike days so I got in an extra ride.
yep! powerless as an entity,local negotiation lead to an small increase in pay for a few, 1 uni does not make an entity.
yep! powerless as an entity,local negotiation lead to an small increase in pay for a few, 1 uni does not make an entity.
IIRC it was a national strike. Pay scales are fixed across the universities.
I'm not quite sure what your point is, project. You say a strike by academics would be pointless. Someone involved in that strike says it was successful as it achieved their aims. Surely that’s the time to accept the point and move on?
<div class="bbp-reply-content">
"Project:
yep! powerless as an entity,local negotiation lead to an small increase in pay for a few, 1 uni does not make an entity."
</div>
Or in other words, you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.
one small unit of the whole got a pay increase the rest didnt get a pay increase or felt the need to strike
The lecturers, and support staff, are striking over a move to change their pensions from defined-benefit schemes to defined-contribution schemes. The former offers the security of a fixed-sum payment whereas the latter is a payout which depends on the performance of underlying investments.
Its called capitalism shares and investments may go up and down, other workers understand that and accept it,
Why talk pish, project? Why look at a thread and think, I know, the best contribution I can make, is to talk obvious pish, and share this opinion which I just found up my arse? It's mystifying, your entire input in this thread seems designed to make people think you're an oaf.
At least have the grace to admit it when you get caught out talking out your arse. "It was one uni" No it was national "Yeah it was a small unit of the whole" No it was the basic pay settlement for most salaried staff, from senior lecturers to entry level administrators.
(oops, ran out of edit time- and also cleaners, librarians, caterers...)
Yup, I’d call it quits, project. Oh, and do some reading. Northwind is accurate in what he says.
By instability I meant instability for the universities. Political instability in the 3rd and developing world make the UK look like a paragon of stability. Media is already carrying stories about Chinese students complaining about the strike which will then be followed by the Easter holidays. A refund request wouldn't be unreasonable.
Let's say at £10k a year, and 40 weeks of teaching puts a week's refund at around £250 per student (more for medicine and Masters students I guess?). Will they see any of that money back? I sure as hell would want it back if I were them.
I fully agree with you on your other points. Local perception of students is very different to what is marketed abroad. Seeing as you work in the industry, can you tell me if they make students aware of how hostile the government is towards them?
Seeing as you work in the industry, can you tell me if they make students aware of how hostile the government is towards them?
Can you expand on this ? I'm not sure what you mean .......
I'm still curious why people are so quick to justify students being refunded a couple of hundred quid or whatever due to a perceived loss of service & slating the workers who are trying to stop their terms & conditions being rewritten without their consent, costing them far greater sums over the course... is it the perception that they've got it good so they deserve to be shafted?
I think Northwind is referring to how the Conservatives have clamped down on employment regulations around overseas (non-EU) students during/after graduation. It used to be a lot simpler to work in the UK after graduation. It has now become a lot more difficult to stay on and work for a limited period of time prior to returning to your country. There is also the added rhetoric about deportation (which is deplorable) which was not as prevalent as it is now.
Basically, the path to a career for a non-EU graduate in the UK is a lot harder than it used to be.
Not sure whom you mean, because I certainly don't begrudge their right to strike for better terms. If the university employees have a right to strike then they're welcome to it. It's unfair on the students who are paying for an education to still be charged for a service that's not being provided.
Supposedly some students have sued for refunds in previous strikes.
I met some lecturers socially the other day. They say UUK aren't budging and they;'re happy the students are on their side.
However... they are not being very forthcoming with info if our classes are on - some teachers not saying if they're striking, or what is happening with classes taught by outside lecturers.
I'm our class rep and the feedback I'm getting is that goodwill from students to faculty staff will quickly evaporate if they start dragging us out to uni for nothing (Can be an hour each way from city to uni for us). We're OK with the lectures not happening - we can read the notes at home as they are on an intranet - but if the start wasting our time, people will be pissed off.
Another issue is that some lecturers aren't putting their slides up online for us. If the strike goes on significantly longer, we're not going to get taught material that we will be examined on - that's a problem. Our course (post grad) is very intensive - there isn't really any slack in the programme for us to pick things up ourselves out of hours. We can learn them now when we don't have classes (or two hour a day travel times), but not on top of resumed classes/assignments/exams
we’re not going to get taught material that we will be examined on – that’s a problem
No it isn't. You can't be examined on something that is a defined part of the curriculum that hasn't formally been taught .
Same as if a lecturer were sick and it couldn't be rescheduled.
"Curiousyellow
"Local perception of students is very different to what is marketed abroad. Seeing as you work in the industry, can you tell me if they make students aware of how hostile the government is towards them?""
Just to finish up on "instability"- the previous strikes had no noticable impact on student attitudes, it just didn't come up.
The marketing abroad, or at least ours and the competitor's stuff I've seen, is honest. It obviously doesn't dwell on the bad parts- and tbh it'd be difficult to, because they genuinely change frequently. Where it's, for instance, post graduation work permit changes, that's more a positive that we stopped discussing (because the people you market to change almost completely every year, there's not so much hangover from old messages as there is in other fields). In others, for instance shitty visa rules, spiralling costs, the total dysfunction of ATAS, we're just up front about it. Not because we're awesome or anything, it's as much because there's no alternative, you couldn't conceal it if you wanted to. The commercial reality is that honesty is the only approach that works. IF you're a quality institution anyway.
In all of our major markets, there's a pretty good understanding of UK education already from kids, media, institutions, and also for some- China especially- there's professional agents out there too so the message isn't in the university's control. Which keeps us honest of course and means we're dealing generally with very informed customers, but also does have some issues- agents on commission especially can sometimes overpromise, or may just be a little less well informed than they think, some were still promising post-graduation work after it was abolished frinstance.
Personally I am a home student recruiter not overseas, but I do deal with some overseas students when it comes up, and I say straight out "it's not as good as it was, we are governed by bellends". Chinese and Indian students already know, US students sympathise, West African students say "same for us". We do lean on Scotland's advantages but we have to be straight that the policy setting is national. (after Brexit, the wave of hate crimes was a massive problem and the media didn't distinguish between the nations, we could counter it by saying "it just didn't happen in Scotland, we voted to remain in the EU" frexample)
So it's not as straightforward as your question implies but the short answer is yes, absolutely, potential students know what the offer is. Or what it is right now- it genuinely might change at 4pm. The admissions cycle is way longer than the UKVI and government's attention span so every student will experience some inconvenient changes of policy.
And here's where it comes right down to it. We pay a load of money for a UKVI premium adviser, because it's basically impossible not to- we have to pay the government to tell us what they want us to do. We had a sponsor policy change come down with unclear wording. We asked our premium adviser, what does that mean? She said, oooh, badly worded isn't it. What do you think it means? We said well, we think it means this. She said, yeah, that sounds reasonable, go with that. We said, can you confirm we're right? She said, no. Or wrong? No. What if you later decide we're wrong? Well we'll fine you, and might slag you off in the press, and it's possible we'll stop a bunch of your students from entering the UK.
Wow, I think I should be more surprised that the government is that rubbish. The fact that I'm not speaks volumes. Thanks for the detailed response.
No worries- I'm a bore on this subject tbh 🙂 The really key thing to understand is that it's all working perfectly- it sounds like incompetence but actually it takes a lot of effort to get it working like this.
when people have nothing of any value to say , they usually resort to insults, youve just proved that age old addage
when people have nothing of any value to say , they usually resort to insults, youve just proved that age old addage
You could just admit that you were wrong.
First rule of Singletrack forum , "never ever admit youre wrong" 2 x wrongs make a right.
First rule of Singletrack forum , “never ever admit youre wrong” 2 x wrongs make a right.
Certainly seems to be your rule. I've no idea why.
[The USS ‘crisis’] is the result of the misrepresentation of the finances of the USS, and the desire of a new breed of university managements to cut their pension liabilities and thereby ease the financing of new buildings and campuses.
Successive Pension Acts have encouraged managers of private sector schemes to exaggerate the risks of default. Combined with Quantitative Easing, this has led to a headlong abandonment of Final Salary Defined Benefit to “Defined Contribution” schemes, where employees rather than employers bear investment risk.
Higher Education today is shaped by frantic competition for students and huge building projects. Universities can recruit unlimited UK undergraduates paying an annual £9,000 plus, backed by taxpayer loans. The Higher Education and Research Act 2017 even allows universities to go bankrupt.
The source of the USS ‘crisis’ – and the solution