The Great Big Bad Durham Thread

[UKLacrosse]

I'll say it again:

This does not cost Durham university a penny - they in fact get 10-12 extra EU level paying students

Surely every course at EU rates is costing either the uni or the tax payer, or both, to subsidise it. If its just the tax payer, then it raises other issues entirely. Basically, to take on non-EU students at EU rates is effectively 'losing' money, because they should be charging more than double the EU rate. A simple business model which may work if you have spare capacity, either accommodation sitting empty, and/ or lecturers sitting around with spare time. My guess is that if its costing the tax payer then a lot of people would be asking the question, why? Also of interest is the question, that If there's spare capacity or places available regardless of undergrad or postgrad, why are the uni's turning away undergraduates?

[Steely Dan]

... If there's spare capacity or places available regardless of undergrad or postgrad, why are the uni's turning away undergraduates?

Keith - I know its a side track from the main discussion but just to answer this point.

The UK government puts a cap on undergraduate numbers at all universities, however there is no such cap for postgraduate studies, hence many universities are looking to make up the shortfall in UG income by taking on more PG students.

[young_trig]

I'll say it again:

This does not cost Durham university a penny - they in fact get 10-12 extra EU level paying students

Surely every course at EU rates is costing either the uni or the tax payer, or both, to subsidise it. If its just the tax payer, then it raises other issues entirely. Basically, to take on non-EU students at EU rates is effectively 'losing' money, because they should be charging more than double the EU rate. A simple business model which may work if you have spare capacity, either accommodation sitting empty, and/ or lecturers sitting around with spare time. My guess is that if its costing the tax payer then a lot of people would be asking the question, why? Also of interest is the question, that If there's spare capacity or places available regardless of undergrad or postgrad, why are the uni's turning away undergraduates?

If you haven't any money to pay at a restaurant and you are made to wash the pots, has it in theory cost you anything or have you just provided a service in return? Providing you didn't have to go out and buy the washing-up liquid and sponges, you are not out of pocket in anyway. If these overheads do exists, you just make sure that these are taken off the final bill.

Durham in theory haven't offered any money to the Americans, they have just simply offered them a place to study. Whatever it costs to deliver a course to a student, I'm sure that that is covered by the EU rate fee (please correct me if I'm wrong and you happen to know how much it costs to deliver a course). Regardless of if the student is English, European, or American, the overheads are the same surely? I understand that they are reducing their profit by allowing the EU rate but surely they are not leaving themselves out of pocket? The increased success in BUCS and extra funding probably makes up the difference anyway. If they didn't win BUCS, someone else would and the extra BUCS funding would still be paid anyway. I don't understand why you think that this is costing the tax payer?

[webby]

If the Overseas students were to be charged X they wouldn't be at Durham University.

Exactly. So we've come to the conclusion that Durham aren't actually spending any money to bring these guys over. Could any UK uni do this? Theoretically yes. But it helps that Durham are a Russell Group university with a high reputation inside and outside the UK for academics.

I'd be interested to know if the courses the players are on would be under-subscribed if they weren't there, meaning Durham are effectively making more money (albeit EU rates and not US rates) and bringing in players to help improve their BUCS and overall university standings.

[UKLacrosse]

If you haven't any money to pay at a restaurant and you are made to wash the pots, has it in theory cost you anything or have you just provided a service in return? Providing you didn't have to go out and buy the washing-up liquid and sponges, you are not out of pocket in anyway. If these overheads do exists, you just make sure that these are taken off the final bill.

Durham in theory haven't offered any money to the Americans, they have just simply offered them a place to study. Whatever it costs to deliver a course to a student, I'm sure that that is covered by the EU rate fee (please correct me if I'm wrong and you happen to know how much it costs to deliver a course). Regardless of if the student is English, European, or American, the overheads are the same surely? I understand that they are reducing their profit by allowing the EU rate but surely they are not leaving themselves out of pocket? The increased success in BUCS and extra funding probably makes up the difference anyway. If they didn't win BUCS, someone else would and the extra BUCS funding would still be paid anyway. I don't understand why you think that this is costing the tax payer?

Trig, thank you kindly for the simple business scenario. If the EU rate covers the total cost of the course, then why does the government subsidise it? Why are all the uni's saying that once the government cuts come in, they need to charge the £6k or £9k? Cambridge claim that even at £9k they are not covering the costs. It was claimed that taking on these postgrads at EU rates is not costing them anything! Its costing either Durham, or the tax payer, or both.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11522593 Somewhere here it states that current course fees are paid for by tuition fees and government subsidy. Further that the tution fee of £7k would cover the course fees? Now that's presumably an undergrad fee. Secondly, how can they fit them in without having the spare capacity which is supposedly being denied undergrads as we hear about students being turned away? Adds a whole new angle on the students fees argument.

[young_trig]

If you haven't any money to pay at a restaurant and you are made to wash the pots, has it in theory cost you anything or have you just provided a service in return? Providing you didn't have to go out and buy the washing-up liquid and sponges, you are not out of pocket in anyway. If these overheads do exists, you just make sure that these are taken off the final bill.

Durham in theory haven't offered any money to the Americans, they have just simply offered them a place to study. Whatever it costs to deliver a course to a student, I'm sure that that is covered by the EU rate fee (please correct me if I'm wrong and you happen to know how much it costs to deliver a course). Regardless of if the student is English, European, or American, the overheads are the same surely? I understand that they are reducing their profit by allowing the EU rate but surely they are not leaving themselves out of pocket? The increased success in BUCS and extra funding probably makes up the difference anyway. If they didn't win BUCS, someone else would and the extra BUCS funding would still be paid anyway. I don't understand why you think that this is costing the tax payer?

Trig, thank you kindly for the simple business scenario. If the EU rate covers the total cost of the course, then why does the government subsidise it? Why are all the uni's saying that once the government cuts come in, they need to charge the £6k or £9k? Cambridge claim that even at £9k they are not covering the costs. It was claimed that taking on these postgrads at EU rates is not costing them anything! Its costing either Durham, or the tax payer, or both.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11522593 Somewhere here it states that current course fees are paid for by tuition fees and government subsidy. Further that the tution fee of £7k would cover the course fees? Now that's presumably an undergrad fee. Secondly, how can they fit them in without having the spare capacity which is supposedly being denied undergrads as we hear about students being turned away? Adds a whole new angle on the students fees argument.

You are most welcome Keith.

You missed my point. What a Uni charges an EU student and what the overheads are to teach an EU student are probably different ammounts. What I'm trying to say is that Durham are probably clearing their overheads charging the EU rate to the American students. Surely they can't take money from the government to subsidise these students as they do not qualify to be subsidised! (again, please correct me if I'm wrong).

As a business, what your overheads are to supply a nice shiny new helmet, will be different to what you charge to supply a nice shiny new helmet.

[UKLacrosse]

You are most welcome Keith.

You missed my point. What a Uni charges an EU student and what the overheads are to teach an EU student are probably different ammounts. What I'm trying to say is that Durham are probably clearing their overheads charging the EU rate to the American students. Surely they can't take money from the government to subsidise these students as they do not qualify to be subsidised! (again, please correct me if I'm wrong).

As a business, what your overheads are to supply a nice shiny new helmet, will be different to what you charge to supply a nice shiny new helmet.

So Trig, are you sure that Durham are covering the cost of the course with what they are charging? My point is that the EU rate does not cover the cost, and that is one of the main issues about financing of university education. Oh, and thank you for the business advice, I thought we must be doing something wrong. Now here's somnething to add to the debate -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/201 ... nding-cuts

[young_trig]

You are most welcome Keith.

You missed my point. What a Uni charges an EU student and what the overheads are to teach an EU student are probably different ammounts. What I'm trying to say is that Durham are probably clearing their overheads charging the EU rate to the American students. Surely they can't take money from the government to subsidise these students as they do not qualify to be subsidised! (again, please correct me if I'm wrong).

As a business, what your overheads are to supply a nice shiny new helmet, will be different to what you charge to supply a nice shiny new helmet.

So Trig, are you sure that Durham are covering the cost of the course with what they are charging? My point is that the EU rate does not cover the cost, and that is one of the main issues about financing of university education. Oh, and thank you for the business advice, I thought we must be doing something wrong. Now here's somnething to add to the debate -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/201 ... nding-cuts

If I clean your pots, will you give me a helmet?

[Steely Dan]

Keith, I think you my have missed my post above.

Undergraduate places are capped by UK government, postgrad places are not.

Furthermore the break-even point for a postgrad course is normally met from UK applicants entirely, resulting in overseas applicants filling the coffers an meeting the overheads associated with the additional requirements of one more student.

Furthermore in many cases a large proportion of postgraduate courses include a self directed research project. Provided that the equipment required has spare capacity this results in little inconvenience taking in postgrads.

In most cases postgrads are outnumbered at least 5:1 I not closer to 10:1 by undergrads.

[UKLacrosse]

Keith, I think you my have missed my post above.

Undergraduate places are capped by UK government, postgrad places are not.

Furthermore the break-even point for a postgrad course is normally met from UK applicants entirely, resulting in overseas applicants filling the coffers an meeting the overheads associated with the additional requirements of one more student.

Furthermore in many cases a large proportion of postgraduate courses include a self directed research project. Provided that the equipment required has spare capacity this results in little inconvenience taking in postgrads.

In most cases postgrads are outnumbered at least 5:1 I not closer to 10:1 by undergrads.

Dan, apparently not, as there is a government subsidy for postgrads masters courses of around £100m, as indicated in the Guardian article.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/201 ... nding-cuts

[GarethBrown]

If the Overseas students were to be charged X they wouldn't be at Durham University.

Exactly. So we've come to the conclusion that Durham aren't actually spending any money to bring these guys over. Could any UK uni do this? Theoretically yes. But it helps that Durham are a Russell Group university with a high reputation inside and outside the UK for academics.

I'd be interested to know if the courses the players are on would be under-subscribed if they weren't there, meaning Durham are effectively making more money (albeit EU rates and not US rates) and bringing in players to help improve their BUCS and overall university standings.

Durham isn't actually Russell Group, common misconception apparently..

Im convinced the courses must be undersubscribed ones, else the uni would be losing money in real terms.
We could not do this at warwick for instance, as the courses which have a draw for overseas masters students are all oversubscribed and there would be no way in hell of getting the uni to take a financial hit - especially at the moment.

[GarethBrown]

Keith, I think you my have missed my post above.

Undergraduate places are capped by UK government, postgrad places are not.

Furthermore the break-even point for a postgrad course is normally met from UK applicants entirely, resulting in overseas applicants filling the coffers an meeting the overheads associated with the additional requirements of one more student.

Furthermore in many cases a large proportion of postgraduate courses include a self directed research project. Provided that the equipment required has spare capacity this results in little inconvenience taking in postgrads.

In most cases postgrads are outnumbered at least 5:1 I not closer to 10:1 by undergrads.

Dan, apparently not, as there is a government subsidy for postgrads masters courses of around £100m, as indicated in the Guardian article.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/201 ... nding-cuts

Which isn't actually very much money when shared around 325 institutions..

[6x6]

[quote="young_trig] Regardless of if the student is English, European, or American, the overheads are the same surely? [/quote]

Well except for the cost of the translator for the Americans

[6x6]

Just to add,

I think it would be great to see a progressive cap, if Universities were capped on giving 3 or 4 scholarships for top performing players, they would be able to help coach the players and as a result show other Universities how much of an improvement this would make on the team. In time I imagine other Universities would follow suit and eventually we can increase the cap and develop both the University game and Lacrosse in the UK. I'm sure after Exeters storming performance in the South Prem after funding 1 of only 2 American coaches, the University will realise the benefits and increase funding.

Maybe we could also stop the Iroquois Nationals coming into the Country to take part in a World Championships as well so that England team can finish higher in the tables...........

Funny, but I actually thought of the World Championship analogy while reading some of the comments. How can we compete, it's a forgone conclusion so why bother, we don't have their funding, we don't have the time to train, not fair when they import a team of all-stars, and so on.

[Steely Dan]

Which isn't actually very much money when shared around 325 institutions..

not much at all really especially when I think Herts Uni alone is funded to the tune of 40-50+ Million per year (not inc research, PGCE, and general postgrad)

[LPierce]

What I'd like to know is whether we'd have as much a problem if this wasn't about our sport, but was happening in something like tennis. Personally I feel that much of these ill feelings towards what Durham has done stems from the fact we are gutted that it removes much chance of winning BUCS. Someone posted a link before which showed a college football, not the retarded rugby league but actual football, which was made up pretty much solely of British guys.. Do you think they complain as we do, or accept it?
I do understand everyone's views about Durham, but I also think that there's no point us moaning about it when quite frankly we can't do anything about it.
On another note at our rather drunken sports ball last night I proceeded to tell someone from Durham how they ruin the sport.... Ooops

[ScottStorey]

What I'd like to know is whether we'd have as much a problem if this wasn't about our sport, but was happening in something like tennis. Personally I feel that much of these ill feelings towards what Durham has done stems from the fact we are gutted that it removes much chance of winning BUCS. Someone posted a link before which showed a college football, not the retarded rugby league but actual football, which was made up pretty much solely of British guys.. Do you think they complain as we do, or accept it?
I do understand everyone's views about Durham, but I also think that there's no point us moaning about it when quite frankly we can't do anything about it.
On another note at our rather drunken sports ball last night I proceeded to tell someone from Durham how they ruin the sport.... Ooops

The complaints about Durham aren't just lacrosse specific. Other sports across many institutions bring it up quite regularly with BUCS.

At his last BUCS meeting our sports officer has said he directly asked how many americans durham were planning on buying to get ahead of lufbra in BUCS points, im told everyone was in hysterics over it and Durham wasn't amused.

[the pom]

I hate durham

[rpowell]

What I'd like to know is whether we'd have as much a problem if this wasn't about our sport, but was happening in something like tennis. /quote]

The complaints about Durham aren't just lacrosse specific. Other sports across many institutions bring it up quite regularly with BUCS.

At his last BUCS meeting our sports officer has said he directly asked how many americans durham were planning on buying to get ahead of lufbra in BUCS points, im told everyone was in hysterics over it and Durham wasn't amused.

Your Sports Officer was a tad optimistic...

Last years's BUCS points table says:

1. Lougborough 5585.5
2. Leeds Met Carnegie 3372.5 (oh, jolly good show chaps - the only institution Loughborough didn't get more than twice as many points as)
...
6. Durham 2417.5 (Yes. Well. And that's with the maximum 50 points they could get from Mens Lacrosse)

We're sat here in Lacrosse, worried about our own little sport, and we don't see the overall picture at all. Have a look at the scholarships available Loughborough Students in other sports - more valuable than anything offered to the Durham Mens Lacrosse players. Then have a little look at how often Loughborough have won the overall BUCS Points Championship. In the grand scheme of things we are a tiny, tiny sport.... and this is all a storm in a tea-cup.

[Tree13]

I'll say it again:

This does not cost Durham university a penny - they in fact get 10-12 extra EU level paying students

All of whom are recruited from outside the EU and therefore would, but for the scholarship, be paying non-EU overseas rates.

Therefore the cost is the sum of the difference between the EU fee and the non-EU overseas fee..... times ten. Whilst it is not money the uni has to find and pay out, it is a reduction in forecasted income. You may not consider that a cost, and to some extent I would not disagree with you, but any Uni finance department will regard it as a "spend". Remember we keep getting told that these scholars would be at Durham doing the same course anyway, therefore there has been a reduction in the Uni's income due to the reduction in fees.

The only way this would not be the case would be if these ten chaps would NOT otherwise have come to Durham, and their places were taken instead by people paying less, or no-one taking those places at all.