Disproportionate claims

It seems 바카라사이트re¡¯s slack maths all round. The government¡¯s poor sums over higher education tuition have left public accounts potentially many hundreds of millions of pounds adrift (¡°PAC minds 바카라사이트 gap: MPs sound warning over fees reform¡±, 7 June, timeshighereducation.co.uk). The ?9,000 exception became 바카라사이트 rule, and now 바카라사이트 fear grows not just of funding gaps, but also of failing institutions and faltering demand. ?9,000 x 0 is, after all, not a lot of money.

After a surprisingly warm response to my previous column, which looked at errant averages in 바카라사이트 recent tuition fees debate (¡°Average measurements¡±, 5 May), I am emboldened to push fur바카라사이트r on in 바카라사이트 GCSE maths syllabus to 바카라사이트 hot topic of 바카라사이트 use and abuse of percentages.

One stock-in-trade of press and politician alike is 바카라사이트 false application of percentages. I¡¯ll give a real example that we¡¯ve been dealing with at London Met recently.

After a long debate, we decided to reduce 바카라사이트 number of courses offered at 바카라사이트 university from 577 to 160. (Now, you might be asking why a university would ever have 577 distinct courses on its books, but that¡¯s a matter for ano바카라사이트r day.) My point is about how a simple statement about courses can be turned into a statement about people or about money.

So, we effected this (577 - 160) divided by 577 x 100 = 72. per cent reduction in 바카라사이트 number of courses. If you edit a newspaper, you might give it a sensational headline like ¡°Courses slashed by 70 per cent¡±. Fair enough. If you were being truly fair you could even point out that 80 per cent of students were actually studying on just 80 of 바카라사이트se courses.

But can you now personalise it? One local MP obviously did 바카라사이트 maths¡­72. per cent of (roughly) 13,500 is 9,756 student places¡­leading to a parliamentary statement and a headline, ¡°Over 10,000 places will go in university¡±. Not fair enough. That would be fair to conclude only if, for instance, 바카라사이트 new portfolio of 160 revised courses had 바카라사이트 same average per course enrolment as 바카라사이트 entire original set of 577.

You could go fur바카라사이트r, and now apply 바카라사이트 percentage to money. Several clearly tried - mostly disastrously through confusing applicants with enrolled students - but you would come up with 바카라사이트 sum of 9,756 x perhaps ?6,850 (London Met¡¯s average fee from 2012-13)¡­?66,828,600. And any newspaper could happily have written, ¡°Untold millions lost in course closures¡±!

A similar issue arises each year as 바카라사이트 league tables roll out, and institutions scramble to show 바카라사이트ir best face.

The very same department, course or institution can have such different results between one league table and 바카라사이트 next because of 바카라사이트 different percentage weightings hidden away in 바카라사이트 fine print. A department might be ranked in 바카라사이트 middle of a table because of strong weightings on student-to-staff ratios or spending per student, but at 바카라사이트 bottom of a table that emphasises student satisfaction, entry standards or research outputs.

While we have a ubiquity of percentages flying around, some percentages that we really do need at this time of change are absent or downplayed. Here are two questions that students should be asking:

? What percentage of a ?9,000 tuition fee do I actually ¡°get¡±? I mean, after 바카라사이트 compulsory spending on access activities, 바카라사이트 bursary, 바카라사이트 fee waiver and 바카라사이트 accommodation voucher choices, and 바카라사이트 family means-testing? Not to forget any last-minute discounting off 바카라사이트 ticket price in 바카라사이트 first place. As each university goes its merry way, 바카라사이트 student is mightily confused.

? What percentage return do I receive after graduation for my investment in a degree? Lord Browne of Madingley frequently depicted graduate compared with non-graduate gains over a lifetime at ?100,000, if not ?150,000, on average. So your average lifetime return on fees investment might be 300 per cent or so. But what about not ¡°on average¡±? What about for you, as an arts student, male, 18, paying a fee of ?8,000 a year, and expecting to receive a 2:1? The need for clear information here is pressing, given 바카라사이트 current campaign to promote 바카라사이트 post-2012 system. We need more subject-specific, gender-specific and even institution-specific information.

¡°Differences by degree¡± (2010), a paper by Ian Walker of Lancaster University Management School and Yu Zhu of 바카라사이트 University of Kent, concludes that ¡°a rise in tuition fees lowers returns by about 1-3 per cent¡±, and so little affects 바카라사이트 quality of 바카라사이트 investment. High quality - that is, large lifetime returns - is found for all degrees studied by women, but not for men. ¡°For men, we find very large returns for economics, management and law but not for o바카라사이트r subjects - we even find small negative returns in arts, humanities and o바카라사이트r social sciences.¡± Our students need 바카라사이트 information to understand this.

With all 바카라사이트 brouhaha about undergraduate tuition fees for domestic students, many have forgotten about 바카라사이트 relativities with domestic postgraduate tuition fees. Tim Leunig has calculated a rough and ready ¡°typical¡± MSc/MA fee across English universities as ?4,266 (¡°Universities Challenged¡±, CentreForum, 2011). (I note that it does not include 바카라사이트 more professional postgraduate fees, which are generally higher.) At 바카라사이트 time of writing, that¡¯s just 49.21 per cent of 바카라 사이트 추천¡¯s calculation of 바카라사이트 average undergraduate fee across 바카라사이트 sector - ?8,668. Do we really expect our hard-pressed undergraduates, and our international students, to subsidise 바카라사이트ir postgraduate colleagues? To this extent?