Buggeration

[davebhoy]

People are dying so universities can get their rent.

That’s very simplistic. And like I said, I think you’re angry with the wrong people

From the TES in October: “UK government scientific advisers said last month that Covid outbreaks “are very likely in universities” and that closing universities would lower transmission rates, calling for “a clear statement about online teaching” to avoid institutions feeling commercially pressured into in-person teaching.”

The Government ignored the advice, they issued guidance that Universities should offer a blend of face to face and online learning. The universities weren’t told not to do it they were encouraged to offer face to face tuition. In the competitive market place that universities now operate, every university, run as a business, was as they said “commercially pressured” into offering it.

What were they supposed to do, go against the government guidance on it and face a huge drop in applications from students who choose universities that do offer it?

 

[markcw]

?

 

[steve2]

The government decided that all schools and universities would not close no matter what happens. Not the best idea they have had in slowing the spread of this virus.

 

[Krang]

That’s very simplistic. And like I said, I think you’re angry with the wrong people

From the TES in October: “UK government scientific advisers said last month that Covid outbreaks “are very likely in universities” and that closing universities would lower transmission rates, calling for “a clear statement about online teaching” to avoid institutions feeling commercially pressured into in-person teaching.”

The Government ignored the advice, they issued guidance that Universities should offer a blend of face to face and online learning. The universities weren’t told not to do it they were encouraged to offer face to face tuition. In the competitive market place that universities now operate, every university, run as a business, was as they said “commercially pressured” into offering it.

What were they supposed to do, go against the government guidance on it and face a huge drop in applications from students who choose universities that do offer it?

The guidance says this:

Universities should continue to agree with their local public health teams on the appropriate balance of online and in person teaching, based on the overall assessment of the public health risks, including to the mental health of students and the status of local outbreaks.

[Withdrawn] Higher education providers: coronavirus (COVID-19)

Coronavirus (COVID-19) operational guidance for higher education providers.

www.gov.uk

So the decision on what an appropriate blend of face to face and online teaching is is left to universities public health teams. Becoming the main exacerbating factor in the pandemic doesn't seem like an appropriate level to me.

The universities weren't motivated by a fear of a drop in domestic student numbers. If they were they could all have simply switched to online only for courses with no practical element. They all switched to blended and did pretty much the same thing. They could have all done as I suggest instead, not lost new enrolments, and saved themselves all the negative publicity. They were all motivated by the rent money, hoping that the fact that they would all be in the same boat would negate the competitive disadvantage of bad publicity.

 

[Molehill]

I note a report today that mentions some young children that missed school have forgotten how to use a knife and fork. Which begs the question, have they been copying their parents at home?

 

[Peter Jacobs]

I note a report today that mentions some young children that missed school have forgotten how to use a knife and fork. Which begs the question, have they been copying their parents at home?

I read that article and was honestly amazed.

Is this a function of some parents feeding their children only food that can be eaten with their fingers, like pizza, chicken bites or burgers?

Should school teachers really have to teach children how to use a knife and fork?

 

[markcw]

The guidance says this:

Universities should continue to agree with their local public health teams on the appropriate balance of online and in person teaching, based on the overall assessment of the public health risks, including to the mental health of students and the status of local outbreaks.

[Withdrawn] Higher education providers: coronavirus (COVID-19)

Coronavirus (COVID-19) operational guidance for higher education providers.

www.gov.uk

So the decision on what an appropriate blend of face to face and online teaching is is left to universities public health teams. Becoming the main exacerbating factor in the pandemic doesn't seem like an appropriate level to me.

The universities weren't motivated by a fear of a drop in domestic student numbers. If they were they could all have simply switched to online only for courses with no practical element. They all switched to blended and did pretty much the same thing. They could have all done as I suggest instead, not lost new enrolments, and saved themselves all the negative publicity. They were all motivated by the rent money, hoping that the fact that they would all be in the same boat would negate the competitive disadvantage of bad publicity.

You could get a job as a burser at a uni and save them thousands,

 

[davebhoy]

The guidance says this:

Universities should continue to agree with their local public health teams on the appropriate balance of online and in person teaching, based on the overall assessment of the public health risks, including to the mental health of students and the status of local outbreaks.

[Withdrawn] Higher education providers: coronavirus (COVID-19)

Coronavirus (COVID-19) operational guidance for higher education providers.

www.gov.uk

So the decision on what an appropriate blend of face to face and online teaching is is left to universities public health teams. Becoming the main exacerbating factor in the pandemic doesn't seem like an appropriate level to me.

The universities weren't motivated by a fear of a drop in domestic student numbers. If they were they could all have simply switched to online only for courses with no practical element. They all switched to blended and did pretty much the same thing. They could have all done as I suggest instead, not lost new enrolments, and saved themselves all the negative publicity. They were all motivated by the rent money, hoping that the fact that they would all be in the same boat would negate the competitive disadvantage of bad publicity.

By making universities compete for 80% of their income government made these sort of decisions inevitable. They have been forced to behave as a group of individual organizations competing against each other. It’s fanciful to suggest they would make a collective decision to go against government guidance. They were facing a potential huge drop in revenues, none of them would have been prepared to offer such a big competitive advantage to one of their competitors.

Even Sage, a scientific group, told the government what their guidance would lead to because of the commercial pressures universities are under.

Please tell me in what other industry would you see competitors go against government guidance and make decisions that make no commercial sense? If you’re one of those “rubbish universities” who face going out of business why aren’t you looking at doing everything you can to stop going bust?

And tell me who is the arbiter of an appropriate blend of teaching? Who should they listen to - You? The elected Government?

Im sorry if I’m coming across as rude or dismissive. I’m studying the business environment and competitive advantage at the moment and I’m struggling to understand where what you’re suggesting fits in to any of what I’m learning.

 

[steve2]

I note a report today that mentions some young children that missed school have forgotten how to use a knife and fork. Which begs the question, have they been copying their parents at home?

I always thought it was a parents job to teach these skills. I was told by infant school teachers that they have to teach the most basic of parents
duties.
Many treat school as baby sitting service while they are off enjoying theirselves and than they can blame someone else for their kids failings.

 

[Molehill]

I always thought it was a parents job to teach these skills. I was told by infant school teachers that they have to teach the most basic of parents
duties.
Many treat school as baby sitting service while they are off enjoying theirselves and than they can blame someone else for their kids failings.

I fear that parenting and childcare responsibilities are becoming devolved onto the government. Note provision of school meals in school holidays, I just don't get it all.

 

[dorsetsteve]

I do wonder how much of that is real and how much is nonsense... what percentage of kids are we talking about or is it just a visual minority. Bearing in mind most young kids are going to be eating a packed lunch, they aren’t eating dinner at school... sandwiches etc where you wouldn’t use a knife and fork anyway.
I smell something and it smells like nonsense.

 

[Krang]

By making universities compete for 80% of their income government made these sort of decisions inevitable. They have been forced to behave as a group of individual organizations competing against each other. It’s fanciful to suggest they would make a collective decision to go against government guidance. They were facing a potential huge drop in revenues, none of them would have been prepared to offer such a big competitive advantage to one of their competitors.

Even Sage, a scientific group, told the government what their guidance would lead to because of the commercial pressures universities are under.

Please tell me in what other industry would you see competitors go against government guidance and make decisions that make no commercial sense? If you’re one of those “rubbish universities” who face going out of business why aren’t you looking at doing everything you can to stop going bust?

And tell me who is the arbiter of an appropriate blend of teaching? Who should they listen to - You? The elected Government?

Im sorry if I’m coming across as rude or dismissive. I’m studying the business environment and competitive advantage at the moment and I’m struggling to understand where what you’re suggesting fits in to any of what I’m learning.

The government guidance left the interpretation of "appropriate" to the judgement of university's health teams. You're suggesting that they all individually came to the exact same conclusion and decided that blended learning was appropriate even for courses that can be effectively taught on line? Other bodies looking at the covid response don't all agree like that. There's constant disagreement that we read of constantly in the press. Universities have clearly colluded. They got their full years rent whilst mitigating negative media coverage by all adopting the same strategy.

Whilst I don't accept the premise of the questions in your third paragraph (because interpreting "appropriate" differently to somebody else doesn't constitute "going against the guidance) I'll answer them anyway. How about fishing? Commercial fishing venues could easily of stayed open according to my interpretation of the first lockdown rules. I realise that ones that didn't got bashed on forums, but were any of them actually legally forced to close? Restaurant chains also spring to mind. While many small restaurants and takeaways stayed open for delivery only, most of the major chains closed. They didn't have to, they could have offered delivery. But they knew that staying open would have gone against the public mood, and resulted in negative publicity (and damage the nation's table manners), so they closed. Last I checked, fast food is a pretty competitive sector. However even they seemed to interpret the guidance in a manner that indicates a greater sense social responsibility than universities.

 

[108831]

My wife works in a school kitchen and be assured lots of children eat hot food in school,covid has made it difficult so some days are packed lunches,but in normal times it is cooked school meals daily.

 

[mikench]

How can you forget how to use cutlery and how to use a toilet. I'm not aware of any child, once potty and toilet trained regressing to using a nappy. Some kids don't have a chance from conception.

 

[108831]

Absolutely Mike,even with my severely autistic son we pushed to show him how to use a knife and fork,I shall never forget in a restaurant in Weymouth we sat eating lunch and when we finished two old ladies congratulated my wife and I on how well my two sons behaved and ate at table,they would have been 10 and 8 years old,the eldest being autistic,neither left a bean on their plates,the beating helps of course.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Completing your degree online you are at somewhat of a disadvantage.

Whilst the lessons are available there is a mass of research required that makes extended use of the university library facilities.

Some of the books on my daughter's Law course are available online to "read" but nowhere near all of them, and only 3 people can view simultaneously. Last week she had to drive to the uni' to take books from the library for the EU Law segments of the course.
In fact the EU Law lecturer provides only the very basic power point lessons with a lot so of individual research that is (on many occasions) simply not possible from home.

Next term they have International Law studies and those require for group assignments . . again pretty difficult to do online . . . .

There is a lot to be said in favour of F2F studies versus online, and that is before we even get into the financial aspects affecting the universities currently, thanks to the government not funding them 100%.

In any many way we were so much luckier than the students of today as our courses were free . . . .

Beloved daughter is upstairs right now taking part in an one hour "lecture" online concerning EU Copyright and believe me that is a bloody minefield . . . if it were me I'd far rather be sitting in on a proper lecture with access to the library and the lecturers . . .

 

[davebhoy]

Completing your degree online you are at somewhat of a disadvantage.

Whilst the lessons are available there is a mass of research required that makes extended use of the university library facilities.

Some of the books on my daughter's Law course are available online to "read" but nowhere near all of them, and only 3 people can view simultaneously. Last week she had to drive to the uni' to take books from the library for the EU Law segments of the course.
In fact the EU Law lecturer provides only the very basic power point lessons with a lot so of individual research that is (on many occasions) simply not possible from home.

Next term they have International Law studies and those require for group assignments . . again pretty difficult to do online . . . .

There is a lot to be said in favour of F2F studies versus online, and that is before we even get into the financial aspects affecting the universities currently, thanks to the government not funding them 100%.

In any many way we were so much luckier than the students of today as our courses were free . . . .

Beloved daughter is upstairs right now taking part in an one hour "lecture" online concerning EU Copyright and believe me that is a bloody minefield . . . if it were me I'd far rather be sitting in on a proper lecture with access to the library and the lecturers . . .

British universities compete in a global marketplace these days. So do graduates. The previous excellent reputation of our Universities took a bit of a hit with Brexit, a decline in the quality of courses comparative to overseas universities would exacerbate that.

Your daughters extremely hard-earned and expensive degree could be devalued if the quality of the degree course is compromised by a lack of learning that students from other countries and even other year groups have been able to access.

The government has a very difficult job in balancing things here - standards of our education system will be undermined by shutting schools and Universities

And if we switch to online learning for degrees our Universities are going to get their arses kicked by the Americans.

 

[davebhoy]

The government guidance left the interpretation of "appropriate" to the judgement of university's health teams. You're suggesting that they all individually came to the exact same conclusion and decided that blended learning was appropriate even for courses that can be effectively taught on line? Other bodies looking at the covid response don't all agree like that. There's constant disagreement that we read of constantly in the press. Universities have clearly colluded. They got their full years rent whilst mitigating negative media coverage by all adopting the same strategy.

How they could be acting as a single body and at the same time be guilty of collusion? That doesn't make sense.

It's not a straw man argument to bring it up - it does suggest you don't understand the way Universities make decisions, individually and collectively and the market forces each university is under. You're ignoring the commercial pressures that dictate policy for each university - from Oxbridge to the "rubbish" ones. Each University would be thinking about it's offering compared to other UK universities and from overseas Colleges and Unis.

The decision was made easier by government guidance but it was an inevitable result of the marketisation of Universities, just like Sage advised the government.

I think you see the role of Universities differently to the government and the Universities themselves. They're businesses now operating in a fiercely competitive global and domestic market.

Whilst I don't accept the premise of the questions in your third paragraph (because interpreting "appropriate" differently to somebody else doesn't constitute "going against the guidance) I'll answer them anyway. How about fishing? Commercial fishing venues could easily of stayed open according to my interpretation of the first lockdown rules. I realise that ones that didn't got bashed on forums, but were any of them actually legally forced to close? Restaurant chains also spring to mind. While many small restaurants and takeaways stayed open for delivery only, most of the major chains closed. They didn't have to, they could have offered delivery. But they knew that staying open would have gone against the public mood, and resulted in negative publicity (and damage the nation's table manners), so they closed. Last I checked, fast food is a pretty competitive sector. However even they seemed to interpret the guidance in a manner that indicates a greater sense social responsibility than universities.

There's no interpretation of the guidance to be made in this case, it's pretty explicit. Blended learning, please. From someone who pays 20% of the money you bring in.

I dont think Macdonalds shut because of a great sense of social responsibility. It was just market forces at work again. Furlough will have played a major part in businesses shutting instead of offering a reduced service as well

The government don't make policy like this just to piss us all of and kill people. There is some joined up thinking going on, its not all about a lack of social responsibility

 

[Krang]

How they could be acting as a single body and at the same time be guilty of collusion? That doesn't make sense.

It's not a straw man argument to bring it up - it does suggest you don't understand the way Universities make decisions, individually and collectively and the market forces each university is under. You're ignoring the commercial pressures that dictate policy for each university - from Oxbridge to the "rubbish" ones. Each University would be thinking about it's offering compared to other UK universities and from overseas Colleges and Unis.

The decision was made easier by government guidance but it was an inevitable result of the marketisation of Universities, just like Sage advised the government.

I think you see the role of Universities differently to the government and the Universities themselves. They're businesses now operating in a fiercely competitive global and domestic market.

There's no interpretation of the guidance to be made in this case, it's pretty explicit. Blended learning, please. From someone who pays 20% of the money you bring in.

I dont think Macdonalds shut because of a great sense of social responsibility. It was just market forces at work again. Furlough will have played a major part in businesses shutting instead of offering a reduced service as well

The government don't make policy like this just to piss us all of and kill people. There is some joined up thinking going on, its not all about a lack of social responsibility

They colluded because they clearly all did exactly the same thing. That isn't the result of competition. Competing would involve trying to figure out better responses. Other bodies, such as the UK's regional governments don't all just agree on the best way to do everything. The UK has 150 universities, all with these "health boards" that the guidance mentions, and they all thought about it themselves as per the guidance and then did exactly the same thing?

The guidance leaves the decision on what is appropriate to university health boards. Your attempts to justify this don't mention health at all. Your argument is based purely on economics.

The guidance never suggested that all courses had to have in person elements. What is the actual use of having everything on line and then meeting a small seminar group a few times? Is it worth paying a whole years rent for? The choice here isn't between a 'normal in person education' and 'online education', its between 'online education' and 'online education with a bit of in person teaching tacked on to get the student into halls'.

Few businesses would treat customers like this. Particularly not so many customers and in such a publicised way. Can you think of any examples? According to your argument this response resulted from competition, which exists across sectors, so there must be lots of examples.

 

[markcw]

They colluded because they clearly all did exactly the same thing. That isn't the result of competition. Competing would involve trying to figure out better responses. Other bodies, such as the UK's regional governments don't all just agree on the best way to do everything. The UK has 150 universities, all with these "health boards" that the guidance mentions, and they all thought about it themselves as per the guidance and then did exactly the same thing?

The guidance leaves the decision on what is appropriate to university health boards. Your attempts to justify this don't mention health at all. Your argument is based purely on economics.

The guidance never suggested that all courses had to have in person elements. What is the actual use of having everything on line and then meeting a small seminar group a few times? Is it worth paying a whole years rent for? The choice here isn't between a 'normal in person education' and 'online education', its between 'online education' and 'online education with a bit of in person teaching tacked on to get the student into halls'.

Few businesses would treat customers like this. Particularly not so many customers and in such a publicised way. Can you think of any examples? According to your argument this response resulted from competition, which exists across sectors, so there must be lots of examples.