rate at the level of inflation rather than the cost of borrowing) costs the tax payer £1.2 billion and only benefits successful professionals in mid career. The argument is to save this money and spend it on ‘increasing access’ for poorer students.

Of course, the problem with this redistributive measure is its impact on student debt, an already touchy subject politically. So far student recruitment has not been adversely affected by introducing tuition fees, so there is reason to believe that ending the subsidy would similarly just be taken on the chin by the student body. So watch out folks … there maybe more pain to come for the ever suffering university student!

and gloom. Students aren’t saying no to debt in favour of plumbing courses or careers with Tesco, in fact they still want those degrees.

No doubt the Higher Education minister Bill Rammell is also breathing easier, let us never forget that his government brought tuition fees in after carefully avoiding mentioning the issue in any manifesto.

What is interesting is much of the buoyant recruitment lies in EU and foreign students, especially Cyprus and Polish students, who are flocking over here. This does put a different complexion on the headline figures.

And … healthy recruitment also means the green light for fees to rise, something the universities themselves have been pushing for (one Vice Chancellor interviewed today wanted to see £7,000 per year). Only a steep decline in numbers is going to cut the wind out of those sails, and the first real test has been past.

No one should forget that universities are in the business of attracting students in what is now a marketplace. To do this they design and run marketing campaigns that sell a message (primarily through branding). Are we really expected to believe that these same institutions do not selectively portray themselves in the best possible light, in other words, are economical with the truth? If you were to gather together all the assorted glossy publicity efforts you would find no such a thing as a ‘mediocre university’, yet logic dictates they must exist, as ‘excellence’ (by definition) can not be the property of all. Everyone maybe ‘pursuing it’ ad nausea (i.e. trying to do better) but that is to say something quite different (and of little substance). Unlike our critics, we at willIseemytutor see our mission as championing the interests of the individual student, to enable them to better navigate all those competing claims and marketing babble in order to obtain the best education that is open to them.

What we do accept is the responsibility not to knowingly mislead anyone. Whilst our site is in its testing phase (alpha) we are continually reviewing data quality to ensure best information and welcome feedback from institutions.

One last point, our use of staff student ratios (SSR’s) has been criticised as a means of comparison as ’simplistic’ and ‘alarming’ - we beg to differ. We think it’s a ‘killer stat’ for reasons I won’t rehearse again here (please review this blog for the argument and see forthcoming FAQ’s).

What is a trifle confusing is the contrast between the lead stories on the front-page and the back-page of the THEd. The headline story on the back-page (”UCU set to sue over workload burdens” - apparently overworked academics are breaking the EU’s 48 hour working time directive). Why? Well, it turns out that 47% of surveyed staff cited rising staff-student-ratios as a cause. What this (inadvertently) shows is the importance of SSR’s in every dimension of higher education - our point exactly!

Why the rise? Well the VC’s argue that fees are still too low, for instance Amercian universities recieve an average of £11,500 per student compared to England’s lowly £7,300. Few would doubt the linkage between the resources available and the quality of graduate produced, but unlike the American system we are unlikely to see a market in higher education just yet. This is because our maximum leviable fee will likely become a flat fee as has happened with the current £3,000 (with the exception of 1 university) your not going to get Harvard prices just yet … unless the top universites decide to go private that is.

Dare we say it but how you choose your university will become ever more important, and that means examining the critical staff/student ratio; Americans have been tuned to this for many years, the British need to catch on!

This, if ever proof we’re needed, that you can’t trust them as far as you can kick them! No wonder many people consider our so called right honourables to be a bunch of lying toe-rags with posh sounding titles.

It seems to me that the problem in political life is not, as our MP’s seem to think, that there is too much cynicism about politics these days, rather given their records, that there is not enough!

They posed as prospective students to test how good a customer service universities deliver in practice. The first victim was Sheffield University, who recieved a pretty poor grade all in all. The consultants headline findings were: 1 in 5 phone callers who asked for info recieved nothing, 1 in 3 callers leaving voice mail requesting a call back weren’t called while 30% of phone enquirers failed to get through after 3 attempts. Furthermore, 7 departments took more than a month to send requested material, with 1 department taking a staggering 3 months to reply.

In a response notable only for its obfuscation, deceit, and marketing babble, the Director of Student recruitment and marketing (thinly disguised propaganda to you and me) Jane Chafer stated that these results failed to highlight “the many areas of excellence within the university” and that she realised students expectations of the university were “changing” and that they wished to “continually improve and challenge themselves” to “enhance the service they offered” - all of which means their going to try better, but deny their crap.

What do these poor results show at Sheffield? We think they illustrate that staff-student ratios matter, and effect all areas of university life!

Edit: spelling (a pedant)

And if your not being bullied, harrangued or belittled at Hallam, then your getting stressed out - the report also highlights the need for ‘urgent action’ over staff stress levels. All of this is hardly an advertisment to attract the academic cream to Hallam’s less than hallowed halls.

In fact, Sheffield Hallam must be pretty pissed off that their internal survey report got leaked, some disgruntled staff getting some payback on their managers no doubt. However, in a flourish of doublethink which would make Orwell proud, the VC Prof Green tried to make a virtue from a necessity by arguing the mere fact the survey was conducted proves how serious Sheffield Hallam takes the matter .. yeah right, wonder if they would have sanctioned it in hindsight. No doubt their trawling through the email system right now on a witch hunt for the whistle blower.

And of course, if it’s such a lousy place to work, what’s it like to study there?

We’ve been working hard on your behalf, and will be doubling our efforts early in the new year to bring to you the inside information that will allow you to make the smartest choices when deciding where you lay your bets when it comes to university. We want you to be the winners, not the institutions .. and in that spirit, have fab christmas’s, and we look forward to hearing from you and getting your feedback.

Merry Christmas to you all!!!

Dr Wismyt

What this demonstrates is the increasing competition among universities for good quality students. And, as with any market how long will it be before other competing institutions make similar announcements? Indeed, you could push this concept further, what about higher fees - above and beyond the current levy - for weaker students?

Hitting students where it hurts really would be an extra incentive to excell prior to entering university, being a bit of a slacker wouldn’t just mean relegation to clearing, it would also mean a larger overdraught - social engineering at its finest?

Apparently some new universities also put in a good performance, with the universities of Chester, Portsmouth and Central Lancashire coming in the top 30.