Budget

[servodude]

Clearly you have a very good crystal ball. How do you know that these were my circumstances? Actually in my day it was very unusual for young people from my background to go to university. I got the school qualifications to attend and was offered a place but felt that it was unfair all round so went off and found myself a job. Was it not your leftie PM, a guy called Tony Blair, that set up this nonsense in the first place? There is no requirement to attend university you know.

Dod

I also remember back in them days before Tony Blair was invented, students holding protest sit-ins at the LSE. Protests that their free grants were not enough to live on comfortably enough to meet their expectations.

But yes you're right, that nice Mr Blair was the one who decided 50% of the proletariat should go to university; at a stroke stoking up the tendency of people to confuse intelligence with edumacation.

Also, he was the one who started off the current obsession with everything in life having to be 'fair'. I've no idea why, as it just isn't and never will be.

Oh dear, what board is this again??

Was it really all down to Tony Blair?

I'm only asking as I had been a student at a "proper university" for a while when a bunch of institutions appeared to rebrand themselves: the inception of Paisley Unversity and Glasgow Caledonian being the two that appeared locally in 1993.

This then lead to "proper universities" having a jolly at the Hotel Russell with the goal of setting themselves apart.

Pretty sure Blair wasn't around (or not in power) until I was living in England a few years later (I think I remember the election night sort of) ..
..but as with most of the 90s I was very very drunk

[Lootman]

Clearly you have a very good crystal ball. How do you know that these were my circumstances? Actually in my day it was very unusual for young people from my background to go to university. I got the school qualifications to attend and was offered a place but felt that it was unfair all round so went off and found myself a job. Was it not your leftie PM, a guy called Tony Blair, that set up this nonsense in the first place? There is no requirement to attend university you know.

I also remember back in them days before Tony Blair was invented, students holding protest sit-ins at the LSE. Protests that their free grants were not enough to live on comfortably enough to meet their expectations.

But yes you're right, that nice Mr Blair was the one who decided 50% of the proletariat should go to university; at a stroke stoking up the tendency of people to confuse intelligence with edumacation.

Also, he was the one who started off the current obsession with everything in life having to be 'fair'. I've no idea why, as it just isn't and never will be.

Oh dear, what board is this again??

Was it really all down to Tony Blair?

I'm only asking as I had been a student at a "proper university" for a while when a bunch of institutions appeared to rebrand themselves: the inception of Paisley Unversity and Glasgow Caledonian being the two that appeared locally in 1993.

Pretty much. It started in the late 1990s when Blair engaged in the "levelling up" of thickies by promoting the old tech colleges to universities. Whilst dumbing down what it means to get a First or 2.1. And the idea that all degrees are equal even though they self-evidently are not.

The Russell Grouping pre-dates that by a few years.

Do you really think that prospective employers cannot tell the difference between Paisley College and St. Andrews?

[wanderer]

Relatively simple long/short trading methods can migrate SIPP into ISA, so not taxed on the way in, or on the way out, and can even be 'drawn down' early. Whilst leaving it outside of IHT.
.

1nvest - sounds interesting. Could you elaborate?

[ursaminortaur]

Clearly you have a very good crystal ball. How do you know that these were my circumstances? Actually in my day it was very unusual for young people from my background to go to university. I got the school qualifications to attend and was offered a place but felt that it was unfair all round so went off and found myself a job. Was it not your leftie PM, a guy called Tony Blair, that set up this nonsense in the first place? There is no requirement to attend university you know.

I also remember back in them days before Tony Blair was invented, students holding protest sit-ins at the LSE. Protests that their free grants were not enough to live on comfortably enough to meet their expectations.

But yes you're right, that nice Mr Blair was the one who decided 50% of the proletariat should go to university; at a stroke stoking up the tendency of people to confuse intelligence with edumacation.

Also, he was the one who started off the current obsession with everything in life having to be 'fair'. I've no idea why, as it just isn't and never will be.

Oh dear, what board is this again??

Was it really all down to Tony Blair?

I'm only asking as I had been a student at a "proper university" for a while when a bunch of institutions appeared to rebrand themselves: the inception of Paisley Unversity and Glasgow Caledonian being the two that appeared locally in 1993.

Pretty much. It started in the late 1990s when Blair engaged in the "levelling up" of thickies by promoting the old tech colleges to universities. Whilst dumbing down what it means to get a First or 2.1. And the idea that all degrees are equal even though they self-evidently are not.

The Russell Grouping pre-dates that by a few years.

Do you really think that prospective employers cannot tell the difference between Paisley College and St. Andrews?

Although not implemented then the idea of replacing student grants and tuition fees with loans had been put forward in the 1980s by Conservative Minister for Education Sir Keith Joseph.

https://eprints.glos.ac.uk/10117/1/10117Test

Against this backdrop of crisis in university funding, the Conservative government, and especially Keith Joseph,
raised the idea of loans to cover at least part of the cost of maintenance and tuition fees but such was the backlash that
the ideas were swiftly dropped

And although it was Labour under Tony Blair who eventually made these changes that was in response to the Dearing report which had been setup under John Major ( and with Universities themselves threatening to introduce topup fees). Although once the fees were in place the elite Universities immediately started to campaign for them to be increased.

In large part to resolve this problem a new review of higher education was ordered. Commissioned in 1996 under the
Conservative administration of Prime Minister John Major, the report of the National Committee of Enquiry into Higher
Education was published in July 1997 under newly elected Labour Prime Minister, Tony Blair. The review, chaired by
Sir (later Lord) Ron Dearing, had a UK-wide remit to consider the next 20 years and ‘make recommendations on how
the purposes, shape, structure, size and funding of higher education should develop’ (National Committee of Inquiry into
Higher Education 1997, 1).
Leading up to and throughout the period during which Dearing’s committee was undertaking its research, many
universities were signalling an impending financial crisis and the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals
threatened to introduce a £300 top-up fee (Willetts 2017, 64). Several institutions, including Oxford and Cambridge,
added warnings about the need to charge top-up fees to their prospectuses for 1998/1999. At Birmingham, a charge of
£700 for admissions was seriously considered (THE 1996).
Though intended to be bi-partisan, only 3 of the 10 nominations for membership of the Committee made by Labour’s
Shadow Minister for Education and Employment, David Blunkett, had been accepted by the Conservative government.
This compromised the report’s potential for acceptance by Labour and, as the new Secretary of State after the 1997
election, David Blunkett quickly overturned the Committee’s recommendations on student fees and funding (Robertson
1998).
While Dearing recommended income-contingent payments from graduates towards living costs and tuition, Blunkett
announced up-front, means-tested tuition fees (despite there being no manifesto suggestion that Labour would introduce
fees). Blunkett did at least keep the rate that Dearing had recommended:
£1,000 per year or around one quarter of the average tuition costs. In this respect, Dearing had been heavily influenced
by the perceived success of the Australian Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS). Introduced in 1989, this
income-contingent contribution scheme was recognised for bringing new funds into higher education from a private
source (i.e. graduates) without damaging access (Barr 1998).
Very quickly, these limited up-front tuition fees came under attack from universities, most especially so-called elite
institutions which feared for their international competitiveness without more funds. Such concerns were expressed
even before the first fees were charged in September 1998 (Barr and Crawford 1997; Thomson 1997). The Russell Group
of universities commissioned a report into university funding, which recommended differential fees as high as £12,000
with an income-contingent repayment mechanism (Charter 2000; Greenaway and Haynes 2000). Despite political
resistance to higher fee levels, concerns did not abate and calls for above-inflation increases to tuition fees grew (Halpin
2002).

[servodude]

Clearly you have a very good crystal ball. How do you know that these were my circumstances? Actually in my day it was very unusual for young people from my background to go to university. I got the school qualifications to attend and was offered a place but felt that it was unfair all round so went off and found myself a job. Was it not your leftie PM, a guy called Tony Blair, that set up this nonsense in the first place? There is no requirement to attend university you know.

I also remember back in them days before Tony Blair was invented, students holding protest sit-ins at the LSE. Protests that their free grants were not enough to live on comfortably enough to meet their expectations.

But yes you're right, that nice Mr Blair was the one who decided 50% of the proletariat should go to university; at a stroke stoking up the tendency of people to confuse intelligence with edumacation.

Also, he was the one who started off the current obsession with everything in life having to be 'fair'. I've no idea why, as it just isn't and never will be.

Oh dear, what board is this again??

Was it really all down to Tony Blair?

I'm only asking as I had been a student at a "proper university" for a while when a bunch of institutions appeared to rebrand themselves: the inception of Paisley Unversity and Glasgow Caledonian being the two that appeared locally in 1993.

Pretty much. It started in the late 1990s when Blair engaged in the "levelling up" of thickies by promoting the old tech colleges to universities. Whilst dumbing down what it means to get a First or 2.1. And the idea that all degrees are equal even though they self-evidently are not.

The Russell Grouping pre-dates that by a few years.

Do you really think that prospective employers cannot tell the difference between Paisley College and St. Andrews?

Although not implemented then the idea of replacing student grants and tuition fees with loans had been put forward in the 1980s by Conservative Minister for Education Sir Keith Joseph.

https://eprints.glos.ac.uk/10117/1/10117Test

Against this backdrop of crisis in university funding, the Conservative government, and especially Keith Joseph,
raised the idea of loans to cover at least part of the cost of maintenance and tuition fees but such was the backlash that
the ideas were swiftly dropped

And although it was Labour under Tony Blair who eventually made these changes that was in response to the Dearing report which had been setup under John Major ( and with Universities themselves threatening to introduce topup fees). Although once the fees were in place the elite Universities immediately started to campaign for them to be increased.

In large part to resolve this problem a new review of higher education was ordered. Commissioned in 1996 under the
Conservative administration of Prime Minister John Major, the report of the National Committee of Enquiry into Higher
Education was published in July 1997 under newly elected Labour Prime Minister, Tony Blair. The review, chaired by
Sir (later Lord) Ron Dearing, had a UK-wide remit to consider the next 20 years and ‘make recommendations on how
the purposes, shape, structure, size and funding of higher education should develop’ (National Committee of Inquiry into
Higher Education 1997, 1).
Leading up to and throughout the period during which Dearing’s committee was undertaking its research, many
universities were signalling an impending financial crisis and the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals
threatened to introduce a £300 top-up fee (Willetts 2017, 64). Several institutions, including Oxford and Cambridge,
added warnings about the need to charge top-up fees to their prospectuses for 1998/1999. At Birmingham, a charge of
£700 for admissions was seriously considered (THE 1996).
Though intended to be bi-partisan, only 3 of the 10 nominations for membership of the Committee made by Labour’s
Shadow Minister for Education and Employment, David Blunkett, had been accepted by the Conservative government.
This compromised the report’s potential for acceptance by Labour and, as the new Secretary of State after the 1997
election, David Blunkett quickly overturned the Committee’s recommendations on student fees and funding (Robertson
1998).
While Dearing recommended income-contingent payments from graduates towards living costs and tuition, Blunkett
announced up-front, means-tested tuition fees (despite there being no manifesto suggestion that Labour would introduce
fees). Blunkett did at least keep the rate that Dearing had recommended:
£1,000 per year or around one quarter of the average tuition costs. In this respect, Dearing had been heavily influenced
by the perceived success of the Australian Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS). Introduced in 1989, this
income-contingent contribution scheme was recognised for bringing new funds into higher education from a private
source (i.e. graduates) without damaging access (Barr 1998).
Very quickly, these limited up-front tuition fees came under attack from universities, most especially so-called elite
institutions which feared for their international competitiveness without more funds. Such concerns were expressed
even before the first fees were charged in September 1998 (Barr and Crawford 1997; Thomson 1997). The Russell Group
of universities commissioned a report into university funding, which recommended differential fees as high as £12,000
with an income-contingent repayment mechanism (Charter 2000; Greenaway and Haynes 2000). Despite political
resistance to higher fee levels, concerns did not abate and calls for above-inflation increases to tuition fees grew (Halpin
2002).

Well that handles the fees part quite nicely (student loans certainly predating the Blair government)
It was more the point when "everything became a university" I was wondering about
it certainly started before Blair being elected (ergo the Russell Group being formed in response around the time John Smith died)

[servodude]

I also remember back in them days before Tony Blair was invented, students holding protest sit-ins at the LSE. Protests that their free grants were not enough to live on comfortably enough to meet their expectations.

But yes you're right, that nice Mr Blair was the one who decided 50% of the proletariat should go to university; at a stroke stoking up the tendency of people to confuse intelligence with edumacation.

Also, he was the one who started off the current obsession with everything in life having to be 'fair'. I've no idea why, as it just isn't and never will be.

Oh dear, what board is this again??

Was it really all down to Tony Blair?

I'm only asking as I had been a student at a "proper university" for a while when a bunch of institutions appeared to rebrand themselves: the inception of Paisley Unversity and Glasgow Caledonian being the two that appeared locally in 1993.

Pretty much. It started in the late 1990s when Blair engaged in the "levelling up" of thickies by promoting the old tech colleges to universities. Whilst dumbing down what it means to get a First or 2.1. And the idea that all degrees are equal even though they self-evidently are not.

The Russell Grouping pre-dates that by a few years.

Do you really think that prospective employers cannot tell the difference between Paisley College and St. Andrews?

Although not implemented then the idea of replacing student grants and tuition fees with loans had been put forward in the 1980s by Conservative Minister for Education Sir Keith Joseph.

https://eprints.glos.ac.uk/10117/1/10117Test

Against this backdrop of crisis in university funding, the Conservative government, and especially Keith Joseph,
raised the idea of loans to cover at least part of the cost of maintenance and tuition fees but such was the backlash that
the ideas were swiftly dropped

And although it was Labour under Tony Blair who eventually made these changes that was in response to the Dearing report which had been setup under John Major ( and with Universities themselves threatening to introduce topup fees). Although once the fees were in place the elite Universities immediately started to campaign for them to be increased.

<snip>

Well that handles the fees part quite nicely (student loans certainly predating the Blair government)
It was more the point when "everything became a university" I was wondering about
it certainly started before Blair being elected (ergo the Russell Group being formed in response around the time John Smith died)

and digging on that it (the large scale conversion of tech colleges to uni's) would appear to come down to the "Further and Higher Education Act 1992 " https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/13
so while the unctuous weasel Blair should take the blame for lots - this just ain't one of those
so with that sorted - probably we can get back on topic

-sd

[1nvest]

Relatively simple long/short trading methods can migrate SIPP into ISA, so not taxed on the way in, or on the way out, and can even be 'drawn down' early. Whilst leaving it outside of IHT.
.

1nvest - sounds interesting. Could you elaborate?

US example PV Click the 'Assets' button/tab and with SDS (2x short) in SIPP, SSO in ISA !!! In some years might migrate some of ISA to SIPP, but mostly/broadly repeated equalising the exposure to both will see SIPP -> ISA migration. They're US ETF's, but there are UK 2x and 3x alternatives (just I don't know of a web site like PV for UK ETF's).

Another PV example but with 3x long/short ETF's.

Adjust the ratios of long/short weightings according to whether you would like to add in a positive or negative stock exposure bias. 30/20/50 2x long/2x short/Bonds ... for instance in effect is 60% long stock, 40% short stock, 20% overall stock exposure equivalent.

[1nvest]

Could you elaborate?

Also a means to migrate SIPP over to son/daughter ISA. Supplement their ISA build up with a 20K/year gift, that after a year or two might be returned, so gift negation, as their ISA expands.

I don't know if LTA is (was) amount in total paid in, or the actual value of the portfolio. But that limit has now been removed so isn't a factor anymore.

Wide open to abuse IMO, but alongside Furlough fraud and now more recently free child-care (mum stays at home as a self employed carer, caring for two-kids £10/hour x 30 hours/week), UK (Tory) feeding of UK taxpayers money to such entities continues to be very 'generous' (hundreds of billions £££).

[1nvest]

No, I'm not saying what you suggest is a good idea.

But if you already have a big pension fund in 2015, it might be worth leaving the pension till last.

The pension is still IHT free after age 75.

You need to have the earnings to put 60k into a pension anyway.

Yes, our SIPPs are a major part of our IHT mitigation strategy. We have not been drawing for some time, living off taxable investments instead. We were quite prepared to pay a hefty age 75 LTA charge as this was still better for beneficiaries than paying IHT, but my beneficiaries have just received a very nice bonus.

The thing is though, with LTA charges gone, I now think it has become more likely that pension pots will eventually be made subject to IHT, so they may well end up worse off.

Labour pledges to reverse Hunt’s pensions tax break for the wealthy https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/labou ... 00241.html

[tjh290633]

My son went to Teesside Polytechnic in 1983 and did an HND. The year after he left they turned it into a degree course and soon became a university. The late 1980s seems to have been the time when the pseudo-universities were formed. I get the feeling that they lost their principal objective of producing usefully qualified people in vocational subjects at the same time.

TJH

[AWOL]

No, I'm not saying what you suggest is a good idea.

But if you already have a big pension fund in 2015, it might be worth leaving the pension till last.

The pension is still IHT free after age 75.

You need to have the earnings to put 60k into a pension anyway.

Yes, our SIPPs are a major part of our IHT mitigation strategy. We have not been drawing for some time, living off taxable investments instead. We were quite prepared to pay a hefty age 75 LTA charge as this was still better for beneficiaries than paying IHT, but my beneficiaries have just received a very nice bonus.

The thing is though, with LTA charges gone, I now think it has become more likely that pension pots will eventually be made subject to IHT, so they may well end up worse off.

Labour pledges to reverse Hunt’s pensions tax break for the wealthy https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/labou ... 00241.html

I feel emotionally abused after being very pleased about this yesterday and am disappointed by Labour's response. I am not rich, I struggle to see how the LTA is only for the rich. I was just cautious through my life and I paid into pensions through my working life. Surely the annual allowance is the way to manage pensions being exploited by the genuinely rich but we actually want people to get a million or a bit more to support them in retirement and not have to be penalised if their investments grow. A good year or two on the markets and someone that retired on a million (giving them say £31,000 a year of income) was facing tax penalties that seem completely unjustified. Whereas someone in a final salary scheme could be earning £50,000 a year and be untroubled by the LTA. £31k a year isn't exactly living the life of the rich and famous.

I had been considering voting for Labour but if they revert to the old £1.07m LTA I certainly wont. £1m is psychologically large but it's not over a retirement nor built up over a working life.

[ADrunkenMarcus]

Labour pledges to reverse Hunt’s pensions tax break for the wealthy https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/labou ... 00241.html

with an election due by January 2025 (probably autumn 2024) and the Conservative party well behind in the opinion polls...

[1nvest]

I had been considering voting for Labour but if they revert to the old £1.07m LTA I certainly wont. £1m is psychologically large but it's not over a retirement nor built up over a working life.

Why would you think its any safer under anyone else. The Tories have introduced high taxation, and wasted/lost hundreds of billions (Furlough fraud etc.). Took them 7 months to appoint a new PM and just weeks before another had to be elected. I have voted Tory in the past, but the LD's are anti-democrats so that pretty much only leaves Lab.

For many, wealth was accumulated via scrimping/saving/hard-work. Increasingly we've seen a transition to where the Tory government have directed towards all money being its money, tracked/recorded/noted - that facilitates it being confiscated at any time (such as via taxation/inflation). When you're monitored everywhere you go (cameras, phone) and all of YOUR money has where that came in from, and where/when it is spent, its no longer a free-state but a open prison. Try for instance and go to your bank and make a £6000 withdrawal, or even pay in a couple of thousand in cash, or pay another individual ... and you'll be flagged up to the state and discretely investigated, or in some cases actually having the police called and being interrogated. Assumed guilty by default rather than innocent until proven otherwise. With increasing migration over to digital currency that will only get worse, similar to China where 'good citizen' ranking might depict what you can and cannot do. Banks/cashiers are under instruction to report all 'suspicious' activities - without alerting the individual, or otherwise be at risk of having their licence revoked. The natural response by banks in view of that is to flag all transactions, which I suspect is the overall intent i.e. the state gets insight into all transactions made by everyone (big data).

[Lootman]

It was more the point when "everything became a university" I was wondering about
it certainly started before Blair being elected (ergo the Russell Group being formed in response around the time John Smith died)

It started long before that. There were a lot of promotions and new universities created in the 1960's, under Wilson. This included some more technical places like Bath and Salford, and some liberal arts colleges like Keele and Sussex, which became hotbeds of leftiness.

So there has always been dilution of the status of universities and it is natural that the real universities, which we used to call redbricks, would seek to preserve their edge through differentiation as the Russell Group.

Blair, who otherwise I liked a lot, increased the rate of that change and so the trend now bears his name.

[ursaminortaur]

It was more the point when "everything became a university" I was wondering about
it certainly started before Blair being elected (ergo the Russell Group being formed in response around the time John Smith died)

It started long before that. There were a lot of promotions and new universities created in the 1960's, under Wilson. This included some more technical places like Bath and Salford, and some liberal arts colleges like Keele and Sussex, which became hotbeds of leftiness.

So there has always been dilution of the status of universities and it is natural that the real universities, which we used to call redbricks, would seek to preserve their edge through differentiation as the Russell Group.

Blair, who otherwise I liked a lot, increased the rate of that change and so the trend now bears his name.

As pointed out earlier the major change when Polytechnics officially became Universities occurred in 1992 under John Major though the boundaries between them had been eroding during the 1980s.

https://www.hepi.ac.uk/2022/01/25/learning-from-the-past-what-can-we-learn-from-polytechnics/

By the end of the 1980s, polytechnics had become universities in all but name. They were deemed to have achieved ‘sufficient self-critical academic maturity’ to be offered the full range of degree awarding powers (DES, 1991). The Further and Higher Education Act of 1992 eliminated the divide between polytechnics and universities, and in 1992, polytechnics acquired the university title and the power to award their own degrees, thus joining pre-1992 universities in a unified system.

Blair implemented the changes on student funding but had little to do with creating new universities.

[Lootman]

It started long before that. There were a lot of promotions and new universities created in the 1960's, under Wilson. This included some more technical places like Bath and Salford, and some liberal arts colleges like Keele and Sussex, which became hotbeds of leftiness.

So there has always been dilution of the status of universities and it is natural that the real universities, which we used to call redbricks, would seek to preserve their edge through differentiation as the Russell Group.

Blair, who otherwise I liked a lot, increased the rate of that change and so the trend now bears his name.

As pointed out earlier the major change when Polytechnics officially became Universities occurred in 1992 under John Major though the boundaries between them had been eroding during the 1980s.

https://www.hepi.ac.uk/2022/01/25/learning-from-the-past-what-can-we-learn-from-polytechnics/

By the end of the 1980s, polytechnics had become universities in all but name. They were deemed to have achieved ‘sufficient self-critical academic maturity’ to be offered the full range of degree awarding powers (DES, 1991). The Further and Higher Education Act of 1992 eliminated the divide between polytechnics and universities, and in 1992, polytechnics acquired the university title and the power to award their own degrees, thus joining pre-1992 universities in a unified system.

Of course, but the trend of proliferating universities had been going on since WW2. Before that there was a fairly stable set of institutions, and no dilution of brand. Politicians of both parties then handed out university charters like trinkets, a trend that continues to this day - I personally know the head of one of these third rate entities and he makes nearly £200,000 a year.

Rightly or wrongly Blair is associated with this trend because of his stated aim to educate half the population to degree level. We are getting close to that level now, but does it make any sense?

[ursaminortaur]

As pointed out earlier the major change when Polytechnics officially became Universities occurred in 1992 under John Major though the boundaries between them had been eroding during the 1980s.

https://www.hepi.ac.uk/2022/01/25/learning-from-the-past-what-can-we-learn-from-polytechnics/

By the end of the 1980s, polytechnics had become universities in all but name. They were deemed to have achieved ‘sufficient self-critical academic maturity’ to be offered the full range of degree awarding powers (DES, 1991). The Further and Higher Education Act of 1992 eliminated the divide between polytechnics and universities, and in 1992, polytechnics acquired the university title and the power to award their own degrees, thus joining pre-1992 universities in a unified system.

Of course, but the trend of proliferating universities had been going on since WW2. Before that there was a fairly stable set of institutions, and no dilution of brand. Politicians of both parties then handed out university charters like trinkets, a trend that continues to this day - I personally know the head of one of these third rate entities and he makes nearly £200,000 a year.

Rightly or wrongly Blair is associated with this trend because of his stated aim to educate half the population to degree level. We are getting close to that level now, but does it make any sense?

The number of Universities has been increasing for the last two centuries. Maybe you would prefer we went back to just having the two Universities (Oxford and Cambridge) which is all there were until Durham was founded in 1832 ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durham_University

Durham University (legally the University of Durham)[6] is a collegiate public research university in Durham, England, founded by an Act of Parliament in 1832 and incorporated by royal charter in 1837. It was the first recognised university to open in England for more than 600 years, after Oxford and Cambridge, and is thus, following standard historical practice in defining a university, the third-oldest university in England.

[Lootman]

Of course, but the trend of proliferating universities had been going on since WW2. Before that there was a fairly stable set of institutions, and no dilution of brand. Politicians of both parties then handed out university charters like trinkets, a trend that continues to this day - I personally know the head of one of these third rate entities and he makes nearly £200,000 a year.

Rightly or wrongly Blair is associated with this trend because of his stated aim to educate half the population to degree level. We are getting close to that level now, but does it make any sense?

The number of Universities has been increasing for the last two centuries. Maybe you would prefer we went back to just having the two Universities (Oxford and Cambridge) which is all there were until Durham was founded in 1832 ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durham_University#:~:text=Durham%20University%20(legally%20the%20University,by%20royal%20charter%20in%201837.

Durham University (legally the University of Durham)[6] is a collegiate public research university in Durham, England, founded by an Act of Parliament in 1832 and incorporated by royal charter in 1837. It was the first recognised university to open in England for more than 600 years, after Oxford and Cambridge, and is thus, following standard historical practice in defining a university, the third-oldest university in England.

What I meant, if it was not obvious, is that from Victorian times until the 1950s there was a fairly constant set of universities. Basically each major city had one. And that was it. So the standard was not tarnished until the proliferation that started in my lifetime.

Even when I went up to University in the early 1970s there were not many that were considered to be "bad". You could tell by the conditional offers they made - one "new" university offered me two Ds at A level, whilst others wanted As and Bs. To get their funding they have to have enrolment, and so standards dropped.

[ursaminortaur]

The number of Universities has been increasing for the last two centuries. Maybe you would prefer we went back to just having the two Universities (Oxford and Cambridge) which is all there were until Durham was founded in 1832 ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durham_University#:~:text=Durham%20University%20(legally%20the%20University,by%20royal%20charter%20in%201837.

Durham University (legally the University of Durham)[6] is a collegiate public research university in Durham, England, founded by an Act of Parliament in 1832 and incorporated by royal charter in 1837. It was the first recognised university to open in England for more than 600 years, after Oxford and Cambridge, and is thus, following standard historical practice in defining a university, the third-oldest university in England.

What I meant, if it was not obvious, is that from Victorian times until the 1950s there was a fairly constant set of universities. Basically each major city had one. And that was it. So the standard was not tarnished until the proliferation that started in my lifetime.

Even when I went up to University in the early 1970s there were not many that were considered to be "bad". You could tell by the conditional offers they made - one "new" university offered me two Ds at A level, whilst others wanted As and Bs. To get their funding they have to have enrolment, and so standards dropped.

The offers had little to do with how bad the university was but more to do with what your teachers had told the University about you.
I did a Mathematics degree at Manchester (Victoria) University which was quite well respected for mathematics in the early 1980s with an offer of 3 E's at A-level.

[Lootman]

What I meant, if it was not obvious, is that from Victorian times until the 1950s there was a fairly constant set of universities. Basically each major city had one. And that was it. So the standard was not tarnished until the proliferation that started in my lifetime.

Even when I went up to University in the early 1970s there were not many that were considered to be "bad". You could tell by the conditional offers they made - one "new" university offered me two Ds at A level, whilst others wanted As and Bs. To get their funding they have to have enrolment, and so standards dropped.

The offers had little to do with how bad the university was but more to do with what your teachers had told the University about you.
I did a Mathematics degree at Manchester (Victoria) University which was quite well respected for mathematics in the early 1980s with an offer of 3 E's at A-level.

Unless my teachers told different things to different universities, which seems unlikely, then that does not explain the vast range of offers many of us received. And generally, the more esteemed the institution, the higher the required grades.