(14h) Advertisements to attract student to universities

It seems lower and middle ranking universities in the UK are wasting lots of money on ads to attract students. Indeed, wasting. But also higher ranking universities are begging but differently and hidden, i.e. by contacting old students to ask money to support students from poorer background; unfortunately, I'm not rich myself.

Great institutions in London, both old (such as UCL and King's College London) and new (such as the Francis Crick Institute - why not named after the woman Rosalind Franklin who had a major contribution to the discovery of DNA but was not awarded the Nobel price and is now refused that a building was named in her honour)

But these universities, certainly the higher ranking ones, knew this would happen or they should not be allowed to teach economy. Yes, some advertisements are needed but waste large sums of money on ads to attract students while the problem is that courses became too expensive at over £9000. A bigger effect on student numbers may be to lower tuition fees although I acknowledge that most students want to enroll on good, in the UK this equals expensive colleges. Still, some spend millions to promote themselves instead of spending money on new modern classrooms and by attracting excellent professionals, both lecturers as researchers. Compare with high ranking universities with plenty of students that spend the high fees on the renovation of their campuses so they are top in the world.

Indeed, certainly the high ranking universities were excited when they were allowed to have higher tuition fees for the British but even higher for the foreigners as they claimed this would allow them to invest in even better facilities that would benefit both students and society. Go to London and the few other places with important universities and they are astonishing. But, the poorer in society and smaller colleges don't benefit, on the contrary as the article suggests. The good universities (with the support of that LibDem leader who destroyed his own party) probably knew this but didn't mind that lesser colleges would fail. This also happened at the start of the financial crisis whereby these universities must have known that the poorer would find it difficult to pay university and end up with huge debts. If they didn't know than they should have no economy departments but probably they think (as they too live in a parallel universe) sufficient people agree to have debts to study at their world renowned university. Instead, they should have campaigned to reform that what was unjust but top universities encouraged the higher fees as they (assume to) know they will attract the best students while they don't bother with those from poorer backgrounds and what happens with other colleges, they may even think that fewer colleges equals more students at their universities and thus increase revenues. These elite universities destroy the democratisation of education and they know it. I'm not even sure they regret Brexit (at this moment); out of the EU may allow them to charge the full tuition fees to Europeans which is even higher than the £9000+ their own people and EU members pay. But, are Europeans willing to pay such prices as they have good universities themselves? Of course, some may not mind paying that amount of money to be part of an elite.

Again, most of those top universities are located in and around London, that city that hates the rest of the UK while the rest starts to hate their capital. But, as hardly a single person living in London even considers to defend investments in the rest of England but instead wants even more investments in their own London, Londoners may be wrong when they hope that Northerners may change their mind about Brexit. And if the UK may stay in the EU, I'm almost sure the rest of England will protest as they have nothing to lose. That's why many want to leave the EU: they notice Scotland, only a few miles from their northern cities, develops since it has its own parliament while London does little for other parts of England. Many Brexiters hope that when the UK is out the EU, London will spend time and money on them. But, Londoners want a return in the EU and protest against Brexit. The result of its greed and refusing to share is that it even start to destroy the greenbelt around the city. A city that builds as it does is not a city that wants to turn on itself although may not welcome everyone. Still, why can't it accept also other cities should prosper? It's almost similar with the story about Atlantis, a beautiful city that kept everything for itself and became hated for it by everyone. And now climate change and a city in the middle of an ocean.

Utopia

And thus, those who claim to love their country and not only London, go back to places in the north such as Manchester and Liverpool, two beautiful cities with a vibrant nightlife and culture or even to Wales. Do not go back to lecture the people but work with them, advice them, even when that means working for someone who will win your respect. Become lecturers and scientists at those universities and help them forward. Do the same as the EU did: invest in poorer regions so they improve. Don't wait another few years when you may have to leave London because it becomes too expensive because then it's likely they will not welcome you back but see you as people who want to take their jobs. But, it may already be too late because the desperation of the lower and middle ranking universities, mainly located outside London apart from Cambridge and Oxford (that were always the choice of the elite), seems to suggest they need students or soon they may fail.

London may have become the curse of the UK but even EU. Destroyer of unity may it become but equally, climates change and unethical investments may result in its destruction as it is the place where bankers continue to invest in fossil fuel industries as well as other quick gain industries such as the weapons industry.

Some seems to have had a dream about the destruction of London and visualised it in a mural