Number of offers made to prospective students by universities at record high
As of June 30, the final deadline to apply to up to five courses simultaneously, more than two million main scheme offers had been made by universities and colleges – a rise of 3.8% compared with last year.
Increases in offers from universities and colleges can be seen across all major applicant groups, but the largest increases can be seen for international applicants outside of the EU which are up 10.7%.
It comes as university leaders have been warning of financial concerns due to a drop in the number of overseas students – who can be charged higher tuition fees – following restrictions introduced by the former Tory government.
Universities are in a 'scramble for students' in a bid to avoid redundancies and course closures due to growing financial pressures, a higher education expert has suggested.
The latest Ucas figures, released on Thursday, show that the number of UK 18-year-old applicants to courses by June 30 has reached a record high of 328,390, up 2.2% compared with the same point last year.
But the data, which has been published ahead of A-level results day next month, shows that the application rate – the proportion of the 18-year-old population in the UK who applied – has fallen to 41.2% from 41.9% last year.
Overall, the total number of applicants – of all ages and all domiciles – has risen to 665,070 this year, a 1.3% increase compared with 2024.
There have been 138,460 international undergraduate applicants through Ucas, an increase of 2.2% compared with the same point last year.
The data shows a new record number of applicants from China, up by 10% to 33,870 applicants this year, as well as year-on-year increases in applicants from Nigeria (plus 23%) and the USA ( plus 14%).
Nick Hillman, director of the Higher Education Policy Institute (Hepi) think tank, told the PA news agency: 'Universities nearly always prefer to fill their places than to have to close courses or make staff redundant, so I am not surprised that they are in such a scramble for students.
'Moreover, universities currently lose money on average on each home student but, if you can enrol a few more students on lots of your courses, then fewer of your courses will make a financial loss.
'There is also a fear among some universities of applicants moving up the 'prestige chain' by securing a place at the most selective university they can, meaning some universities think they need to make more offers than they otherwise might.'
He added: 'It is very worrying that the participation rate among 18-year-olds is down because it means the post-Covid picture of falling demand among school leavers is persisting.
'We need to ask if falling demand for higher education is now a trend rather than a blip.
'It seems the cost of living among students is biting and that some school leavers are waiting to see if other options come good.'
Jo Saxton, chief executive at Ucas, said: 'The record number of UK 18-year-old applicants, and record number of offers being made to prospective undergraduate students, reflects real confidence in the higher education sector.
'It's great to see young people eager to take the next step in their educational and career journey, and universities and colleges committed to welcoming them.
'In the run-up to results day, I'd like to remind students and their families to remember that while the vast majority of applicants secure their first choice each year, it's always worth having a plan B.
'My advice is to begin by revisiting all of your original five choices on your Ucas application as your starting point.'
A spokesperson for Universities UK (UUK) said: 'The proportion of 18-year-olds going to university is relatively stable, after a long period of growth, and in terms of absolute numbers of applications, it is a record year.
'These applicants will form the future workforce, and our country desperately needs the skills that universities will equip them with.
'Government data shows that some of the UK's highest potential employment sectors are hungry for people with graduate level skills.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
17 minutes ago
- The Independent
Washington Post exodus grows as MSNBC host and Pulitzer Prize winner Jonathan Capehart takes Bezos buyout
The flood of high-profile editorial talent fleeing the Washington Post as the storied newspaper revamps its opinion section to focus exclusively on 'personal liberties and free markets' continued to grow this week as Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Jonathan Capehart decided to take a buyout. Capehart's departure comes just days after longtime Post reporter and writer Philip Bump announced that he had also accepted a buyout and had written his last column, which followed the paper's beleaguered CEO Will Lewis' ultimatum to staffers to leave if they 'do not feel aligned' with the company's new direction. As first reported by Axios' Sara Fischer Monday morning, Capehart – who was a member of the Post's editorial board until 2023 – ended his 18-year run with the paper this week after taking a buyout through the company's recently implemented voluntary separation program. Capehart, meanwhile, will continue to co-host MSNBC's The Weekend, and serve as a political analyst for PBS. The Washington Post and Capehart did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The paper has been experiencing an exodus of reporters, columnists and editors since late last year when the Post's owner Jeff Bezos blocked the editorial board's planned endorsement of Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election. The meddling from the Amazon founder, who has increasingly cozied up to Trump over the past year, resulted in the loss of hundreds of thousands of subscribers and the resignations of several editorial board members. That internal turmoil, which had already featured the paper's journalists unsuccessfully begging Bezos to visit the newsroom and restore the 'trust that has been lost' under his watch, only grew worse in February when the mega-billionaire instituted a new mandate for the Post's opinion pages that resulted in the section's top editor resigning. 'We are going to be writing every day in support and defense of two pillars: personal liberties and free markets,' Bezos stated in a memo to staff. 'We'll cover other topics too, of course, but viewpoints opposing those pillars will be left to be published by others.' In the months since, a number of veteran Washington Post journalists have quit, directly citing the new opinion directive and editorial restrictions that they've faced. Ruth Marcus, who had been with the paper since 1984, resigned in March when she said Lewis declined to publish her column that saw her 'respectfully dissenting' from Bezos' edict. The following month, Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Eugene Robinson – who had worked for the paper since 1980 – announced that he was 'retiring from my longtime journalistic home but not from journalism,' adding that 'significant shift' in the opinion section's mandate had pushed him to do so. Longtime cartoonist Ann Telnaes quit earlier this year after her cartoon mocking media titans – including Bezos – bending the knee to Trump was rejected by her editor. She would win a Pulitzer Prize for her work months later. With morale at an all-time low at the paper, Lewis has been described as being in a 'state of hiding' by staff. In late May, executive editor Matt Murray revealed that the paper would be offering a voluntary separation program for news employees with at least 10 years of service, along with all members of the Post's video department, copy desk and sports section. Weeks later, after intense speculation over who would take over the opinion section after David Shipley's resignation over the new mandate, Bezos and Lewis tapped Adam O'Neal to take the job – despite the fact that his only prior management experience was a short and tumultuous run as executive editor of conservative outlet The Dispatch. 'I know this represents a shift for many of you, and maybe even an unwelcome one for some, but simply being reconciled to these changes is not enough,' O'Neal wrote to opinion staffers in an introductory memo earlier this month. 'We want those who stick with us to be genuinely enthusiastic about the new direction and focus.' Meanwhile, Lewis reiterated in a letter to the newsroom a couple of weeks ago that those who aren't fully on board with Bezos' edict should take the money and run. 'As we continue in this new direction, I want to ask those who do not feel aligned with the company's plan to reflect on that,' he noted. Amid the buyout push and the new direction of the paper's opinion pages, the paper has seen more and more veteran journalists add their names to the list of ex- Washington Post staffers. Joe Davidson, who helmed the outlet's Federal Insider column for the past 17 years, said earlier this month that he quit in protest after one of his pieces was killed for being 'too opinionated under an unwritten and inconsistently enforced policy.' Though he said he had 'no reason to believe' Bezos was directly involved in spiking the column, 'it would be naïve to ignore the context.' Sharing his latest column about authoritarians stepping in when 'trust in institutions' crumbles, Bump told his social media followers on Thursday that it was his last Post article. 'I was offered and accepted a buyout,' he stated. 'To answer one possible next question, I'm not sure what's next save taking some time off.' As for Capehart, his decision to walk away from the Post comes two months after he revealed in his latest book what sparked his resignation from the paper's editorial board in 2023. According to his book, Capehart got into a heated disagreement with fellow editor Karan Tumulty over the editorial board writing an op-ed that criticized then-President Joe Biden for calling Georgia's voting laws 'Jim Crow 2.0,' claiming he had been 'hyperbolic.' 'Capehart, the only Black man on the Post's editorial board at the time, agreed with Biden's description and was bothered by the editorial and the fact that readers may believe it represented his view,' Semafor reported about the incident. 'He was incensed when Tumulty later did not apologize to him for publishing it; Capehart said he felt additionally put off when Tumulty said Biden's choice of words was insulting to people who had lived through racial segregation in the South.' Semafor added that Capehart's book had been the 'subject of internal recriminations' at the paper, largely because it 'publicly pitted current colleagues against each other and appeared to run afoul of the Post's editorial guidelines around collegiality, as well as rules that restrict staff from publicly disclosing internal editorial conversation.'
South Wales Guardian
20 minutes ago
- South Wales Guardian
Hereditary peers make last-ditch plea to be spared in ‘ruthless purge' of Lords
Hereditary peers complained they were being treated like 'discarded rubbish' and questioned what they had done to be 'shown the door in such a way'. They argued sparing existing bloodline members would be 'a statesman-like choice' and foster future goodwill. The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill, which has already been through the Commons, will abolish the 92 seats reserved for members of the upper chamber who are there by right of birth. There are currently 86 hereditary peers after the suspension of by-elections pending the legislation, the majority of whom – 44 – are Conservative. The Bill delivers on a promise in Labour's election manifesto and has been promoted as the first step in a process of reform. During its passage through the Lords, peers backed a change proposed by the Tories to block the expulsion of hereditary members already sitting at Westminster. Instead, the abolition of the by-election system would see their number decline over time as individuals die or retire. However, the Conservative amendment faces defeat when the Bill returns to the Commons, where the Government has a majority, during so-called 'ping-pong', when legislation is batted between the two Houses until agreement is reached. Speaking at third reading, Tory shadow leader in the upper chamber Lord True warned: 'Without the fullest trust, respect and goodwill between the Government of the day and His Majesty's Opposition… this House cannot function. 'And the brutal reality is that the full exclusion of over 80 peers does not evidence full respect and cannot be the basis of full goodwill.' He added: 'The Labour Party has won. 'No hereditary peer will ever again take their oath at this despatch box, but I submit it is not necessary on top of that, to wield the brutal axe on our colleagues who sit here now. 'That is what the amendment passed by the House for grandfather rights asked the Government to moderate. 'There is a chance and there is a choice, to temper historic victory with magnanimity in that victory. 'Such a statesman-like choice would benefit this House in keeping members we value, and at the same time, unleash a spirit of goodwill that I believe could carry us all together through the rest of this Parliament.' Conservative hereditary peer Lord Strathclyde, who previously served as leader of the House, said: 'We all accept the mandate that the Government has to end the involvement of the hereditary principle as a route of entry to our House. But I join my colleagues of all benches still wondering why those of us already serving here are due to be flung out. 'What have these sitting parliamentarians done to deserve being shown the door in such a way?' He added: 'It's never too late to appear gracious and magnanimous… Labour's victory in abolishing heredity here is real. Need we have such a ruthless and unnecessary purge as well?' Tory hereditary peer Lord Mancroft argued he and his colleagues were being 'thrown out of this House like discarded rubbish'. He said: 'We are now to be treated in a way that no one else in employment or in any workplace in Britain can be treated. 'It is rightly illegal to sack anyone on the basis of their birth except here in the upper House of this mother of parliaments.' Lord Mancroft added: 'It is very personal to each and every one of us to be treated like this by those we considered our friends and colleagues. It is also deeply, deeply offensive, and I would simply like to know why? Is that really too much to ask?' Responding, the Leader of the Lords Baroness Smith of Basildon again highlighted the removal of hereditary peers had been in the Labour Party manifesto. She said: 'Of course this feels personal to those departing hereditary peers. It felt very personal to me when I lost my seat as a Member of Parliament, with far less notice.' Lady Smith added: 'Nothing about the legislation says that we do not value the work of hereditary peers, or that of any other member of the House. 'That has always been the case, but we were quite clear that the hereditary route is not the route into the House that the country or the Labour Party expects.' Other changes made by the Lords to the Bill, which will be considered by MPs after the summer recess, included a Conservative move to create life peers who do not have to sit at Westminster. Peers also supported a Tory amendment to abolish unpaid ministers in the upper chamber, amid long-held concerns about Government frontbenchers in the unelected House not being remunerated for their official duties.
South Wales Argus
21 minutes ago
- South Wales Argus
Hereditary peers make last-ditch plea to be spared in ‘ruthless purge' of Lords
Hereditary peers complained they were being treated like 'discarded rubbish' and questioned what they had done to be 'shown the door in such a way'. They argued sparing existing bloodline members would be 'a statesman-like choice' and foster future goodwill. The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill, which has already been through the Commons, will abolish the 92 seats reserved for members of the upper chamber who are there by right of birth. There are currently 86 hereditary peers after the suspension of by-elections pending the legislation, the majority of whom – 44 – are Conservative. The Bill delivers on a promise in Labour's election manifesto and has been promoted as the first step in a process of reform. During its passage through the Lords, peers backed a change proposed by the Tories to block the expulsion of hereditary members already sitting at Westminster. Instead, the abolition of the by-election system would see their number decline over time as individuals die or retire. However, the Conservative amendment faces defeat when the Bill returns to the Commons, where the Government has a majority, during so-called 'ping-pong', when legislation is batted between the two Houses until agreement is reached. Speaking at third reading, Tory shadow leader in the upper chamber Lord True warned: 'Without the fullest trust, respect and goodwill between the Government of the day and His Majesty's Opposition… this House cannot function. 'And the brutal reality is that the full exclusion of over 80 peers does not evidence full respect and cannot be the basis of full goodwill.' He added: 'The Labour Party has won. 'No hereditary peer will ever again take their oath at this despatch box, but I submit it is not necessary on top of that, to wield the brutal axe on our colleagues who sit here now. 'That is what the amendment passed by the House for grandfather rights asked the Government to moderate. 'There is a chance and there is a choice, to temper historic victory with magnanimity in that victory. 'Such a statesman-like choice would benefit this House in keeping members we value, and at the same time, unleash a spirit of goodwill that I believe could carry us all together through the rest of this Parliament.' Conservative hereditary peer Lord Strathclyde, who previously served as leader of the House, said: 'We all accept the mandate that the Government has to end the involvement of the hereditary principle as a route of entry to our House. But I join my colleagues of all benches still wondering why those of us already serving here are due to be flung out. 'What have these sitting parliamentarians done to deserve being shown the door in such a way?' He added: 'It's never too late to appear gracious and magnanimous… Labour's victory in abolishing heredity here is real. Need we have such a ruthless and unnecessary purge as well?' Tory hereditary peer Lord Mancroft argued he and his colleagues were being 'thrown out of this House like discarded rubbish'. He said: 'We are now to be treated in a way that no one else in employment or in any workplace in Britain can be treated. 'It is rightly illegal to sack anyone on the basis of their birth except here in the upper House of this mother of parliaments.' Lord Mancroft added: 'It is very personal to each and every one of us to be treated like this by those we considered our friends and colleagues. It is also deeply, deeply offensive, and I would simply like to know why? Is that really too much to ask?' Responding, the Leader of the Lords Baroness Smith of Basildon again highlighted the removal of hereditary peers had been in the Labour Party manifesto. She said: 'Of course this feels personal to those departing hereditary peers. It felt very personal to me when I lost my seat as a Member of Parliament, with far less notice.' Lady Smith added: 'Nothing about the legislation says that we do not value the work of hereditary peers, or that of any other member of the House. 'That has always been the case, but we were quite clear that the hereditary route is not the route into the House that the country or the Labour Party expects.' Other changes made by the Lords to the Bill, which will be considered by MPs after the summer recess, included a Conservative move to create life peers who do not have to sit at Westminster. Peers also supported a Tory amendment to abolish unpaid ministers in the upper chamber, amid long-held concerns about Government frontbenchers in the unelected House not being remunerated for their official duties.
