China intimidated UK university to ditch human rights research, documents show

Dependence on International Students & Chinese Leverage

• Multiple commenters describe UK universities—especially Russell Group—as financially dependent on high-fee international students, with Chinese students often a large share.
• This dependence is seen as making institutions wary of angering China, including over critical human-rights research, because Beijing can swiftly constrain student flows or visas.
• Some argue “rely” is too strong and that universities have become “accustomed” to this revenue rather than structurally unable to survive without it; others insist many institutions would go bankrupt if foreign students vanished.

Academic Standards and “Pay-to-Pass” Concerns

• Several anecdotal accounts claim some international students put in minimal effort yet still pass, with staff under pressure not to fail high-fee students.
• Stories include students barely attending, weak language skills, and suspected organized cheating, with management allegedly downplaying misconduct to protect fee income and visa pipelines.
• Some hiring managers report a negative signal from profiles of “unknown foreign undergrad + UK master’s,” saying they’ve seen very poor basic skills from such graduates.

Comparisons of Funding Models & Tuition Costs

• Commenters debate whether £35k/year is “crazy,” with non‑US readers seeing it as extreme and others noting governments often silently spend similar sums per student in subsidized systems.
• Contrast is drawn between countries where the best universities are public and nearly free (e.g. France, some others) and the US/UK model where high sticker prices and revenue chasing are prominent.
• Some highlight US “need-blind” admissions and heavy per-student spending, while others question how class and wealth still leak into admissions via extracurriculars and signaling.

Structural Problems in UK Higher Education Finance

• UK teaching grants are said not to cover operational costs, pushing universities toward fee maximization, visa‑driven recruitment, and rapid expansion of international intake.
• Expanded university participation (ex‑polytechnics, 50% target for higher education) is blamed for higher system costs without clearly better outcomes, plus large student debt burdens and “application inflation” in the job market.
• Comments criticize bloated central administration, vice‑chancellor pay, and a “tourism / finishing‑school” model (the “Harry Potter experience”) that can crowd out research quality.

Other Foreign Influence & Skepticism

• Some note that China is not unique: Qatar and other Gulf states are cited as major donors to US institutions, allegedly softening criticism of their politics or financing of groups like Hamas.
• Others question the relevance or evidentiary strength of these claims and point out selective framing and recent, possibly agenda‑driven sources.
• A minority of commenters are skeptical of the BBC story itself, describing it as anti‑China propaganda and framing China’s actions as a (possibly legitimate) defamation response rather than “intimidation.”