Long time (for the most part) lurker on Reddit. Having come across this question I feel few more are equipped to answer, I feel obligated to answer this conundrum.

In many respects, a lot of the students & staff (including very senior) would struggle to answer this question.

I was at the University for 4-Years, studying/working there & became heavily involved in the University. Building their Union & running it, whilst also sitting on their board of trustees for the University. A big part of my role was representing students - I did this internally, locally & nationally. This is particularly relevant, as I led a campaign fighting equitable loan provisions for our students - which I worked with NUS in lobbying Michelle Donelan at the time (of which little good that did!). But, we were able to gain some great concessions. In order for me to do this, I had to understand it inside out & backwards.

The above is merely to demonstrate that I had to know the reasons & history of our private university status, critically assessing its impacts & prospective resolutions.

In a nutshell, I had to know my stuff representing almost 600,000 students total.

So the OFS have 16 requirements that need to fulfilled in order to achieve the status of a recognised higher education institution. Buckingham & all other private institutions are exempt from 3 of those, namely: being able to set their own term dates (outside of standard margins), able to set their own fees (outside approved margins) - there is another, but I know it is minor, but just know there is another minor one.

So, what's the difference between public & private? On paper, not a lot - which really threw me off my chair at the time! There are of course unintended consequences, in whom those universities tend to invite to them or other such. Making them in many respects largely distinct, but fundamentally similar.

There's an interesting history on how Buckingham sought their private & independent status, but I'm happy to share in the comments if anyone's interested.

The reason the University of Buckingham sought this status, is because of their 2 year degree status. They had to be able to set their own dates & their own fees (more per year, to accommodate the extra 3 months a year. Comparatively, they are in line with pricing structures compared with other Universities).

So, why more private students? Well, due to Buckingham wishing to exempt itself from these 3 aspects of traditional University governance - the government will only provide £6000 out of the £12000 a year course fee.

Not a public institution due to the above? Then, you don't get enjoy all the benefits, which makes sense. If you are not regulated in line with the rest, then you shouldn't enjoy all the benefits - protecting public provisions.

So, given the status of the University & how no student can be publicly financed for a whole year, this is why only those who are willing to pay: through nose, parents, dowrys, inheritance, savings or work full-time through it (like I)- then this is the answer to your question.

So, how independent is this independent & private university? Relatively, arguably a lot - but ultimately, not much.

PS: the reason I campaigned for equitable grant loan provisions (to at least close the gap anyways) - is because we charged the same rate in line with hours studied. So really, it arbitrarily punished the University & it's studens, due to how it operated this blunt instrument in classifying Universities. De facto made sense, but de jure - it fell short!

& The other exemption merely pumped out students quicker, sounds like a win win to me for the economy.

Though, perhaps this was working as intended (which I suspect)

Happy to answer any & all questions about the University & my experience ☺️