Tuition Fee Rises

[trousers]

Of course, the root cause to today's imbalance of job 'supply' and job 'demand' is women going out to work en masse in the 60s. Fact (probably)

[dubai_phil]

I agree that the university system is ultimately elitist, but that is no bad thing provided it can be shown to perform.

 

Here's a different way to look at it.

 

To get to the Very top in the UK it HELPS to have gone to Eton/Windsor/Oxbridge. That is Elitist and let's face it class based as most of us normal types cannot afford those schools.

 

Successive Governments (and me) do not like that, but they cannot break it. Instead they cover it up by making Uni's for all so nobody really notices.

 

Didn't say one has to start again, FFS I was going to be an Environmental Scientist, probably focused in Urban planning and I became an unworthy salesman instead after some time in a Bank.

 

But it is the last point you make. To put it into a "Socialist" mantra, somebody needs to sit down with ALL stakeholders and ask "What does the WHOLE of our society NEED from our Universities".

 

Then we will end up with something closer to the German System and maybe we'll make enough money to pay for Education for all.

[trousers]

Or we could just accept that life is unfair (the planet has survived on that principle for the last few million years or so - why do human beings think there's a better way of running the planet after all this time?)

[solentstars]

feel sorry for today's students and looks like that the poorer and middle incomes kids will be priced out of going to our university s in the future so higher education will become elitist again.

[Verbal]

. When my kids come of age, I would like them to go to Uni, but I will suggest they do something that makes them more employable / attractive to employers.

 

Tell them to do PPE (politics, philosophy & economics) at Oxford. Employment rates for PPE graduates are stupidly high.

[Verbal]

Of course, the root cause to today's imbalance of job 'supply' and job 'demand' is women going out to work en masse in the 60s. Fact (probably)

 

Which is why the washing machine has been argued to be more influential than the internet in changing modern society. Not many people know that...

[bridge too far]

Of course, the root cause to today's imbalance of job 'supply' and job 'demand' is women going out to work en masse in the 60s. Fact (probably)

 

I think it was later than the 60s, Trousers. My children were born late 60s, early/mid 70s and, like most of our generation, we could afford for one parent to stay at home. I only went back to paid work in the 80s (part time) because I was bored once the children were all at school.

 

Women increasingly HAD to go out to work in the 80s because the huge rise in house prices meant that families couldn't afford to live on one income any more.

 

Are you implying that it's wrong for women to go to work?

[Wes Tender]

If, as we are told, graduates earn more then they will pay more in taxes throughout their lifetime. This is just another LibDem hate measure.

 

Agree entirely. Those who obtain good degrees in useful subjects, ought to be able to use that to their advantage and secure better paid jobs. They will then be paying twice the rate of tax for the rest of their lives, thus repaying the state many fold for the investment in their education.

 

As it stands at the moment, there are too many students in higher education, pursuing useless degrees, with a high drop our rate. Those who drop out before finishing their degrees ought to pay something, as they have possibly deprived others of a place.

 

But I also agree with Johnny Bognor, that there should be no charge for tuition in those skills that are needed by the state.

[trousers]

I think it was later than the 60s, Trousers. My children were born late 60s, early/mid 70s and, like most of our generation, we could afford for one parent to stay at home. I only went back to paid work in the 80s (part time) because I was bored once the children were all at school.

 

Women increasingly HAD to go out to work in the 80s because the huge rise in house prices meant that families couldn't afford to live on one income any more.

 

Are you implying that it's wrong for women to go to work?

 

No. My tongue was in close proximity to my cheek (face not ar5e)

 

Although, I would be in favour to a return to the halcyon days of the family where only one breadwinner was required to keep up with the cost of living.

[Verbal]

But I also agree with Johnny Bognor, that there should be no charge for tuition in those skills that are needed by the state.

 

Needed by the state?!! Are you a refugee from the DDR or North Korea by any chance?

[trousers]

Needed by the state?!! Are you a refugee from the DDR or North Korea by any chance?

 

Possibly a "whooosh" moment coming up but I assume he meant "needed by the public" rather than "needed by the state"

 

Although ultimately the same difference I guess.....

 

Possibly.

[Scudamore]

So, sure you've all heard about this by now. Lord Browne has recommended that the LibServatives raise tuition fees for universities to £7000, and also to allow top universities to charge what they want, which means that students wanting to go to top places like Oxford, Cambridge and even Southampton could end up paying well over £10k a year for their degree courses.

 

I may be a bit biased on this particular one, being a student myself, but this is just typical of the tories imo. They're taking the fairness out of the education system and making university an elitist thing again. Some may argue that it's a good thing, but we're all entitled to a good education, and let's face it, you need a degree to get anywhere in the world these days. I'm already going to graduate from Uni in a few years time saddled with £24k (min) of student debt, so imagine how much people would end up paying if they had to pay £15k a year as well as living costs!

 

Personally, I think it's a disgusting proposition that is just completely OTT. As I said, only the rich will be able to go to university if this goes through, and that's exactly how the tories want it. Same sh!t, different leader.

 

PS: There's a protest scheduled for November 10th in Westminster against the rises, we need as many people as possible!

 

Same old Tories...

 

Of course that's a load of old tosh though isn't it really? They're all the same. And chipping away at the system and trying to screw extra cash from it's citizens is of course not a mutually Conservative party concept. It was Labour after all that scrapped the student grants which has massively contributed to the cost of going to university at present. However with more people than ever going to university it's hardly surprising that they're looking for someone to foot the bill. And what better person than the people that benefits most from the education most...

 

All this means is that those looking to go to university will have to give it a lot more consideration than the "well i can't be arsed to start work yet" approach that some take and will hopefully mean we have more focussed, dedicated and hardworking students and less of the mongs.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8057871/Grants-loans-and-tuition-fees-a-timeline-of-how-university-funding-has-evolved.html

[trousers]

PS: There's a protest scheduled for November 10th in Westminster against the rises, we need as many people as possible!

 

How will that work? Won't all students be hard at work in their respective universities on a Wednesday.....?

[doughnutman]

How will that work? Won't all students be hard at work in their respective universities on a Wednesday.....?

 

No most uni's have wednesday afternoons off of lectures/seminars as thats when the sports teams generally meet

[trousers]

No most uni's have wednesday afternoons off of lectures/seminars as thats when the sports teams generally meet

 

Wednesday afternoons off?! No wonder higher education costs so much!

 

;-)

[bridge too far]

Wednesday afternoons off?! No wonder higher education costs so much!

 

;-)

 

Just a continuation of the practice in public schools.

[benjii]

Just a continuation of the practice in public schools.

 

For games. Not "off".

[bridge too far]

For games. Not "off".

 

Or for playing toy soldiers.

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

Got to say I feel a University Degree nowadays is worthless unless it comes from a proper Red Brick. Unfortunately, this is the way that employers decide nowadays and I personally feel it is better to work your way up from A Level standard.

[benjii]

And since you mentioned public schools...

 

If there's one single move in recent decades that coupled academic elitism with financial muscle, it's Labours abolition of the Assisted Places scheme which allowed the brightest children from humble backgrounds to flourish and achieve their potential.

[Seaford Saint]

Good buddies....we have an Eton/Oxbridge dominated Parliamentary system. Lets change the education system so we keep the masses down. Lets frighten the masses by inventing enemies (China, Iran etc) to justify Trident.

 

Who owns the Bank of England?

 

Lets monetize the masses as much as we can, get them into debt so we can control them. We are/were the 4th richest country in the world. Is this the best we can do for our children?

 

At the same time as doing this to our children, this week HP announce 1300 UK redundancies, Vodafone announce the closure of a call centre in Banbury 400 jobs lost. Work is going abroad.

 

The country is going down the pan. I will tell my kids that if they have to pay for a Uni education they should have no qualms about leaving the country for one which will give them better prospects, Oz or Canada for example. Does Australia have much of a nuclear capability? Canada?

 

Unite demands answers as Lloyds cut 4,500 job cuts with work going abroad

[iansums]

feel sorry for today's students and looks like that the poorer and middle incomes kids will be priced out of going to our university s in the future so higher education will become elitist again.

 

No they won't, that is the whole point. Fees will not be payable up front, neither by the student or their parents. They will only become payable when the graduate starts earning over £22,000 pa. If they never earn this much then they will not have to pay back a penny.

[Smirking_Saint]

So, sure you've all heard about this by now. Lord Browne has recommended that the LibServatives raise tuition fees for universities to £7000, and also to allow top universities to charge what they want, which means that students wanting to go to top places like Oxford, Cambridge and even Southampton could end up paying well over £10k a year for their degree courses.

 

I may be a bit biased on this particular one, being a student myself, but this is just typical of the tories imo. They're taking the fairness out of the education system and making university an elitist thing again. Some may argue that it's a good thing, but we're all entitled to a good education, and let's face it, you need a degree to get anywhere in the world these days. I'm already going to graduate from Uni in a few years time saddled with £24k (min) of student debt, so imagine how much people would end up paying if they had to pay £15k a year as well as living costs!

 

Personally, I think it's a disgusting proposition that is just completely OTT. As I said, only the rich will be able to go to university if this goes through, and that's exactly how the tories want it. Same sh!t, different leader.

 

PS: There's a protest scheduled for November 10th in Westminster against the rises, we need as many people as possible!

 

I am a graduate, but a graduate that ensured i had a job at the end of it and didn't just wittle away more of the countries cash or raise my own personal debt level too high.

 

I fully support this idea. Why should i fund the majority of people that just go to uni for the lifestyle ? Not only this but also the fact that there would not be such a 'supposed need' to have a degree to achieve a role.

 

The country is in enough debt atm, we need people going to work, supporting the economy and achieving life skills, not sitting in a pub and every now and again doing some homework for a media studies degree.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

I am a graduate, but a graduate that ensured i had a job at the end of it and didn't just wittle away more of the countries cash or raise my own personal debt level too high.

 

I fully support this idea. Why should i fund the majority of people that just go to uni for the lifestyle ? Not only this but also the fact that there would not be such a 'supposed need' to have a degree to achieve a role.

 

The country is in enough debt atm, we need people going to work, supporting the economy and achieving life skills, not sitting in a pub and every now and again doing some homework for a media studies degree.

 

As you are so supportive I'm guessing that you'll be volunteering to pay extra tax to pay for your degree in line with the new proposals?

[Saintandy666]

Right. I'm hoping to do Medicine next year, hopefully at one of the better so called 'Russell Group' universities. Now, no-one can dispute that studying medicine at university is some easy go to uni for the hell of it choice. It is hard work, 6 years of hard work and the job at the end of it definitely contributes to society... we need doctors in this country.

 

If these plans go ahead in their pure form, then what future Medicine students would be look at would be £12,000 of tuition fees every year. It's a 6 year course, so that is £72,000 debt with only tuition fees. Add in living costs and accommodation and it wouldn't be surprising to see some debts pushing, if not going over the £100,000 mark. Do we want people from this country to join this profession or not?!?! The outcome of this will probably mean less British doctors in our hospitals.

 

Same applies to other important professions of the future in Science and IT and what not.

Edited 13 October, 2010 by Saintandy666

[Arizona]

Right. I'm hoping to do Medicine next year, hopefully at one of the better so called 'Russell Group' universities. Now, no-one can dispute that studying medicine at university is some easy go to uni for the hell of it choice. It is hard word, 6 years of hard work and the job at the end of it definitely contributes to society... we need doctors in this country.

 

If these plans go ahead in their pure form, then what future Medicine students would be look at would be £12,000 of tuition fees every year. It's a 6 year course, so that is £72,000 debt with only tuition fees. Add in living costs and accommodation and it wouldn't be surprising to see some debts pushing, if not going over the £100,000 mark. Do we want people from this country to join this profession or not?!?! The outcome of this will probably mean less British doctors in our hospitals.

 

Same applies to other important professions of the future in Science and IT and what not.

 

That's about the ballpark I ended up in with my post A Levels training. No guaranteed job on the end of it either. No student loan either. It's harsh, but I've never moaned about it.

 

I fully support people doing a useful degree like medicine, law, accountancy, physics, chemisty, mathematics etc. It's people doing courses like art, transport management studies, mdeia studies, sociology with no idea what job they're hoping to get on the end of it that bug me. They're only doing it because uni seems like the next natural step and they're going with the flow.

[Saintandy666]

That's about the ballpark I ended up in with my post A Levels training. No guaranteed job on the end of it either. No student loan either. It's harsh, but I've never moaned about it.

 

I fully support people doing a useful degree like medicine, law, accountancy, physics, chemisty, mathematics etc. It's people doing courses like art, transport management studies, mdeia studies, sociology with no idea what job they're hoping to get on the end of it that bug me. They're only doing it because uni seems like the next natural step and they're going with the flow.

 

I'm not moaning about it personally as it won't affect me. I'm worried for the future of British doctors and whether because of this we will not longer have the diversity and numbers we do now.

 

I agree with you on the 'useless degrees' argument, but £100,000 is too much. It's not right.

[swannymere]

Oh how my heart bleeds for the poor medical students, get real. You do a long, expensive course and you're rewarded with a decent salary, stop whining.

 

15 Sep 2010 ... The average salary of a GP has fallen to £105300 a year - Source BBC

[Saintandy666]

Oh how my heart bleeds for the poor medical students, get real. You do a long, expensive course and you're rewarded with a decent salary, stop whining.

 

15 Sep 2010 ... The average salary of a GP has fallen to £105300 a year - Source BBC

 

Junior Doctors start on £22,000 rising to £30,000 over three years.

[JustMike]

No most uni's have wednesday afternoons off of lectures/seminars as thats when the sports teams generally meet

 

only if they are on a sports degree, otherwise it's lessons as normal.

[JustMike]

the rise in fees will probably mean that university education will come down to the ability to pay rather than the ability to learn. That, in my mind is wrong.

[Lord Duckhunter]

I find it strange that the Lefties keep going on about getting the poorest into uni and giving them a chance to better themselves and move up the social scale, when they abolished the biggest tool for doing so, Grammar schools.We are lucky in Poole that we still have them, and many working class friends of my older sons have had great educations because of them.

[Smirking_Saint]

As you are so supportive I'm guessing that you'll be volunteering to pay extra tax to pay for your degree in line with the new proposals?

 

Company paid for the degree as part of the contract i signed up. Plus i will be forgoeing the child benefits and paying a sufficient amount of tax anyways. I would never have driven myself to the levels of debt some of our young students do these days, it is just not feasible.

 

As far as the 'you need a degree to get a leg up line' it is just wrong, most employers would rather see experience then degrees on a CV because that is what is seriously lacking in the job markets these days.

 

TBF, someone made a good point earlier, that degrees that are 'needed' should be subsidised. Perhaps this could be done in line with employers such as what they do with apprenticeships in which the company will get half of the degree costs back if they successfully push an empolyee towards a 'needed' degree ?

[SuperMikey]

only if they are on a sports degree, otherwise it's lessons as normal.

 

Most people I know have normal timetables on a wednesday, but it can be re-arranged to enable you to go to various sports teams, societies etc. I've just come back from my halls football team training.

[Whitey Grandad]

Most people I know have normal timetables on a wednesday, but it can be re-arranged to enable you to go to various sports teams, societies etc. I've just come back from my halls football team training.

 

We had lectures and practicals in the mornings and only a couple of tutorials in the afternoons. I played football twice a week in the afternoons but we did have three hours of lectures on Saturday. Natural Scientists and medicine had a lot more practicals after lich, I seem to recall. This was 'engineering' in 1968.

[Scudamore]

Junior Doctors start on £22,000 rising to £30,000 over three years.

 

So that's 7,000 paid off over three years. You're well on the way!

[pap]

Fancy that!

 

Ideologically driven policy ends up costing more than it saves.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/mar/21/student-fees-policy-costing-more

 

(bump!)

[trousers]

Does this mean we now get a student march thanking the government for costing them less?

[pap]

Does this mean we now get a student march thanking the government for costing them less?

 

Probably not. The students are no better off. The ones that end up earning will still end up paying back. The ones that don't will still be a huge cost.

 

Frankly, I think the underlying situation is really crap for graduates. Fighting competition from the EU and everyone else that is degree educated. Thank fk I was poor as a youngster. Gave me the pragmatism to go into something that'd make dosh, instead of some w4nky BA that'd have cost me an arm and a leg.

 

Also, thank fk I was born in 1975. Tuition fees didn't even apply when I went. Still had a bit of a grant. I paid off my (relatively tiny) student loans five years after graduating.

[Verbal]

Does this mean we now get a student march thanking the government for costing them less?

 

Are you sure your daily commute isn't to CCHQ? (Yes, the Tory dumb****s really call it that.) It is entirely consistent with a quality of governance so poor that it guarantees that policies designed to cost less, cost more. The special idiocy of this one is that having dumped almost the entire bill for Higher Education on students, this government now finds that the costs to the Treasury - and the taxpayer - are still higher than the loans/university grants regime it replaced.

 

Genius.

[trousers]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationopinion/11408555/Raising-tuition-fees-is-paying-off-for-everyone-except-Nick-Clegg.html

 

The predicted effect of the £9,000 annual fees – a permanent slump in applications from discouraged students – has failed to materialise. Now we are seeing more applications than ever, and a record number are from people with disadvantaged backgrounds. There’s more competition, with new universities and sixth-form colleges offering robust, no-frills degrees. The Scottish government, which abolished tuition fees, now has an embarrassing admission to make: if you’re gifted, poor and set on university, then England is the best place to be.

 

On the surface, the reform did seem rather mean. A generation ago, students paid nothing for tuition; Tony Blair then charged £3,000 and David Cameron raised it to £9,000. It seemed to stand to reason that this would deter all but the wealthiest families – which is why it was denounced as a heartless Tory plan cooked up with turncoat Liberal Democrats.

 

In Edinburgh, Alex Salmond delighted in making a moral point: the SNP rejected fees because they violated the Scottish principle of free education. “The rocks will melt with the sun before I allow tuition fees to be imposed on Scotland’s students,” he declared. Amazingly, one of his government agencies later had these words inscribed on a one-ton slab of sandstone and moved to an Edinburgh campus.

 

Now, four years on, we can see what happened. It recently emerged that 592,000 students have applied for university this year, the highest ever. And not just the offspring of the well-heeled: the number of teenagers from deprived backgrounds has also jumped to a record high. Strikingly, 22 per cent of deprived children in England have applied for university – against just 16 per cent for Scotland. Why the gulf? Because, as Scottish academics now admit, England’s reforms have not just helped universities, but they have done more for the poorest students. The unthinkable has happened: David Willetts’s plan has worked.

 

This is something that David Cameron ought to be proud of. His reform has been misrepresented from the offset: the word “fees”’ conjured images of large cheques having to be written. In fact, it works like a graduate tax: repayment is only required when students earn more than £21,000. Crucially, only about one in four graduates is expected to have to repay the full amount – the Government stumps up for the rest. So this new scheme was never, really, a money-saving exercise; it was an attempt to find fairer, more secure funding for universities and give more help to students who needed it most.

 

Giving universities freedom over fees, and trusting them to come up with their own ways to look after the poorest, was always going to be a gamble – but it really does seem to have paid off. The Coalition’s university reform is shaping up to be a triumph of progressive politics. It won’t be much comfort to Nick Clegg, but he really was right all along.

Edited 13 February, 2015 by trousers

[Unbelievable Jeff]

I never understood what the big deal was myself, and still don't. University education should not be free, but should also not be only accessible by the rich. This was never going to be the case as it's all done by loans?

 

Hence, what's the issue?

[Lighthouse]

I never understood what the big deal was myself, and still don't. University education should not be free, but should also not be only accessible by the rich. This was never going to be the case as it's all done by loans?

 

Hence, what's the issue?

 

I never really bought the argument that it would be too expensive for low income families. If you're earning over £21,000 a year you're not a low income family.

[View From The Top]

The biggest change we've seen is the amount of students now opting for living at home and commuting to uni to cut costs. Cheaper to catch the train to B'ham/Man/L'pool/Notts for Russell group unis or Derby, Staffs, Keele, John Moore or any other of the local unis than it is paying for accom, food etc. In most cases, parents are stumping up for train season tickets.

 

I reckon the amount of students staying at home has risen from about 30% to around 60%.

[Verbal]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationopinion/11408555/Raising-tuition-fees-is-paying-off-for-everyone-except-Nick-Clegg.html

 

This is like calling a win in the hundred metres a split second after the starting gun has been fired. The first cohort paying £9,000 hasn't even graduated yet. We don't know what will happen to repayment of loans, and there have been various predictions, some of which leave a huge and unsustainable hole that could have a huge negative impact on fiscal policy (meaning large cuts or tax rises).

 

What's more striking though is how many inaccuracies there are in that article. For example, the universities have certainly not been "given freedom over fees". Fees are capped at £9,000, and the coalition government withdrew central funding pretty much pound for pound. There's also little chance of the ceiling being lifted, so the universities - like education in general - will suffer a gradual erosion of spending power over the coming years. The rise in applications itself has more to do with demographics than some supposed 'buy in' by increasing numbers of working class applicants - and numbers are expected to fall in line with a falling birth rate over the next five years. And as for the argument that 'new universities' are more competitive, it's clear that a number of them are making cuts because the older universities, including the Russell Group, are taking censurably more students (the one freedom they have been given) - some of whom would have previously gone to post-92s.

[aintforever]

I never understood what the big deal was myself, and still don't. University education should not be free, but should also not be only accessible by the rich. This was never going to be the case as it's all done by loans?

 

Hence, what's the issue?

 

All I know is that I would never had gone to Uni if it meant getting into the sort of debt students do today. I'm not from a rich family and when I was 18 the idea of getting into debt scared the sh!t out of me, it was daunting enough moving away from home and finding the cash for rent etc let alone paying 10K a year fees on top.

 

I expect the only reason more college leavers are going to Uni is the simple fact that job opportunities have been limited os for many it's a no brainer even with the huge debts.

[buctootim]

Junior Doctors start on £22,000 rising to £30,000 over three years.

 

In few other jobs would you be earning £30,000pa in your 2nd year in post and £100,000 after c10 years.

http://www.nhscareers.nhs.uk/explore-by-career/doctors/pay-for-doctors/

Edited 13 February, 2015 by buctootim

[Lighthouse]

All I know is that I would never had gone to Uni if it meant getting into the sort of debt students do today. I'm not from a rich family and when I was 18 the idea of getting into debt scared the sh!t out of me, it was daunting enough moving away from home and finding the cash for rent etc let alone paying 10K a year fees on top.

 

I expect the only reason more college leavers are going to Uni is the simple fact that job opportunities have been limited os for many it's a no brainer even with the huge debts.

 

You would never have to pay anything like that. The government pays £10k a year, you pay them back at a much lower rate.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

All I know is that I would never had gone to Uni if it meant getting into the sort of debt students do today. I'm not from a rich family and when I was 18 the idea of getting into debt scared the sh!t out of me, it was daunting enough moving away from home and finding the cash for rent etc let alone paying 10K a year fees on top.

 

I expect the only reason more college leavers are going to Uni is the simple fact that job opportunities have been limited os for many it's a no brainer even with the huge debts.

 

But it's not like a real debt. I left Uni with £16k worth of debt, and finished paying it off last year. Took 7 and a half years. But as I never had the money, I never missed it. But last year when I started getting £340 odd quid back into my wage packet it was worth a lot.

 

We've had it good here for longer than a lot of other countries, and it wasn't really sustainable.

 

Either way, I think it's silly to think of it as a debt that can be foreclosed on - you only pay it when you can afford to.

[badgerx16]

From last April ;

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10747315/Six-in-10-students-will-have-their-debts-written-off.html

 

"David Willetts, the Universities Minister, tells Labour's Liam Byrne that the government expects 60 per cent of students' loans will never be fully repaid, costing taxpayers billions of pounds"