Students

davmaggs

We seem to have shifted the debate towards 18 years not being rational enough to make decisions therefore they should be protected. Strange how lots of other countries cope and have no shortage of students borrowing.

Then look at many of the overseas students here in the UK who pay the highest fees. They are often scraping by and their families make big sacrifices to get them here. Somehow they do the maths and decide that it is worth a shot.

British 18 years being different to the rest of the world and too frightened to take out loans isn't going to be the argument that persuades number 10. They know that fees could go to £15k and people will still pay. They do abroad and they would here.

In fact I am willing to bet that within 5 years the top Universities will charge that.

lost_in_thought

My official job title here is 'Director'. I'm 27.

I've already mentioned my qualifications.

DonDaddyD

davmaggs wrote:

We seem to have shifted the debate towards 18 years not being rational enough to make decisions therefore they should be protected. Strange how lots of other countries cope and have no shortage of students borrowing.

Then look at many of the overseas students here in the UK who pay the highest fees. They are often scraping by and their families make big sacrifices to get them here. Somehow they do the maths and decide that it is worth a shot.

British 18 years being different to the rest of the world and too frightened to take out loans isn't going to be the argument that persuades number 10. They know that fees could go to £15k and people will still pay. They do abroad and they would here.

In fact I am willing to bet that within 5 years the top Universities will charge that.

If we are going to compare the rest of the World then we will have to condsider responsibilities, laws and cultures that results in some children growing up faster than others. If that happens I'll just be an observer to the discussion.

As for £15K. Don't be ridiculous. Unless everything else goes up in relation to rising Uni costs. If everything was to stay the same then you really are talking a house deposit per year. Even the middle classes wouldn't bother.

lost_in_thought

DonDaddyD wrote:

davmaggs wrote:

We seem to have shifted the debate towards 18 years not being rational enough to make decisions therefore they should be protected. Strange how lots of other countries cope and have no shortage of students borrowing.

Then look at many of the overseas students here in the UK who pay the highest fees. They are often scraping by and their families make big sacrifices to get them here. Somehow they do the maths and decide that it is worth a shot.

British 18 years being different to the rest of the world and too frightened to take out loans isn't going to be the argument that persuades number 10. They know that fees could go to £15k and people will still pay. They do abroad and they would here.

In fact I am willing to bet that within 5 years the top Universities will charge that.

If we are going to compare the rest of the World then we will have to condsider responsibilities, laws and cultures that results in some children growing up faster than others. If that happens I'll just be an observer to the discussion.

As for £15K. Don't be ridiculous. Unless everything else goes up in relation to rising Uni costs. If everything was to stay the same then you really are talking a house deposit per year. Even the middle classes wouldn't bother.

Ahem... probably shooting myself in the foot here, but:

http://www.theleys.cambs.sch.uk/admissions/fees.html

DonDaddyD

lost_in_thought wrote:

Ahem... probably shooting myself in the foot here, but:

http://www.theleys.cambs.sch.uk/admissions/fees.html

I'm not attacking here, OK.

Define middle class?

As to your school example, exception not the norm...

lost_in_thought

DonDaddyD wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Ahem... probably shooting myself in the foot here, but:

http://www.theleys.cambs.sch.uk/admissions/fees.html

I'm not attacking here, OK.

Define middle class?

As to your school example, exception not the norm...

I don't know, I would say I'm probably middle class. Hard to define really. I would also say most of the other 400-odd kids at that school were too, and most of those on the waiting list to get in every year.

My point was that people eminently WOULD bother with £15k per annum tuition fees, especially if you could get a loan on them. No finance options available on school fees, and many schools are around that price.

SpaceBadger

As an academic, there is another side to this - increasingly students seem to arrive at University with the belief that they have paid to be given a degree and that the emphasis is on the University to provide a service that will culminate in them being handed the degree.

Many students have an attitude of "I have paid all this money, what are you going to do for me?" and expect information to be given to them rather than viewing University as an opportunity to learn (in an advanced and guided but self-responsible way, rather than the spoon feeding method) and develop, which involves an investment of time and effort from their side as well as (obviously) from the tutors and lecturers etc. This is all anecdotal and obviously does not apply to every student, but it is seemingly on the rise and I suspect will not be helped by hiking up the tuition fees even further.

sketchley

SpaceBadger wrote:

As an academic, there is another side to this - increasingly students seem to arrive at University with the belief that they have paid to be given a degree and that the emphasis is on the University to provide a service that will culminate in them being handed the degree.

Many students have an attitude of "I have paid all this money, what are you going to do for me?" and expect information to be given to them rather than viewing University as an opportunity to learn (in an advanced and guided but self-responsible way, rather than the spoon feeding method) and develop, which involves an investment of time and effort from their side as well as (obviously) from the tutors and lecturers etc. This is all anecdotal and obviously does not apply to every student, but it is seemingly on the rise and I suspect will not be helped by hiking up the tuition fees even further.

Not considered that angle. Thank you. --- goes away to think.....

W1

SpaceBadger wrote:

As an academic, there is another side to this - increasingly students seem to arrive at University with the belief that they have paid to be given a degree and that the emphasis is on the University to provide a service that will culminate in them being handed the degree.

Many students have an attitude of "I have paid all this money, what are you going to do for me?" and expect information to be given to them rather than viewing University as an opportunity to learn (in an advanced and guided but self-responsible way, rather than the spoon feeding method) and develop, which involves an investment of time and effort from their side as well as (obviously) from the tutors and lecturers etc. This is all anecdotal and obviously does not apply to every student, but it is seemingly on the rise and I suspect will not be helped by hiking up the tuition fees even further.

Maybe they're the type who really aren't suited to university in the first place?

I wonder if attendance at lectures will go up....!

Sewinman

lost_in_thought wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Ahem... probably shooting myself in the foot here, but:

http://www.theleys.cambs.sch.uk/admissions/fees.html

I'm not attacking here, OK.

Define middle class?

As to your school example, exception not the norm...

I don't know, I would say I'm probably middle class. Hard to define really. I would also say most of the other 400-odd kids at that school were too, and most of those on the waiting list to get in every year.

My point was that people eminently WOULD bother with £15k per annum tuition fees, especially if you could get a loan on them. No finance options available on school fees, and many schools are around that price.

Tis true - my Dad has a (growing) £40k "war chest" (his words) for my 14 year old sister for University, he also pays £20+k a year for her to go to HMSG.

And I went to my local comp *mutter mutter*.

rjsterry

lost_in_thought wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Ahem... probably shooting myself in the foot here, but:

http://www.theleys.cambs.sch.uk/admissions/fees.html

I'm not attacking here, OK.

Define middle class?

As to your school example, exception not the norm...

I don't know, I would say I'm probably middle class. Hard to define really. I would also say most of the other 400-odd kids at that school were too, and most of those on the waiting list to get in every year.

My point was that people eminently WOULD bother with £15k per annum tuition fees, especially if you could get a loan on them. No finance options available on school fees, and many schools are around that price.

Define middle class? Needs a whole separate thread to sort that one out. No, DDD, that is not a suggestion But it is a very broad category almost to the extent that it is meaningless as a description.

DonDaddyD

lost_in_thought wrote:

I don't know, I would say I'm probably middle class. Hard to define really. I would also say most of the other 400-odd kids at that school were too, and most of those on the waiting list to get in every year.

My point was that people eminently WOULD bother with £15k per annum tuition fees, especially if you could get a loan on them. No finance options available on school fees, and many schools are around that price.

LiT using your school as an example suggests that there is only small sample of people prepared to pay or can afford that sort of money to spend on schooling. When considering the population.

As I said the exception not the norm.

Equally, its generally accepted that public school, while arguably better is largely for those who can afford it. The whole point of the Uni debate is that many do not want it made viable only to the rich.

lost_in_thought

Sewinman wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Ahem... probably shooting myself in the foot here, but:

http://www.theleys.cambs.sch.uk/admissions/fees.html

I'm not attacking here, OK.

Define middle class?

As to your school example, exception not the norm...

I don't know, I would say I'm probably middle class. Hard to define really. I would also say most of the other 400-odd kids at that school were too, and most of those on the waiting list to get in every year.

My point was that people eminently WOULD bother with £15k per annum tuition fees, especially if you could get a loan on them. No finance options available on school fees, and many schools are around that price.

Tis true - my Dad has a (growing) £40k "war chest" (his words) for my 14 year old sister for University, he also pays £20+k a year for her to go to HMSG.

And I went to my local comp *mutter mutter*.

Ahhhhh that explains a lot

My brother went there too, at the same time as me, but had no interest whatsoever in university. He is now a successful engineer and pilot, despite not being a great intellectual he has other skills which would not have been enhanced by Uni.

DonDaddyD

rjsterry wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Ahem... probably shooting myself in the foot here, but:

http://www.theleys.cambs.sch.uk/admissions/fees.html

I'm not attacking here, OK.

Define middle class?

As to your school example, exception not the norm...

I don't know, I would say I'm probably middle class. Hard to define really. I would also say most of the other 400-odd kids at that school were too, and most of those on the waiting list to get in every year.

My point was that people eminently WOULD bother with £15k per annum tuition fees, especially if you could get a loan on them. No finance options available on school fees, and many schools are around that price.

Define middle class? Needs a whole separate thread to sort that one out. No, DDD, that is not a suggestion But it is a very broad category almost to the extent that it is meaningless as a description.

I really should have said middle income earners. In any case the moment is gone. I actually don't know how much money I would need to earn to pay £8,5K a term for school. The costs frighten me and I do all right.

davmaggs

DonDaddyD wrote:

As for £15K. Don't be ridiculous. Unless everything else goes up in relation to rising Uni costs. If everything was to stay the same then you really are talking a house deposit per year. Even the middle classes wouldn't bother.

OK, carry on and think that. Those parents who were saving for their kids that based their sums on £1,500 (or whatever it was at the start) and naively trusted politicans got a nice surprise when fees went to £3,000 and guess what we're now talking about £9,000.

The Russell group of Universites would easily fill their slots for £15k. Think I'm mad then perhaps try this link:

http://www.gsas.harvard.edu/prospective_students/costs_tuition_and_fees.php

lost_in_thought

DonDaddyD wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Ahem... probably shooting myself in the foot here, but:

http://www.theleys.cambs.sch.uk/admissions/fees.html

I'm not attacking here, OK.

Define middle class?

As to your school example, exception not the norm...

I don't know, I would say I'm probably middle class. Hard to define really. I would also say most of the other 400-odd kids at that school were too, and most of those on the waiting list to get in every year.

My point was that people eminently WOULD bother with £15k per annum tuition fees, especially if you could get a loan on them. No finance options available on school fees, and many schools are around that price.

Define middle class? Needs a whole separate thread to sort that one out. No, DDD, that is not a suggestion But it is a very broad category almost to the extent that it is meaningless as a description.

I really should have said middle income earners. In any case the moment is gone. I actually don't know how much money I would need to earn to pay £8,5K a term for school. The costs frighten me and I do all right.

Again using my own family as an example, it's how much you need to save that is perhaps more pertinent. My mother paid out £250k for my and my brother's education over a 6 year period.

I would guess you need to work out how much you need to earn to be able to save up £250k before your kids hit 13.

EDIT: Oh and the prep school fees too, obviously.

davmaggs

SpaceBadger wrote:

As an academic, there is another side to this - increasingly students seem to arrive at University with the belief that they have paid to be given a degree and that the emphasis is on the University to provide a service that will culminate in them being handed the degree.

Many students have an attitude of "I have paid all this money, what are you going to do for me?" and expect information to be given to them rather than viewing University as an opportunity to learn (in an advanced and guided but self-responsible way, rather than the spoon feeding method) and develop, which involves an investment of time and effort from their side as well as (obviously) from the tutors and lecturers etc. This is all anecdotal and obviously does not apply to every student, but it is seemingly on the rise and I suspect will not be helped by hiking up the tuition fees even further.

I think that's part of the intention behind fees.

The Universities I have spent time at treated students like an annoyance that interferred with research or internal meetings. Mature students often turn up to find lectures cancelled or times moved without notice by people who don't think of students as customers.

Despite fees coming in the culture of dragging out courses for 3 years when 2 would do or spinning the yarn about 'self study' to fluff out the hours still persist. It won't wash so easily when students realise that each lecture is costing them £x.

wgwarburton

davmaggs wrote:

...look at many of the overseas students here in the UK who pay the highest fees. They are often scraping by and their families make big sacrifices to get them here. Somehow they do the maths and decide that it is worth a shot.
...In fact I am willing to bet that within 5 years the top Universities will charge that.

Is that what you want for the UK? To set up higher education so that only those who are already well-off or willing to bet that they will be in the future go to university (or college/polytechnic.. I'm not just talking about elite universities, here)?

It seems to me that the UK benefits from having a pool of educated people and that it's A Good Thing to make that pool large and inclusive.

I repeat my earlier comment that education is an investment by society in its future. I was asked where "free education" (I prefer state supplied; it's anything but free!) should stop- my view is that people should have an opportunity to get first degree/HNC/HND level qualifications, at least, so I guess that suggests a willingness to fund at least 2-3 years of higher education.

The idea that 50% of people should "go to university" is nonsense, but anyone who's able and motivated should be able to get an education to this sort of level without burying themselves in debt.

Cheers,
W.

DonDaddyD

lost_in_thought wrote:

Again using my own family as an example, it's how much you need to save that is perhaps more pertinent. My mother paid out £250k for my and my brother's education over a 6 year period.

I would guess you need to work out how much you need to earn to be able to save up £250k before your kids hit 13.

EDIT: Oh and the prep school fees too, obviously.

You see there aren't many who can do that LiT. And while its generally accepted that that is OK for schools - rich paying for the very best. There are a lot who want to keep Uni a viable option to all.

£250k over 6 years. £41K a year. More than the average Londoner earns, which is still about £25-£30K.

Edit: This is why I said we cannot use our exceptional experiences and apply it to the whole. Our experiences are not consistent with the majority (and many miniority groups) when it comes to education and careers.

jonginge

DonDaddyD wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Again using my own family as an example, it's how much you need to save that is perhaps more pertinent. My mother paid out £250k for my and my brother's education over a 6 year period.

I would guess you need to work out how much you need to earn to be able to save up £250k before your kids hit 13.

EDIT: Oh and the prep school fees too, obviously.

You see there aren't many who can do that LiT. And while its generally accepted that that is OK for schools - rich paying for the very best. There are a lot who want to keep Uni a viable option to all.

£250k over 6 years. £41K a year. More than the average Londoner earns, which is still about £25-£30K.

Start saving now! Have a plan, see it through...

Clever Pun

JonGinge wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Again using my own family as an example, it's how much you need to save that is perhaps more pertinent. My mother paid out £250k for my and my brother's education over a 6 year period.

I would guess you need to work out how much you need to earn to be able to save up £250k before your kids hit 13.

EDIT: Oh and the prep school fees too, obviously.

You see there aren't many who can do that LiT. And while its generally accepted that that is OK for schools - rich paying for the very best. There are a lot who want to keep Uni a viable option to all.

£250k over 6 years. £41K a year. More than the average Londoner earns, which is still about £25-£30K.

Start saving now! Have a plan, see it through...

yeah DDD stop whining and do something about your predicament (potentially in the future)

it's all about choice and the ones you make

lost_in_thought

DonDaddyD wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Again using my own family as an example, it's how much you need to save that is perhaps more pertinent. My mother paid out £250k for my and my brother's education over a 6 year period.

I would guess you need to work out how much you need to earn to be able to save up £250k before your kids hit 13.

EDIT: Oh and the prep school fees too, obviously.

You see there aren't many who can do that LiT. And while its generally accepted that that is OK for schools - rich paying for the very best. There are a lot who want to keep Uni a viable option to all.

£250k over 6 years. £41K a year. More than the average Londoner earns, which is still about £25-£30K.

Edit: This is why I said we cannot use our exceptional experiences and apply it to the whole. Our experiences are not consistent with the majority (and many miniority groups) when it comes to education and careers.

My family have never been big earners, but always been big savers. My mum had 20 years to save between marrying my dad and me starting school, and save she did. She (and my dad) worked their backsides off, starting from basically nothing, neither of them ever having office jobs.

It is possible.

Furthermore, you can send your kids to all the schools you like, but they can still turn out useless.

EDIT: Wot JG and CP said.

Sewinman

DDD - plenty of very good state schools in Wimbledon, stay living around there and your kids will have all the opportunity they need.

davmaggs

WGWarburton wrote:

Is that what you want for the UK? To set up higher education so that only those who are already well-off or willing to bet that they will be in the future go to university (or college/polytechnic.. I'm not just talking about elite universities, here)?

I'm not arguing for fees (see really early posts), but I am pointing out DDD and others' are naive if they believe that students won't pay.

It is demonstrably false, therefore sticking to this line as a means of stopping the rise is not a sound argument. It was the same claim made when the £3k fees came in and it was false then.

DonDaddyD

lost_in_thought wrote:

My family have never been big earners, but always been big savers. My mum had 20 years to save between marrying my dad and me starting school, and save she did. She (and my dad) worked their backsides off, starting from basically nothing, neither of them ever having office jobs.

It is possible.

Furthermore, you can send your kids to all the schools you like, but they can still turn out useless.

EDIT: Wot JG and CP said.

I can respect that.

Personally don't have 20years to save (many don't and I wish I knew 20years ago). I'm quickly approaching borrowed time if Ms DDD has her wicked way. Plus she wants that damn ring :x

I have a plan, going OK so far.

gtvlusso

DonDaddyD wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

My family have never been big earners, but always been big savers. My mum had 20 years to save between marrying my dad and me starting school, and save she did. She (and my dad) worked their backsides off, starting from basically nothing, neither of them ever having office jobs.

It is possible.

Furthermore, you can send your kids to all the schools you like, but they can still turn out useless.

EDIT: Wot JG and CP said.

I can respect that.

Personally don't have 20years to save (many don't and I wish I knew 20years ago). I'm quickly approaching borrowed time if Ms DDD has her wicked way. Plus she wants that damn ring :x

I have a plan, going OK so far.

See Tara P-T re: Wasted money on education.....

notsoblue

WGWarburton wrote:

The idea that 50% of people should "go to university" is nonsense, but anyone who's able and motivated should be able to get an education to this sort of level without burying themselves in debt.

+1

DonDaddyD

davmaggs wrote:

WGWarburton wrote:

Is that what you want for the UK? To set up higher education so that only those who are already well-off or willing to bet that they will be in the future go to university (or college/polytechnic.. I'm not just talking about elite universities, here)?

I'm not arguing for fees (see really early posts), but I am pointing out DDD and others' are naive if they believe that students won't pay.

It is demonstrably false, therefore sticking to this line as a means of stopping the rise is not a sound argument. It was the same claim made when the £3k fees came in and it was false then.

I do think the student will pay. I think there is a breaking point. Every item/product has a limit to how much people are prepared to pay. Go above and and people will simply think its not worth the expense. £15K I think is beyond that threshold. Especially as that is house deposit territory.

DDD - plenty of very good state schools in Wimbledon, stay living around there and your kids will have all the opportunity they need.

Lots of silly priced houses too...

rjsterry

lost_in_thought wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Again using my own family as an example, it's how much you need to save that is perhaps more pertinent. My mother paid out £250k for my and my brother's education over a 6 year period.

I would guess you need to work out how much you need to earn to be able to save up £250k before your kids hit 13.

EDIT: Oh and the prep school fees too, obviously.

You see there aren't many who can do that LiT. And while its generally accepted that that is OK for schools - rich paying for the very best. There are a lot who want to keep Uni a viable option to all.

£250k over 6 years. £41K a year. More than the average Londoner earns, which is still about £25-£30K.

Edit: This is why I said we cannot use our exceptional experiences and apply it to the whole. Our experiences are not consistent with the majority (and many miniority groups) when it comes to education and careers.

My family have never been big earners, but always been big savers. My mum had 20 years to save between marrying my dad and me starting school, and save she did. She (and my dad) worked their backsides off, starting from basically nothing, neither of them ever having office jobs.

It is possible.

Furthermore, you can send your kids to all the schools you like, but they can still turn out useless.

EDIT: Wot JG and CP said.

Nevertheless, you need to have at least something approaching £41k pa coming in in order to be able to save £41k pa unless you had access to some phenomenal rates of interest.

On the point of teenagers not knowing whether university is for them or not: those wishing to study any kind of art (art specifically, not arts in the academic sense) or design subject have to do a one year Foundation Course, which serves as a very good bridge between the closely controlled environment of school A levels and the more self sufficient world of university. From experience, it was noticeable within the first few weeks of my first year at Uni who had completed such a course, and who had not.

Something similar for non-art/design courses would help separate out those who aren't best served by a degree, and help the rest choose the right subject. A lot more use than bumming round the Far East, sorry 'gap yah', that's for sure.

SpaceBadger

davmaggs wrote:

SpaceBadger wrote:

As an academic, there is another side to this - increasingly students seem to arrive at University with the belief that they have paid to be given a degree and that the emphasis is on the University to provide a service that will culminate in them being handed the degree.

Many students have an attitude of "I have paid all this money, what are you going to do for me?" and expect information to be given to them rather than viewing University as an opportunity to learn (in an advanced and guided but self-responsible way, rather than the spoon feeding method) and develop, which involves an investment of time and effort from their side as well as (obviously) from the tutors and lecturers etc. This is all anecdotal and obviously does not apply to every student, but it is seemingly on the rise and I suspect will not be helped by hiking up the tuition fees even further.

I think that's part of the intention behind fees.

The Universities I have spent time at treated students like an annoyance that interferred with research or internal meetings. Mature students often turn up to find lectures cancelled or times moved without notice by people who don't think of students as customers.

Despite fees coming in the culture of dragging out courses for 3 years when 2 would do or spinning the yarn about 'self study' to fluff out the hours still persist. It won't wash so easily when students realise that each lecture is costing them £x.

I appreciate that those are examples of bad academic practice and I have experienced some of that myself, but I think it is dangerous to head down the route of seeing students as 'customers'. Universities want 'research-led teaching' which means that they want students to be taught by people at the cutting edge of research in that particular topic. To be at the cutting edge of research requires considerable time and effort to try to get funding for that research, and considerable time and effort to do that research so it is always going to be the case that such individuals are under time pressure although it is wrong to make students feel like an unwanted intrusion.

I am more referring to situations where students are shocked and appalled that they might have to go to the library and look up journal articles on a given topic, as they expected to have it all printed out for them and handed to them on a plate. Bit of independent thought is required...