Tuition fees legal?
Comments
-
rhext wrote:Oh, b.t.w, I believe the proposals are £6K per year unless a University can demonstrate specific schemes designed to improve accessibility, in which case they can go up to £9K.
Translation: Fund a couple of scholarships and you get to charge everyone else 50% more. I don't think there's any doubt that £9k will be the norm because (a) the universities want all the money they can get (especially with the planned savage cuts to their central funding) and (b) nobody wants to look like they're offering a 'cheap option', which might imply a lower quality course.0 -
spen666 wrote:a) this is a political opinion
b) tuition fees for toffs are £9000 pa, tuition fees are £9000pa for council estate kids no discrimination there
c) Rolls Royce prices discriminate against poor people in the same way surely as at £100,000 or so the poor can't afford them
d) re demanding refunds - anyone can ask for one, it doesn't mean you wil get one.
I agree 100% with this. I know a huge number of students who were doing degrees for the sake of doing a degree. This should put an end to that, as people will not be willing to spend so much on something that will not be utilised in later life.
Secondly, £30k is the very least one would expect to earn once completing a degree of any real salt, and having said degree does make it much easier to hit the £30k threshold.
If people want the degree for a specific purpose and will honestly work hard at doing it, then I cant see these people moaning as much as those that are doing for a 3/4 year doss.0 -
-
Squillinossett wrote:Secondly, £30k is the very least one would expect to earn once completing a degree of any real salt
Earnings are not necessarily related to how hard the student has to work to get his/her degree.
This table is a couple of years old, but look at the earnings for Biology graduates. I think that the figures refer to income after a few years in the graduate's chosen profession.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/educa ... 13774.html
I used to have some friends who worked in labs and they told me that the pay is appalling, considering the high level of qualifications they need to do the job, and many of them were thinking of leaving the field altogether to work in finance. The only real alternative for them was to look abroad.0 -
I cant tell you from looking at those figures, some are way out, as I look accounts for a number of companies that operate in sectors listed there, and the wages are vastly greater than those listed, even excluding the two obvious ones (Medical and Dentistry, which are closer to 3 x the figures listed)
However I do agree 100% that earning are not linked to effort one has put into thier chosen degree. Justthat some people make poor choices when it comes to what they are looking to do.0 -
rhext wrote:pneumatic wrote:what might make it unfair would be the opportunity for richer people to pay off the debt more quickly through lump sums. That would leave the poor paying interest on a debt, whilst the rich are not.
...Now that really would be unfair!
Or, to paraphrase, rich people can afford to do things that poor people cannot! How unfair!.
Not quite a paraphrase, as the issue in question is what things in life should be open to anyone and what things should be considered affordable extras.
I don't really care if rich people buy fast cars, loose women, huge houses, expensive holidays, bling to wear and connoiseur food. If that's what makes them happy, fine. If the rest of us want a taste of it, we can always save up.
I do care when rich people buy advantages for themselves over others in matters of basic societal participation (health and education for example) and I really object to a situation where their purchasing power excludes others from those things purely on the grounds of ability to pay (rather than merit).0 -
Is a 'poor choice' one that doesn't bring home the level of cash you imagine graduates 'of any real salt' must be earning? Let's look at biology, which has already been mentioned, and choose cancer research as a 'worthwhile' area to work in. Outside rich pharma companies, most graduate positions do not come with high salaraies. Someone who already has relevant specialised technical experience might apply for something like this:Squillinossett wrote:Justthat some people make poor choices when it comes to what they are looking to do.
http://www.jobs.ac.uk/job/ABZ997/microarray-technician/
(starting salary £18,200).
If instead they choose to attempt a PhD (3-4 years of serious lab work and advanced study, only available to those with high degree classes who compete for limited places), they'll be lucky to get £14,000, e.g.:
http://www.jobs.ac.uk/job/ACA567/breast ... udentship/
Only at this point can they apply for postdoctoral positions, where the starting salary may soar into, err, the £20-30k range:
http://www.jobs.ac.uk/job/ACB128/post-d ... associate/
(starting salary £27,319, and that's at Cambridge).
Does this look like an attractive career path if you're starting on it with debts of perhaps £50k from your first degree?0 -
RDW wrote:
Is a 'poor choice' one that doesn't bring home the level of cash you imagine graduates 'of any real salt' must be earning? Let's look at biology, which has already been mentioned, and choose cancer research as a 'worthwhile' area to work in. Outside rich pharma companies, most graduate positions do not come with high salaraies. Someone who already has relevant specialised technical experience might apply for something like this:Squillinossett wrote:Justthat some people make poor choices when it comes to what they are looking to do.
http://www.jobs.ac.uk/job/ABZ997/microarray-technician/
(starting salary £18,200).
If instead they choose to attempt a PhD (3-4 years of serious lab work and advanced study, only available to those with high degree classes who compete for limited places), they'll be lucky to get £14,000, e.g.:
http://www.jobs.ac.uk/job/ACA567/breast ... udentship/
Only at this point can they apply for postdoctoral positions, where the starting salary may soar into, err, the £20-30k range:
http://www.jobs.ac.uk/job/ACB128/post-d ... associate/
(starting salary £27,319, and that's at Cambridge).
Does this look like an attractive career path if you're starting on it with debts of perhaps £50k from your first degree?
But said person would "choose" to work in that field over the more lucrative pharma companies, so you could appy that to pretty much any type of sector...0 -
RDW wrote:
Is a 'poor choice' one that doesn't bring home the level of cash you imagine graduates 'of any real salt' must be earning? Let's look at biology, which has already been mentioned, and choose cancer research as a 'worthwhile' area to work in. Outside rich pharma companies, most graduate positions do not come with high salaraies. Someone who already has relevant specialised technical experience might apply for something like this:Squillinossett wrote:Justthat some people make poor choices when it comes to what they are looking to do.
http://www.jobs.ac.uk/job/ABZ997/microarray-technician/
(starting salary £18,200).
If instead they choose to attempt a PhD (3-4 years of serious lab work and advanced study, only available to those with high degree classes who compete for limited places), they'll be lucky to get £14,000, e.g.:
http://www.jobs.ac.uk/job/ACA567/breast ... udentship/
Only at this point can they apply for postdoctoral positions, where the starting salary may soar into, err, the £20-30k range:
http://www.jobs.ac.uk/job/ACB128/post-d ... associate/
(starting salary £27,319, and that's at Cambridge).
Does this look like an attractive career path if you're starting on it with debts of perhaps £50k from your first degree?
But said person would "choose" to work in that field over the more lucrative pharma companies, so you could appy that to pretty much any type of sector...0 -
All I can say on the earnings side is, I'm glad I never stayed on to take any exams or opted for a university degree. I earn over £40k a year basic as does my wife, so a lack of education hasn't done me any harm. Whilst it isn't a huge sum, it would appear it is far in excess of what a graduate can expect to earn. It's time this myth of you need a degree to earn decent money was finally put to bed.I ride a bike. Doesn't make me green or a tree hugger. I drive a car too.0
-
philthy3 wrote:All I can say on the earnings side is, I'm glad I never stayed on to take any exams or opted for a university degree. I earn over £40k a year basic as does my wife, so a lack of education hasn't done me any harm. Whilst it isn't a huge sum, it would appear it is far in excess of what a graduate can expect to earn. It's time this myth of you need a degree to earn decent money was finally put to bed.
I think you've mis-interpreted the stats.
The stat's about average 'graduate' earnings are usually in reference to their first job.
E.g. (this is an old stat. Note *entering* employment)Table 1: Average graduate salaries by region (full-time, first degree 2004 graduates entering full-time employment)
East £16,766
East Midlands £15,999
London £19,973
North East £15,779
North West £15,978
South East £17,347
South West £16,135
West Midlands £16,011
Yorkshire and the Humber £15,840
Scotland £16,729
Wales £15,878
Northern Ireland £15,523
All regions £17,029
The proper figure goes like this:According to a study from the University of Wales Swansea, after taking into accounts the costs of acquiring a degree (foregone earnings and tuition costs), male graduates can expect to see their lifetime earnings (net of taxes) increased by £141,539 over similar men who finished their education with two or more A-levels. The corresponding figure for women is £157,982, reinforcing the findings from other studies that women benefit even more than their male counterpart from a university education.
Which includes all the students who go to ex-polytechnics.
If you only include proper universities, the figure goes to around £400,000 more in a lifetime than those without a degree.
Note: these stats are a few years old now.
Point is, a good degree should, and usually does, earn you considerably more over a lifetime than without one.0 -
You don't need a degree to earn a decent salary.
What (Higher) education gives you is, at its best:
An enquiring mind
The ability to analyse and question received wisdom
The capacity for creativity and innovation
Values-inspired motivation
A civilised way of dealing with disagreement and difference of opinion
A social network that may help you through the rest of your life
Most employers value those capabilities. If they don't, then those capabilities could enable you to become an employer yourself.
At its worst (i.e. when participants don't take up what is on offer), you get:
Liver damage
Rote learning
What's in it for me? mentality
Exam technique without the underpinning understanding of the subject
Most employers won't take you if that is all you have to offer.0 -
pneumatic wrote:You don't need a degree to earn a decent salary.
What (Higher) education gives you is, at its best:
An enquiring mind
The ability to analyse and question received wisdom
The capacity for creativity and innovation
Values-inspired motivation
A civilised way of dealing with disagreement and difference of opinion
A social network that may help you through the rest of your life
Most employers value those capabilities. If they don't, then those capabilities could enable you to become an employer yourself.
At its worst (i.e. when participants don't take up what is on offer), you get:
Liver damage
Rote learning
What's in it for me? mentality
Exam technique without the underpinning understanding of the subject
Most employers won't take you if that is all you have to offer.
Isn't the point that a degree demonstrates you are a certain calibre of intellect? You can apply yourself in a certain way?
Most good degrees require a very high standard of work which requires both intellect and effort.
A degree shows that you can do that. Hence the idea that certain non-vocational degrees such as, say,my favourite subject, history, don't limit you to history based jobs... This idea that all degrees must be vocational to add value is just not true. They allow yo to demonstrate that you can work, think, and apply yourself in particular ways, which are 9 times out of 10, transferable.0 -
Agreed.
Vocational education and training prepare people for what needs to be done NOW (medicine, dentistry, engineering, accountancy). An academic education should prepare people for what we don't yet know needs to be done.
We should really be ensuring that our brightest people are getting the space to develop themselves to have the capacity address the issues that will be critical in 30 years' time.
It may turn out that a degree in History, Philosophy, Language, Physics, Logic etc.. will be just the right way to do that. Education of this kind is a long term investment for society, not just a quick economic transaction for the individual.0 -
pneumatic wrote:I do care when rich people buy advantages for themselves over others in matters of basic societal participation (health and education for example) and I really object to a situation where their purchasing power excludes others from those things purely on the grounds of ability to pay (rather than merit).
It seems to me that the job of Government is to ensure that those type of facility are available to all. And arguably they've done that with the current fees structure: like it or not, anybody can go as long as they don't mind paying back 9p in the £ when their earnings get above £21K.
But you seem to be arguing that rich parents should be banned from spending their cash on giving their kids any form of advantage in life. Even if I thought that was desirable, I can't see any practical way of preventing it. A step in the right direction might be something radical like funding university education using increased inheritance tax, but there doesn't seem much chance of that happening under this government.0 -
A step in the right direction might be something radical like funding university education using increased inheritance tax, but there doesn't seem much chance of that happening under this government.
Sorry but I don't see why it should. The revised system ensures that those who are directly benefitting from a university education are paying for it. You can argue that we benefit from doctors etc but we are taxed to pay for the NHS or pay through the nose if we choose to go private. Any legacy that is left to someone is already taxed enough. If someone has been frugal enough to save or invest wisely, why should their chosen heir be punished for inheriting it?I ride a bike. Doesn't make me green or a tree hugger. I drive a car too.0 -
The point I was aiming for was that I didn't want to see a situation where it ends up being cheaper for the rich to participate in Higher Education than for everyone else.
If you can afford to pay it up front in cash, you won't pay the interest over a lifetime. That seems unfair.0 -
Ha! I knew that one would get a reaction.
All this debate about 'rich' students and 'poor' students is a smokescreen. We're actually talking about rich and poor parents: the vast majority of the students have not yet had the opportunity to become rich in their own right.
Some people seem to be arguing that tuition fees are unfair because rich students can afford to pay them and this unfairly disadvantages poor students. I contend that the government has set up a system whereby everyone can afford to go to University and students from all backgrounds are treated the same. I suppose you could argue that the fact that some of those students are fortunate enough to have parents who can take that load from them is 'unfair', but that's just capitalism for you. If we were to legislate to stop kids with rich parents getting a headstart in life, we'd have to stop parents from helping out with housing costs, paying for music lessons, or tutors, feeding their kids a high quality diet etc.
All I'm saying is that if the government did decide to skew the agenda more in favour of equality of opportunity for the young, then increasing inheritance tax and investing the proceeds in education would certainly level the playing field. Whether (and by how much) the playing field should be levelled in the first place is a whole different topic.0 -
Actually, if your government has a social justice agenda, it should probably invest most of its resources in pre-school and early years education, as that is where the disadvantage begins to accrue. . .
or perhaps this is best done by educating and supporting their parents at the pre-natal stage so that they can give their kids the best possible start in life by being intelligent about their upbringing.
Hang on a minute, that means educating people to make intelligent choices before they have kids, so, when they are teenagers, just leaving school
I can see a virtuous circle forming!
0 -
pneumatic wrote:Actually, if your government has a social justice agenda, it should probably invest most of its resources in pre-school and early years education, as that is where the disadvantage begins to accrue. . .
or perhaps this is best done by educating and supporting their parents at the pre-natal stage so that they can give their kids the best possible start in life by being intelligent about their upbringing.
Hang on a minute, that means educating people to make intelligent choices before they have kids, so, when they are teenagers, just leaving school
I can see a virtuous circle forming!
I've never said I think that University tuition fees are right, merely that they appear to me to be fair.
I'd much rather we afforded our children the same opportunities that I was afforded when I was young. Personally I'd prefer to see higher education funded from general taxation: I'd gripe if that meant an increase in income tax, but I'd pay it.0 -
But those with the appearance of wealth don't necessarily have wealth. Sure there are a few families with vast sums of wealth, but the majority of what the protesting scum would consider to be wealthy would include me. Just because someone has a big house, drives a nice car, eats in decent restaurants doesn't mean they don't have equally expensive bills to contend with. If you've got the money why would you settle for a Timex when you can afford a Patek Phillippe? Why buy a Ford Mondeo when you can afford a Bentley? Why live in a semi-detached in Shepton Mallett when you can afford to buy a detached in several acres? That Patek will cost more in insurance premiums, the Bentley more in servicing and running costs and that detached more in ground rents etc especially if it's listed. And isn't it more than likely based on these salary charts that the rich will actually be degree holders? Therefore they've paid their way by paying for the tuition fees under the new system.
Whichever way you look at it it is taxing the rich just because they appear to have disposable wealth. You would have to introduce a system where the rich pay a certain amount for a product whereas those up to an agreed level pay less. This would include everything from food, utilities etc etc. And what of those who only just creep over the threshold. Should they be crippled by debt whilst those just under it smile and smirk at their good fortune? I come from a working class background. Whatever I've accrued I've done through hard work and going without until I could afford it. I resent having to give a portion of that to some oik when I die rather than to my children.I ride a bike. Doesn't make me green or a tree hugger. I drive a car too.0 -
philthy3 wrote:But those with the appearance of wealth don't necessarily have wealth.
Whichever way you look at it it is taxing the rich just because they appear to have disposable wealth. You would have to introduce a system where the rich pay a certain amount for a product whereas those up to an agreed level pay less. This would include everything from food, utilities etc etc. And what of those who only just creep over the threshold. Should they be crippled by debt whilst those just under it smile and smirk at their good fortune? I come from a working class background. Whatever I've accrued I've done through hard work and going without until I could afford it. I resent having to give a portion of that to some oik when I die rather than to my children.
This is pretty much the line of argument used by the owners of stately homes in the 1940's and 1950's: "because of what we own, our living costs are huge so it is unfair to subject us to the same taxation regime as everyone else". In the end, and for the first time in ten centuries, they had to pay tax on the same basis as the rest of us. Suddenly, their accumulated advantage melted away.
I'm relatively wealthy (in global terms, very wealthy). I did not become wealthy just because I worked hard and spent prudently. I became wealthy because I was born in circumstances that gave me massive advantages over the rest of humanity. From that comfortable position, I argue for fairness. It is the least I can do.0 -
I am the beneficiary of state funded university education who is now into child number 3 going to uni. Number 3 will take on a loan and Mrs. D and I will do everything we can to minimise the size of that loan. Do I want to pay for my daughter’s uni, I'd rather not. Can I afford to help?....yes. Am I ashamed that I can help? No, I am very proud of the position I have reached and strive to ensure my children have every opportunity I can afford. Will my daughter be disadvantaged?, well if she earns little then she will pay nothing, if she is fortunate enough to earn a lot then she will make her contribution. I would rather have all education state funded but there are simply too many uni students for the country to support at the current taxation levels. Am I jealous of those who have pots of cash and can do more for their children? No, whats the point?
What I would like to see is a return to those who can benefit from a university education getting the opportunity to do so, to be tested to the highest and most vigorous standards which will preclude many of those who attend low quality uni achieving degrees that devalue the whole system.
Those who cannot make the grade have the opportunity to take apprenticeships, the old ONC/ HNC etc and in many cases earn a damn sight more than the graduates. As someone involved (albeit at arms length) in recruiting I know that if I want a media studies graduate I will need a selection board and a team to sift the applications. If I want instrument technicians I will need a search party! The balance is simply wrong.
University should push our most able youngsters to probe boundaries that most of us have yet to contemplate, whether that be in the arts or sciences, vocational training should give us the skills to run and maintain an effective economy. We need it all, not just the graduate element.
D 0 -
pneumatic wrote:I'm relatively wealthy (in global terms, very wealthy). I did not become wealthy just because I worked hard and spent prudently. I became wealthy because I was born in circumstances that gave me massive advantages over the rest of humanity. From that comfortable position, I argue for fairness. It is the least I can do.
In which case, it is your free choice to offer up a local scholarship if you're in the able position to donate some of that wealth. The risk of even higher taxation or more stringent tax on inheritance, is the very rich will leave these shores losing even more income for the government than they would have created. The higher tax bands are already in place and we all accept them; even those of us who only just creep over the limits.
Diogenes hits it very well IMO; there are too many students and not enough state cash to fund it. Too many see further education as a means to avoid hitting the pit face just as some young women see bearing a child at an early age an easy route to a lifetime of benefits and local authority accomodation. My eldest daughter and her partner fall into this category and I flatly refuse to bail them out. My youngest daughter has worked hard from the day she left school and taken on the burden of financial responsibility. I would bail her out in a flash. This is all reflected in my will where reward for endeavour and effort is the lesson both will take home with them.I ride a bike. Doesn't make me green or a tree hugger. I drive a car too.0 -
Well, that's sort of the point, really. How many high-calibre students are going to be choosing a career path like this, knowing that they'll get a low to moderate salary on short-term contracts, when they'll already be saddled with a large debt right at the start? And yet something like cancer research, where most of the key breakthroughs have been made in an academic environment, depends on a steady stream of talented graduates to progress (as well as research funding, which is also being cut substantially).Squillinossett wrote:But said person would "choose" to work in that field over the more lucrative pharma companies
This sort of career doesn't really fit in with the narrow view of higher education we're now being asked to accept - i.e., that a degree is simply a future income booster, acquired purely for selfish reasons, and financed entirely by a fees mortgage. The idea that we, as a society, should invest in educating the next generation to their full potential as a public good seems to have been completely discarded. And the politicians who threw it out, together with most graduates in their 30s and above, won't be paying a penny for their own university education, and will also, in theory, be making only a minimal contribution to the education of future students (since the new fees are largely intended to replace existing public funding). In practice, it's not even clear that the scheme has been well thought out enough to save taxpayers' money:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11735254
I'd say academic research in general is a little unusual (but not unique) in that people with serious qualifications doing the highest level of work earn pretty modest salaries. There are, of course, less tangible rewards, but this is only sustainable up to a point.Squillinossett wrote:...so you could appy that to pretty much any type of sector...Diogenes wrote:University should push our most able youngsters to probe boundaries that most of us have yet to contemplate, whether that be in the arts or sciences, vocational training should give us the skills to run and maintain an effective economy. We need it all, not just the graduate element.
Indeed!pneumatic wrote:We should really be ensuring that our brightest people are getting the space to develop themselves to have the capacity address the issues that will be critical in 30 years' time...It may turn out that a degree in History, Philosophy, Language, Physics, Logic etc.. will be just the right way to do that. Education of this kind is a long term investment for society, not just a quick economic transaction for the individual.
Sounds like an excellent description of David Cameron's core constituency!philthy3 wrote:Just because someone has a big house, drives a nice car, eats in decent restaurants doesn't mean they don't have equally expensive bills to contend with. If you've got the money why would you settle for a Timex when you can afford a Patek Phillippe? Why buy a Ford Mondeo when you can afford a Bentley? Why live in a semi-detached in Shepton Mallett when you can afford to buy a detached in several acres?0 -
In other words because the rich have accumulated more money they shouldn't be allowed to buy luxuries and should just settle for the same as the common man and give everything else to the poor. How to destroy effort in one easy swoop. These plastic communists make me chuckle; the minute they graduate and are able to earn big bucks they'll sit on the other side of the divide like every other good communist.I ride a bike. Doesn't make me green or a tree hugger. I drive a car too.0
-
RDW wrote:This sort of career doesn't really fit in with the narrow view of higher education we're now being asked to accept - i.e., that a degree is simply a future income booster, acquired purely for selfish reasons, and financed entirely by a fees mortgage. The idea that we, as a society, should invest in educating the next generation to their full potential as a public good seems to have been completely discarded.
100% correct. Sadly.0 -
RDW wrote:
The idea that we, as a society, should invest in educating the next generation to their full potential as a public good seems to have been completely discarded.
I agree, although I feel that the drive to get 50% of school leavers through university is part of the problem. Encouraging the less academically able to attend university has diluted the funding available to students.
Sadly, I am no longer surprised at just how weak some of our degree qualified candidates are. I receive applications from science based candidates who cannot express themselves clearly, often have only a rudimentary understanding of their subject but come with expectations beyond their obvious potential. This suggests to me that the standards in some of our higher education establishments have slipped, presumably to ensure they can keep the places filled. Thankfully I also receive applications from students of the more academically driven universities which encourage me to believe that the UK still has some of the best universities in the world.
I do not mean to imply that those who do not attend university are any less worthy, on the contrary, the completion of a high standard apprenticeship with the opportunity for qualifications such as the higher level NVQ should be seen as a worthwhile achievement of which the students can be proud. It is also a significant investment in our future.
We need people across the spectrum of ability, each operating at his/ her full potential rather than a surfeit of degrees of variable standard which makes candidate selection difficult, leading to disappointment for both the employer and employee.
D 0
