£9000 a year for a Degree

ugo.santalucia

The real problem is not the 9,000... but the total lack of scholarships... I'd say out of 10 students, probably 2 or 3 deserve a scholarship based on merit.... there is nowhere near that number available.
There should be government scholarships and university scholarships and there is very little... that's the real problem.

If a student with a B and 2 C needs to pay 9K to go to Uni it's not a massive problem for the nation, but if a student with 3 As is put off by the cost of education, that's something to be ashamed about

Garry H

ugo.santalucia wrote:

The real problem is not the 9,000... but the total lack of scholarships... I'd say out of 10 students, probably 2 or 3 deserve a scholarship based on merit.... there is nowhere near that number available.
There should be government scholarships and university scholarships and there is very little... that's the real problem.

If a student with a B and 2 C needs to pay 9K to go to Uni it's not a massive problem for the nation, but if a student with 3 As is put off by the cost of education, that's something to be ashamed about

Bang on.

mamba80

ugo.santalucia wrote:

The real problem is not the 9,000... but the total lack of scholarships... I'd say out of 10 students, probably 2 or 3 deserve a scholarship based on merit.... there is nowhere near that number available.
There should be government scholarships and university scholarships and there is very little... that's the real problem.

If a student with a B and 2 C needs to pay 9K to go to Uni it's not a massive problem for the nation, but if a student with 3 As is put off by the cost of education, that's something to be ashamed about

Excellent, could nt agree more.

DiscoBoy

ugo.santalucia wrote:

If a student with a B and 2 C needs to pay 9K to go to Uni it's not a massive problem for the nation, but if a student with 3 As is put off by the cost of education, that's something to be ashamed about

That person has no reason to be put off though. The immediate cost to them is no more than it was when fees were ~£3k or ~£1.5k or £0: it is still zero. They only have to pay back the money they borrow after they have completed their degree and are earning above a threshold, and even then they only have to pay back a small amount per month.

If we ignore things like the value of having time as a student, and opportunity cost of being a student instead of working, then university is worth the £30k tuition fees only if your lifetime earnings are going to be more than £30k higher because of your degree.

So, for university to be worth the £30k, then your earnings need to be something like £1k higher per annum on average for your working life. That's not exactly a lot now is it?

I think that the raise in tuition fees was a good idea. It puts off people who do not really benefit from a university education from getting a university education at the taxpayers cost. The bad idea that got us into the situation that we are in was New Labours policy of encouraging as many people as possible to go to university.

Paulie W

DiscoBoy wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

If a student with a B and 2 C needs to pay 9K to go to Uni it's not a massive problem for the nation, but if a student with 3 As is put off by the cost of education, that's something to be ashamed about

That person has no reason to be put off though. The immediate cost to them is no more than it was when fees were ~£3k or ~£1.5k or £0: it is still zero. They only have to pay back the money they borrow after they have completed their degree and are earning above a threshold, and even then they only have to pay back a small amount per month.

If we ignore things like the value of having time as a student, and opportunity cost of being a student instead of working, then university is worth the £30k tuition fees only if your lifetime earnings are going to be more than £30k higher because of your degree.

So, for university to be worth the £30k, then your earnings need to be something like £1k higher per annum on average for your working life. That's not exactly a lot now is it?

I think that the raise in tuition fees was a good idea. It puts off people who do not really benefit from a university education from getting a university education at the taxpayers cost. The bad idea that got us into the situation that we are in was New Labours policy of encouraging as many people as possible to go to university.

Can somebody tell me what that situation is?

DiscoBoy

Paulie W wrote:

DiscoBoy wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

If a student with a B and 2 C needs to pay 9K to go to Uni it's not a massive problem for the nation, but if a student with 3 As is put off by the cost of education, that's something to be ashamed about

That person has no reason to be put off though. The immediate cost to them is no more than it was when fees were ~£3k or ~£1.5k or £0: it is still zero. They only have to pay back the money they borrow after they have completed their degree and are earning above a threshold, and even then they only have to pay back a small amount per month.

If we ignore things like the value of having time as a student, and opportunity cost of being a student instead of working, then university is worth the £30k tuition fees only if your lifetime earnings are going to be more than £30k higher because of your degree.

So, for university to be worth the £30k, then your earnings need to be something like £1k higher per annum on average for your working life. That's not exactly a lot now is it?

I think that the raise in tuition fees was a good idea. It puts off people who do not really benefit from a university education from getting a university education at the taxpayers cost. The bad idea that got us into the situation that we are in was New Labours policy of encouraging as many people as possible to go to university.

Can somebody tell me what that situation is?

In a nutshell, too many people going to university. Or, more specifically, the government spending vast amounts of money on higher education with little return.

The situation before £9k tuition fees was untenable because the government was spending too much on higher education. By introducing the higher fees, fewer people will go to university unnecessarily, and the government will also get more of an income from each student.

Higher education in this country is still cheap. Compare the £9k pa we pay for university to how much international students pay to come to university here, or to how much Americans pay for university in their own country.

As a quick example, Chemistry (MChem) at the University of Oxford:
Home student fee (pa): up to £9000
International student fee (pa): £21,220

Tuition fees at Harvard (pa): $38,888 (£23,710 according to google)

Grill

My sister has over $200,000 in student loans from her 8 years at university (she had almost the same amount in scholarships). Of course she's a neurologist now with her own clinic, so she's able to pay it back.

Point is, tuition in the UK isn't expensive when compared to the US. I think that cost of tuition should be inversely proportionate to the importance of the degree. So medical, maths, science, English degrees should be quite a bit cheaper than the jack-off courses like media studies and golf course maintenance.

Paulie W

DiscoBoy wrote:

Paulie W wrote:

DiscoBoy wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

If a student with a B and 2 C needs to pay 9K to go to Uni it's not a massive problem for the nation, but if a student with 3 As is put off by the cost of education, that's something to be ashamed about

That person has no reason to be put off though. The immediate cost to them is no more than it was when fees were ~£3k or ~£1.5k or £0: it is still zero. They only have to pay back the money they borrow after they have completed their degree and are earning above a threshold, and even then they only have to pay back a small amount per month.

If we ignore things like the value of having time as a student, and opportunity cost of being a student instead of working, then university is worth the £30k tuition fees only if your lifetime earnings are going to be more than £30k higher because of your degree.

So, for university to be worth the £30k, then your earnings need to be something like £1k higher per annum on average for your working life. That's not exactly a lot now is it?

I think that the raise in tuition fees was a good idea. It puts off people who do not really benefit from a university education from getting a university education at the taxpayers cost. The bad idea that got us into the situation that we are in was New Labours policy of encouraging as many people as possible to go to university.

Can somebody tell me what that situation is?

In a nutshell, too many people going to university. Or, more specifically, the government spending vast amounts of money on higher education with little return.

The situation before £9k tuition fees was untenable because the government was spending too much on higher education. By introducing the higher fees, fewer people will go to university unnecessarily, and the government will also get more of an income from each student.

This is mostly wrong. The government needed to cut public sector spending so got rid of (most of) the block teaching grants for universities. There was no suggestion that this was about the cost effectivness of its investment in HE (which is a complex issue but purely in terms of tax returns people with a degree more than pay for their education by earning higer income than those who dont go o university). The government rightly saw HE as a relatively easy target for cuts: a few students complained bitterly but the general public was comfortable with people paying for their post-18 education. The notion that the HE sector was in a terrible state was just so much rhetoric - in many ways UK HE remains one of the best in the world and continues to be viewed as such globally.

The numbers going to university have not changed that much and there has been little rationalisation of degree programmes across the sector yet - still plenty of Media Studies degrees for example.

And best of all the government is shelling out more or less the same money as before in loans - it's just in a different bit of the accounts. It will recoop some of this over time but evidence suggests many loans will remain unpaid for a range of reasons.

finchy

DiscoBoy wrote:

Higher education in this country is still cheap. Compare the £9k pa we pay for university to how much international students pay to come to university here, or to how much Americans pay for university in their own country.

As a quick example, Chemistry (MChem) at the University of Oxford:
Home student fee (pa): up to £9000
International student fee (pa): £21,220

Tuition fees at Harvard (pa): $38,888 (£23,710 according to google)

What a British student pays for tuition in Britain is cheaper than an international student and it's cheaper than the USA. It is, OTOH, far more expensive than our continental neighbours.

ugo.santalucia

Grill wrote:

My sister has over $200,000 in student loans from her 8 years at university (she had almost the same amount in scholarships). Of course she's a neurologist now with her own clinic, so she's able to pay it back.

Point is, tuition in the UK isn't expensive when compared to the US. I think that cost of tuition should be inversely proportionate to the importance of the degree. So medical, maths, science, English degrees should be quite a bit cheaper than the jack-off courses like media studies and golf course maintenance.

Problem is Grill, jobs in engineering, science, medicine and co. don't pay much money in the UK until you are very senior, while they do pay big bucks in the USA. Here you only get big money from the start if you are in banking or some branches of law.
The funny thing is... to work in investment banking you don't need to be particularly qualified either... I have a friend who got hired because he was a former PRO in rugby and could take the pressure and team player and all that stuff

Pross

bdu98252 wrote:

If you are going to centrally fund university then you would need to limit numbers based on industry requirements. Using tax payers money to teach people basket weaving or fashion design is not a good use of resources.

I agree with this. There are many jobs where practical training (i.e. good old fashioned apprenticeships) would be more beneficial than a degree. Something like fashion or film etc. must surely be easier to learn about on a hands on basis with day release to pick up the academic side? I think this obsession with university education is actually detrimental to many jobs that require technical skills. My own career sector (civil engineering) is traditionally one that requires a degree. However, I left school after GCSEs and went to work in an apprenticeship role whilst studying for a BTEC ONC and then HNC on day release. By 21 I had 5 years of work experience together with a decent level of theoretical knowledge whilst graduates were joining the Council I worked for had a bit me theoretical knowledge but absolutely no practical experience of how to apply it.

I have since gone on to further university qualifications which were self or company funded as unfortunately there were a lot of people in the industry who judge your ability by a piece of paper rather than experience and ability but in my opinion there should be much more emphasis in practical experience for technical roles whether through regular industry placements (much like you get with teacher training) or apprenticeship schemes with a pathway to a degree.