Labour's policy to cut Tuition Fees

RideOnTime

I have cut and paste the following from the FT (be warned to read it you have to answer a survey, 4 questions);

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bfc8f4a2-aaae-11e4-81bc-00144feab7de.html#axzz3QaPG4wL4

Plans being considered by the Labour party to cut English university tuition fees would create a £10bn hole in education funding that would be “implausible” for any government to fill, 20 senior university leaders have warned.

In a sign of mounting opposition to Labour’s possible election pledge to reduce annual fees from £9,000 to £6,000 from within the education sector, the English members of the Universities UK board said in a letter to the Times that cutting the fee cap “does not help poorer students and risks the quality of education for all”.

Not sure why University Vice-Chancellors are bleating. Shouldn't they just get on with running their Universities.

bianchimoon

I would say they shouldn't they get on with running their money making businesses

mr_goo

Free Universities for all those in Scotland!! Why?
Makes me sick when I hear the SNP harping on about more powers etc etc. And here I am subsidising the Jocks when my son is racking up a £36k debt on tuition at Southampton.
If Labour or any party wants my vote. How about some bl88dy equality for the English.

Paulie W

The policy starts from the position that the government would fill the approx £3000 per student shortfall (nearly everyone charges the full £9000 now) from government coffers. The VCs are questioning whether this is viable in the current context and suspect that such funding as is provided will be eaten way over the years so Universities will have to address that funding gap, most likely by cutting course costs (leading to increased student-staff ratios, fewer resources, etc).

bdu98252

When I went to uni in 1998 I seen first hand the effects on the aim of getting 50% of people into university education. The increase in numbers of people doing soft course was mental. Do we really need 200 people doing history and psychology versus 80 people doing mechanical engineering.

From a business perspective filling 200 seat lecture halls for a history lesson is a pretty good business plan. 1 teacher 200 students versus engineering ratio of 1 teacher to 30 students and a shed load of computers, lab space etc.

The current system is unsustainable as there are too many students. There is nothing wrong with working for a company without a degree if you are not particularly interested in study. University is for the next generation of inventors, scientists, doctors etc, who are going to take the knowledge they have gained further to benefit both themselves and the wider society.

A degree in basket weaving does not get you much further than McDonalds these days and not even onto their graduate programme.

bianchimoon

bdu98252 wrote:

When I went to uni in 1998 I seen first hand the effects on the aim of getting 50% of people into university education. The increase in numbers of people doing soft course was mental. Do we really need 200 people doing history and psychology versus 80 people doing mechanical engineering.

From a business perspective filling 200 seat lecture halls for a history lesson is a pretty good business plan. 1 teacher 200 students versus engineering ratio of 1 teacher to 30 students and a shed load of computers, lab space etc.

The current system is unsustainable as there are too many students. There is nothing wrong with working for a company without a degree if you are not particularly interested in study. University is for the next generation of inventors, scientists, doctors etc, who are going to take the knowledge they have gained further to benefit both themselves and the wider society.

A degree in basket weaving does not get you much further than McDonalds these days and not even onto their graduate programme.

That's quiet an elitist attitude, and by the way it's "I saw" not "I seen"

finchy

We shouldn't be sending students to university unless they can get good grades at A-level. I agree with society paying for students' tuition fees (it's an investment in our collective future), but not for somebody getting DDE at A-level.

bdu98252

bianchimoon wrote:

bdu98252 wrote:

When I went to uni in 1998 I seen first hand the effects on the aim of getting 50% of people into university education. The increase in numbers of people doing soft course was mental. Do we really need 200 people doing history and psychology versus 80 people doing mechanical engineering.

From a business perspective filling 200 seat lecture halls for a history lesson is a pretty good business plan. 1 teacher 200 students versus engineering ratio of 1 teacher to 30 students and a shed load of computers, lab space etc.

The current system is unsustainable as there are too many students. There is nothing wrong with working for a company without a degree if you are not particularly interested in study. University is for the next generation of inventors, scientists, doctors etc, who are going to take the knowledge they have gained further to benefit both themselves and the wider society.

A degree in basket weaving does not get you much further than McDonalds these days and not even onto their graduate programme.

That's quiet an elitist attitude, and by the way it's "I saw" not "I seen"

It is elitist as that is what any selection based system does. You go to school get good grades and then you qualify within a ranking system. If you don't like elitist systems then I would start banging on about getting rid of exams and finding another criteria for grading people. I am open to suggestions of an appropriate system however most have been tried.

RideOnTime

Paulie W wrote:

The policy starts from the position that the government would fill the approx £3000 per student shortfall (nearly everyone charges the full £9000 now) from government coffers. The VCs are questioning whether this is viable in the current context and suspect that such funding as is provided will be eaten way over the years so Universities will have to address that funding gap, most likely by cutting course costs (leading to increased student-staff ratios, fewer resources, etc).

I think they need to cut course costs. How could a student doing an Arts degree, and by arts I mean a BA not actually 'Art' or 'Fine Art' etc, for £9000 a year be value for money? I would imagine many arts students have less than 12 contact hours per week. Most lectures would be given to full lecture theatres, 100+ and tuturials done by very junior staff or PHD students. I think Universities need to get real and start offering vslue for money. You could deliver a first year degree course easily fro £3000 in my view. Ok fine, Sciences cost more, medicine might cost over £12k, I get that... but come on.... this is terrible value for money...

Paulie W

bdu98252 wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

bdu98252 wrote:

When I went to uni in 1998 I seen first hand the effects on the aim of getting 50% of people into university education. The increase in numbers of people doing soft course was mental. Do we really need 200 people doing history and psychology versus 80 people doing mechanical engineering.

From a business perspective filling 200 seat lecture halls for a history lesson is a pretty good business plan. 1 teacher 200 students versus engineering ratio of 1 teacher to 30 students and a shed load of computers, lab space etc.

The current system is unsustainable as there are too many students. There is nothing wrong with working for a company without a degree if you are not particularly interested in study. University is for the next generation of inventors, scientists, doctors etc, who are going to take the knowledge they have gained further to benefit both themselves and the wider society.

A degree in basket weaving does not get you much further than McDonalds these days and not even onto their graduate programme.

That's quiet an elitist attitude, and by the way it's "I saw" not "I seen"

It is elitist as that is what any selection based system does. You go to school get good grades and then you qualify within a ranking system. If you don't like elitist systems then I would start banging on about getting rid of exams and finding another criteria for grading people. I am open to suggestions of an appropriate system however most have been tried.

What you were talking about above has nothing to do with grades - it has to do with your view on what subjects are worthy for higher study. There are plenty of people doing history degrees or psychology degrees with three As.

ballysmate

It is a question of balance. On the one hand, it is true that people studying at university are our future engineers, doctors, art restorers :roll: or whatever and should be supported.
On the other hand these people are getting an education paid for by the taxes of hard working people doing all sorts of crap jobs. At the end of the day they are supporting a privileged group so that they can go on to earn more than they themselves could dream of.
Should the students not pay a stake in their education. It is a two way street, society benefits from their knowledge and the students benefit with hopefully better careers and earning capacity.
Where the balance is drawn is probably where the arguing starts.

pblakeney

Mr Goo wrote:

Free Universities for all those in Scotland!! Why?
Makes me sick when I hear the SNP harping on about more powers etc etc. And here I am subsidising the Jocks when my son is racking up a £36k debt on tuition at Southampton.
If Labour or any party wants my vote. How about some bl88dy equality for the English.

The Scottish Parliament subsidises universities to provide free education out of their budget.
From what I have seen, it is at the expense of road surfacing. It is about priorities.
It could be done in England too, should we put enough pressure on MPs.
Priorities.

laurentian

I heard an interesting point on the radio about this earlier.

Due to the fact that repayment is worked out in percentages of income over certain thresholds and that it is written off completely afetr 30 years, a graduate won't necessarily pay back what they borrow. This means that only those leaving University and going straight into a £34K plus (I think) per year job, will benefit from Labour's proposal. Poorly thought out if so.

Can't help but think we'd all get much better value if we could invest as a country in those academically excellent students (ie full grants to far fewer people who will eventually pay back society by their service to it), re-open or re-re-name our Technical Colleges and have companies investing in school leavers through proper apprentice schemes base on day/block release and have these qualifications carry all the kudos of a university degree

RDW

Scrap the fees altogether as Germany has just done:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... es-england

Fund education from taxation, just as we do up to the age of 18. It should be a public good, not a commodity, and if the proportion of the population that goes to University is higher than before, surely that's more justification for sharing out the burden? Tweak income tax thresholds if necessary so that most of the cash comes from the supposedly higher salaries of graduates. Why exclude earlier generations of graduates, who had free or cheap education, from contributing? The current generation are already being screwed over by the ridiculous house prices that previous generations have built up, and now we're hitting them with this.

rick_chasey

laurentian wrote:

I heard an interesting point on the radio about this earlier.

Due to the fact that repayment is worked out in percentages of income over certain thresholds and that it is written off completely afetr 30 years, a graduate won't necessarily pay back what they borrow. This means that only those leaving University and going straight into a £34K plus (I think) per year job, will benefit from Labour's proposal. Poorly thought out if so.

Can't help but think we'd all get much better value if we could invest as a country in those academically excellent students (ie full grants to far fewer people who will eventually pay back society by their service to it), re-open or re-re-name our Technical Colleges and have companies investing in school leavers through proper apprentice schemes base on day/block release and have these qualifications carry all the kudos of a university degree

Currently the estimate is 43% of grads will never pay it off.

If it goes above 55% I think the reform becomes more expensive than what it replaced.

pblakeney

RDW wrote:

The current generation are already being screwed over by the ridiculous house prices that previous generations have built up, and now we're hitting them with this.

I bet they won't be moaning about collecting the inheritance that their parents screwed them over to get.

ballysmate

PBlakeney wrote:

RDW wrote:

The current generation are already being screwed over by the ridiculous house prices that previous generations have built up, and now we're hitting them with this.

I bet they won't be moaning about collecting the inheritance that their parents screwed them over to get.

bianchimoon

PBlakeney wrote:

RDW wrote:

The current generation are already being screwed over by the ridiculous house prices that previous generations have built up, and now we're hitting them with this.

I bet they won't be moaning about collecting the inheritance that their parents screwed them over to get.

trouble is the medical students will be so good by then that said parents will be living till they're 110 and kids won't get inheritance tlll they're 90, still better late than never eh

ballysmate

Perhaps this is the answer to having so much tied up in an inheritance?

http://www.dignitas.ch/?lang=en

RDW

bianchimoon wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

RDW wrote:

The current generation are already being screwed over by the ridiculous house prices that previous generations have built up, and now we're hitting them with this.

I bet they won't be moaning about collecting the inheritance that their parents screwed them over to get.

trouble is the medical students will be so good by then that said parents will be living till they're 110 and kids won't get inheritance tlll they're 90, still better late than never eh

Of course if your own parents happened to live in a council house in Merthyr Tydfil there probably won't be much of an inheritance to compensate. Your comparatively crappy pension plan compared to the previous generation's final salary schemes won't give you much comfort, either!

bianchimoon

Ballysmate wrote:

Perhaps this is the answer to having so much tied up in an inheritance?

http://www.dignitas.ch/?lang=en

teehee

bianchimoon

RDW wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

RDW wrote:

The current generation are already being screwed over by the ridiculous house prices that previous generations have built up, and now we're hitting them with this.

I bet they won't be moaning about collecting the inheritance that their parents screwed them over to get.

trouble is the medical students will be so good by then that said parents will be living till they're 110 and kids won't get inheritance tlll they're 90, still better late than never eh

Of course if your own parents happened to live in a council house in Merthyr Tydfil there probably won't be much of an inheritance to compensate. Your comparatively crappy pension plan compared to the previous generation's final salary schemes won't give you much comfort, either!

oh there's a thread all of its own

pblakeney

RDW wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

RDW wrote:

The current generation are already being screwed over by the ridiculous house prices that previous generations have built up, and now we're hitting them with this.

I bet they won't be moaning about collecting the inheritance that their parents screwed them over to get.

trouble is the medical students will be so good by then that said parents will be living till they're 110 and kids won't get inheritance tlll they're 90, still better late than never eh

Of course if your own parents happened to live in a council house in Merthyr Tydfil there probably won't be much of an inheritance to compensate. Your comparatively crappy pension plan compared to the previous generation's final salary schemes won't give you much comfort, either!

They should have bought the council house for next to nowt when the had the chance then.
We have done this before. It was fun then let's do it again! :P

frisbee

PBlakeney wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Free Universities for all those in Scotland!! Why?
Makes me sick when I hear the SNP harping on about more powers etc etc. And here I am subsidising the Jocks when my son is racking up a £36k debt on tuition at Southampton.
If Labour or any party wants my vote. How about some bl88dy equality for the English.

The Scottish Parliament subsidises universities to provide free education out of their budget.
From what I have seen, it is at the expense of road surfacing. It is about priorities.
It could be done in England too, should we put enough pressure on MPs.
Priorities.

Wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_formula

They get more money.

pblakeney

frisbee wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Free Universities for all those in Scotland!! Why?
Makes me sick when I hear the SNP harping on about more powers etc etc. And here I am subsidising the Jocks when my son is racking up a £36k debt on tuition at Southampton.
If Labour or any party wants my vote. How about some bl88dy equality for the English.

The Scottish Parliament subsidises universities to provide free education out of their budget.
From what I have seen, it is at the expense of road surfacing. It is about priorities.
It could be done in England too, should we put enough pressure on MPs.
Priorities.

Wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_formula

They get more money.

Lots of other threads on that subject.
I was referring purely to tuition fees. It can be done. Why isn't it done?

frisbee

PBlakeney wrote:

Lots of other threads on that subject.
I was referring purely to tuition fees. It can be done. Why isn't it done?

You can't consider tuition fees in isolation, it all comes out of the same pot. Scotland gets a slightly bigger pot, they choose to spend some of it on funding university tuition fees.

pblakeney

frisbee wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Lots of other threads on that subject.
I was referring purely to tuition fees. It can be done. Why isn't it done?

You can't consider tuition fees in isolation, it all comes out of the same pot. Scotland gets a slightly bigger pot, they choose to spend some of it on funding university tuition fees.

It is still a matter of priorities.

RDW

PBlakeney wrote:

They should have bought the council house for next to nowt when the had the chance then.
We have done this before. It was fun then let's do it again! :P

Maybe they did buy that house in Merthyr, where the price has rocketed from nearly nowt to bugger all, and the parents in any case remain inconveniently alive. Meanwhile the kids have gone off to University, and found that all the graduate jobs they've trained for are a few hundred miles away from this 'affordable housing'. Contrast this with the situation about 25 years ago, when the Cameron/Clegg/Milliband generation, including the people who introduced £9000 tuition fees, completed their education. They graduated, if they were sensible, with little or no debt, worked for a few years, and then bought a house in, say, some London suburb for a reasonable multiple of their annual salary. It's tougher for everyone today, of course, but it's hard to get away from the thought that it's disproportionately tough on the young, partly due to the policies of the generation who pulled up the ladder after them.

pblakeney

RDW wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

They should have bought the council house for next to nowt when the had the chance then.
We have done this before. It was fun then let's do it again! :P

Maybe they did buy that house in Merthyr, where the price has rocketed from nearly nowt to bugger all, and the parents in any case remain inconveniently alive. Meanwhile the kids have gone off to University, and found that all the graduate jobs they've trained for are a few hundred miles away from this 'affordable housing'. Contrast this with the situation about 25 years ago, when the Cameron/Clegg/Milliband generation, including the people who introduced £9000 tuition fees, completed their education. They graduated, if they were sensible, with little or no debt, worked for a few years, and then bought a house in, say, some London suburb for a reasonable multiple of their annual salary. It's tougher for everyone today, of course, but it's hard to get away from the thought that it's disproportionately tough on the young, partly due to the policies of the generation who pulled up the ladder after them.

That'll teach them for staying in Merthyr!

For clarification - Life is full of choices. Some work, some don't. It's a lottery. Deal with it.

RDW

That'll teach them for staying in Merthyr!

For clarification - Life is full of choices. Some work, some don't. It's a lottery. Deal with it.

The kids didn't stay in Merthyr, they're renting studio flats in Croydon. They aren't responsible for their parents' choices (or lack of them). If they'd graduated in 1990, when inherited wealth wasn't necessary to raise a deposit on that house in a few years, their parents' background would have been much less relevant. As it is, they've had to take out a mortgage on their education and can't afford one on their home. On the other hand, they have iPhones.

pblakeney

RDW wrote:

That'll teach them for staying in Merthyr!

For clarification - Life is full of choices. Some work, some don't. It's a lottery. Deal with it.

The kids didn't stay in Merthyr, they're renting studio flats in Croydon. They aren't responsible for their parents' choices (or lack of them). If they'd graduated in 1990, when inherited wealth wasn't necessary to raise a deposit on that house in a few years, their parents' background would have been much less relevant. As it is, they've had to take out a mortgage on their education and can't afford one on their home. On the other hand, they have iPhones.

And your point is?
Is there a thought that back in the day you left home and immediately bought a semi using your pocket money?
When I flew the coup in the mid 80s I rented a dingy flat. As did everyone else I knew. Things haven't changed that much.
Remember that mortgage interest rates in the early 90s hit 15%. Life wasn't all milk and honey.