Universities push for higher fees

dizzie

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

I don't think that there's been any suggestion of higher loan repayments; higher loans maybe but not higher repayments.

So are you saying that if fees go up from circa £3k to circa £6k or more and students accumulate more debt...that the repayments will not have to be higher?

dizzie

Cardelia wrote: »

The number of contact hours for each course varies, often according to how much practical work is required. Medicine can easily have 35+ hours of contact time a week whereas some courses (e.g. English) can have as little as one or two hours a week. Should medical students really be charged more for their study than English students, given the relative importance of doctors in society when compared to English graduates?
QUOTE]

Interesting question since my husband is a doctor. My point is that by labelling the fees as "TUITION" fees, it is understandable that people are going to compare value for money on the basis of TUITION.

As far as medicine is concerned, undergraduate training does cost more...so yes in theory, I think the "tuition fee" should be higher...I believe that it is in fact higher for overseas students.

BUT since we need to train a certain number of doctors, tuition fees should be part-subsidised by the government (indeed I believe that NHS bursaries do exist). That way, the universities would get more money for training medical students but the students would not have to pay a higher tuition fee.

The_Grouch

This whole thing makes me very sad. I made a mess of my degree and I would love to return to University and put it right, but I can't get much funding because of my previous study. I can't afford to pay £9,000 for a 3 year degree as it is now, I'll certainly never afford £21,000 to £60,000 for fees!

melancholly

dizzie wrote: »

I'd really like a break down of what tuition fees do subsidise. Given that these are actually referred to as "tuition" fees, I think it is reasonable that those who get as little as six hours per week of "tuition" should feel a little agrieved that those who get twenty plus hours of tuition time should pay the same rate.

most of the tuition fees go to the university centrally. this will cover things like paying for building upkeep for lectures/meetings (ie maintenance, security, cleaning, IT support for computers, buying computers), subsidising the careers service, paying for the library (buying books, online journal access etc), admin staff (centrally and in departments - they organise exams and handing in work and admissions etc etc) - i personally think that these are all critical aspects of tuition.

the money paid by students isn't much compared to the costs. we now that we have the wonder of FEC (full economic costings!) for research grants, where you have to ask for about 200% extra on top of a salary in every application to cover all the university's costs that they require.... i don't think most unis give value for money for FEC, but that's the system and we're stuck with it!

Oldernotwiser

dizzie wrote: »

So are you saying that if fees go up from circa £3k to circa £6k or more and students accumulate more debt...that the repayments will not have to be higher?

Yes, that's exactly what I mean. As far as I know there's been no suggestion of raising the repayment rate for student loans. 9% of what you earn over £15,000 is the same whether you owe, £12,000, £24,000 or £36,000. That's why you're much better looking at it as a graduate tax rather than as a repayment of a loan.

olly300

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

It's really not true that it's hard to get into Science and Engineering degrees. There are such low numbers of students taking these subjects at A level that, apart from the most prestigious places, it's actually quite easy.

However, I do agree with the rest of your points.

It's never been hard to get on to such degrees due to the low level of students who study science A levels.

When I applied to go to university in the nineties due to doing science A levels I never bothered apply for courses where I knew the entry requirements could go down to two E's at some well regarded universities. I knew if I got such grades I would easily find a university place through clearing as I checked the clearing offers the year before I completed my UCAS form.

However it's hard to complete degree once you start it if you achieve such poor A level grades as lots of students on those degrees drop out or fail.

Oldernotwiser

olly300 wrote: »

It's never been hard to get on to such degrees due to the low level of students who study science A levels.

When I applied to go to university in the nineties due to doing science A levels I never bothered apply for courses where I knew the entry requirements could go down to two E's at some well regarded universities. I knew if I got such grades I would easily find a university place through clearing as I checked the clearing offers the year before I completed my UCAS form.

However it's hard to complete degree once you start it if you achieve such poor A level grades as lots of students on those degrees drop out or fail.

I quit agree with you; just because you're offered a place doesn't mean that you'll succeed.

The ease of getting into Science/Engineering degrees goes back waaaaay back beyond the 90s - trust me, I was there!

CLAPTON

Lets be clear here, many mortgage lenders take student loan repayments into consideration when assessing the amount they will lend.

dizzie

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Yes, that's exactly what I mean. As far as I know there's been no suggestion of raising the repayment rate for student loans. 9% of what you earn over £15,000 is the same whether you owe, £12,000, £24,000 or £36,000. That's why you're much better looking at it as a graduate tax rather than as a repayment of a loan.

Not sure that the maths will add up on this one. Especially if student loan rates stay so low.

Incidentally,I had a look at the University of Buckingham's (UK's ony independant Uni) website. Interestingly, despite fees of around £8k per year, they have managed to save students money by condensing degree courses into 2 years (so student pays less maintenance costs). Surely that would be possible with some (though clearly not all) degree courses at the rest of our universities?

Also had a look at an article written by someone involved in distance learning degrees

http://www.pressdispensary.co.uk/feed/992131.php

Philip Hallam says for a typical 3 year degree, the cost of a distance learning degree is around £4750 (I think) compared to about £18000 for a non-distance learning one (of which about £9k comes from student and £9k from state). A cost difference is to be expected...but so much? He claims that Universities could be much more efficient - e.g. new buildings which cost ££££ are sometimes 50% under-utilised; Some fail to put money into resources which actually deliver cost savings etc. He felt that it was possible to provide degree courses at around £3,500 per year.
Makes for interesting reading.

Then there is the question of the pay rises awarded to University academics and Chancellors etc this year which seemed to be extremely generous given that we are mean't to be in a recession and much of the private sector is looking at no pay increase this year....

The_One_Who

dizzie wrote: »

Incidentally,I had a look at the University of Buckingham's (UK's ony independant Uni) website. Interestingly, despite fees of around £8k per year, they have managed to save students money by condensing degree courses into 2 years (so student pays less maintenance costs). Surely that would be possible with some (though clearly not all) degree courses at the rest of our universities?

I have a friend who not long ago graduated from Bucks. Although she did her degree in two years, she couldn't work over the summer getting vital work experience in her field. There was simply no time what with have only having a two week summer holiday. Living expenses might be slightly lowered, but with no time to work to pay the fees you would need to take a year or two out first.

Also, with the whole academic year taken up with teaching the researchers won't have enough time to do their own thing.