Universities push for higher fees

Oldernotwiser

CLAPTON wrote: »

by way of an example ..from the nationwide website

25k salary and no SLC will lend 102,500
25k but with SLC (75 per month) will only lend 98,800

on 30k similar figures are 123,000 and 117,440

I guess it depends whether one sees this as significant.

Those are the sort of figures I was expecting and, no, I didn't think them significant. You're right that other people might see this differently.

Cardelia

dizzie wrote: »

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?

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.

"Tuition fees" is just a name. If it makes you feel better, we could rename them to "university maintenance fees" - nothing will have changed in how they're spent. And I think it's a terrible indictment of our society that people are even thinking about comparing courses on value for money criteria. What about the value of a good education? After all, that's why you go to university in the first place.

Besides, your definition of tuition is still too narrow. Tuition does not just cover lectures and tutorials. For many students, independent learning, essay writing etc. has to be done. For example, someone has to set work and someone has to mark it once it's been handed in. Someone else has to determine what a student should be learning and someone has to set the exam which is designed to test that knowledge. That's all classed as tuition yet to a student, because they don't have it as contact time, they moan about paying £3000 a year for 6 hours "tuition".

Medical students shouldn't have to pay a penny. But they do. Some universities offer bursaries, but as I understand it the range of NHS bursaries is extremely limited for medical students. Nurses, on the other hand, pay no fees and most are eligible for a non-means-tested grant of £7000.

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....

I'm an academic. Where's my "extremely generous" pay rise? I've not had a penny this year.

carolan78

Fingers crossed I will start my degree in September, I would happily pay more fees providing loans were provided in order to repay back when my income is higher. Why should I expect a free education, that will provide the potential to double the income I can earn without it?

dawyldthing

mzqa395 wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7946912.stm

Two thirds of vice-chancellors, speaking anonymously, said they needed to raise fees, suggesting levels of between £4,000 and £20,000 per year.

This really gets up my nose! I'm not joking, lecturers are there for 27 weeks a year (they have only had to teach us for 20 as we were on placement for the remaining 7 weeks) and there on 30-40 k a year!!!

People are paying 3000 a year, I recogn that they should run courses that pay the way really, as its getting rediculous and getting to the old system of only the rich being able to study, and if that had been the case before I would have never have been able to go to uni as I wouldn't have been able to afford it

The_One_Who

dawyldthing wrote: »

This really gets up my nose! I'm not joking, lecturers are there for 27 weeks a year (they have only had to teach us for 20 as we were on placement for the remaining 7 weeks) and there on 30-40 k a year!!!

People are paying 3000 a year, I recogn that they should run courses that pay the way really, as its getting rediculous and getting to the old system of only the rich being able to study, and if that had been the case before I would have never have been able to go to uni as I wouldn't have been able to afford it

You'd be lucky to get any sort of course for three thousand per year. Buildings, utilities, staff, libraries, etc all cost money. Your three thousand hardly scratches the surface!

Lecturers may only teach for half the year, but the other half is devoted to what they are really there for - research. With no research there would be no university. The research is what the lecturer is known for, not teaching undergraduates.

olly300

Thanks for those who corrected my original post.

dawyldthing wrote: »

This really gets up my nose! I'm not joking, lecturers are there for 27 weeks a year (they have only had to teach us for 20 as we were on placement for the remaining 7 weeks) and there on 30-40 k a year!!!

Lots of lecturers are part-time and on short- term contracts. This enables the universities like all employers to avoid giving them benefits of permanent staff.

I use to know two who were doing different subjects (one emigrated as she managed to get a full-time lecturing position in Canada) , seen adverts for such lecturers in the paper, and recently overheard someone on the train discussing her part-time, short-term lecturing position. She was contacted for 3 classroom hours a week. However she still has to prepare lectures and mark any assignments set.

I know from my own courses the only people who we saw all the time where the post-docs, who ran labs, and the course supervisor. Even then the course supervisor kind of disappeared after Easter as they had to get on with their research.

dawyldthing wrote: »

People are paying 3000 a year, I recogn that they should run courses that pay the way really, as its getting rediculous and getting to the old system of only the rich being able to study, and if that had been the case before I would have never have been able to go to uni as I wouldn't have been able to afford it

Most private schools cost more than £3000 per term.

University fees for both UK undergraduate and most postgraduate students are really subsidised. Particularly for those doing courses with any form of lab work. In addition before student loans came in people who were not rich did go to university as I know people between the ages of 61-40 who went then. They didn't even go to private or grammar schools but came from families who wanted their children to get a degree before it became the thing everyone did. They found university a real eye opener as they couldn't believe how rich some of their contemporaries were.

The problem is that higher education has expanded too quickly and without the resources needed. Student fees only scratch the surface of the amount of money universities need to run effectively. In addition because of league tables school students are being spoon fed so going to university is a bigger culture shock then it use to be.

I know people from 2 Scandinavian countries and while they have free and very good nursery care once you hit 18 and are an adult you are expected to pay towards your education so they have student fees and get loans to cover them.

This means that most people take much longer than 4 years to finish their degree as they are also working. However because they expect this it's no stigma to take years to finish an undergraduate degree.

dizzie

Older Not Wiser,

Hi, What I mean't about the maths not adding up is this. If the student debt is going to have to rise dramatically and yet the government are not going to increase the repayment level and are going to keep the interest rates as low, then surely we are just creating a big black hole of debt (which seems to be the economic pattern with everything in Britain now unfortunately)....I'm not so sure that we can sustain this economic model as a country!

If this happens, I would suspect that future governments will start changing the rules about student loans i.e. increasing the interest rates or perhaps changing the percentage of salary paid (maybe even on a tiered system - e.g. 9% above one level, 12% above another).

I still think that there might be merit in teaching some degree courses as two year courses (Of course I agree that this is not a suitable model for all degree courses - particularly vocational ones). Would there be any way that we could have Unis that just did teaching and ones that did both teaching and research? Do they all need to do research or does that just stretch government research budgets out like war margarine? Would this not be a better model for utilising University resources more efficiently(i.e. expensive buildings not sat empty for substantial periods of the academic year) etc?

With respect to the holiday work done by students,how many actually earn anything like graduate-style wages or get a summer job relevant to their degree or future careers? How many just end up on supermarket tills on low wages? Would it not be better for some to condense their degrees, reduce their borrowing and get them in to graduate jobs (hopefully) a year earlier?

Just a thought...

PS To the poster who did not think medical students should have to pay a penny (Apologies,I can't remember who it was), I disagree. Doctors do a valuable job but their earnings potential is also very high, so they are rewarded.

In summary, I am in favour of all students paying towards their higher education. I actually think we value things more when we have to pay for them. I just don't want to see students leave University with debts that resemble another mortgage! They may charge high fees in America, but graduate salaries are also on average, much higher.

Oldernotwiser

dizzie wrote: »

Would there be any way that we could have Unis that just did teaching and ones that did both teaching and research?
.

We used to; that was the division between Polytechnics and Universities!

olly300

dizzie wrote: »

Older Not Wiser,

Hi, What I mean't about the maths not adding up is this. If the student debt is going to have to rise dramatically and yet the government are not going to increase the repayment level and are going to keep the interest rates as low, then surely we are just creating a big black hole of debt (which seems to be the economic pattern with everything in Britain now unfortunately)....I'm not so sure that we can sustain this economic model as a country!

If this happens, I would suspect that future governments will start changing the rules about student loans i.e. increasing the interest rates or perhaps changing the percentage of salary paid (maybe even on a tiered system - e.g. 9% above one level, 12% above another).

I am not sure if you have read like I have in various papers over the years that the government was thinking about raising the student loan interest rate to a commercial rate.

However as they are worried about voters they won't do this.

I wouldn't be surprised if a future government introduced a graduate tax as some in the NUS currently are, and have been advocating for years as the most fair way to conduct the system.

dizzie wrote: »

I still think that there might be merit in teaching some degree courses as two year courses (Of course I agree that this is not a suitable model for all degree courses - particularly vocational ones). Would there be any way that we could have Unis that just did teaching and ones that did both teaching and research? Do they all need to do research or does that just stretch government research budgets out like war margarine? Would this not be a better model for utilising University resources more efficiently(i.e. expensive buildings not sat empty for substantial periods of the academic year) etc?

Universities have been fighting for years against a two tier system. Even though everyone knows in reality that some universities are much better than others and it's unlikely that those universities in the bottom third of any rating system will have a well renown department or improve greatly in the next 5 years.

dizzie wrote: »

With respect to the holiday work done by students,how many actually earn anything like graduate-style wages or get a summer job relevant to their degree or future careers? How many just end up on supermarket tills on low wages? Would it not be better for some to condense their degrees, reduce their borrowing and get them in to graduate jobs (hopefully) a year earlier?

Most students don't come out of university and do graduate jobs immediately.

I didn't and neither did a large majority of the people I know. This was for various reasons like not knowing what career you wanted to go into, wanting to travel and/or work before doing a postgraduate course, wanting to travel and work before starting work , or simply not applying for graduate jobs early enough.

In addition there are lots of people who never do a "graduate" role.

In two of the temporary jobs I did before I went to do a postgraduate course I was actually offered a permanent job with a career path in either a bank or retail management. (I learnt a lot about company politics after not excepting the offer.) The only advantage my degree would have given me would be the fact I could be promoted to management more quickly if I showed my worth in the company. I have since worked for companies who refuse to promote people who don't have formal qualifications so some older staff go out and get them.

dizzie wrote: »

Just a thought...

PS To the poster who did not think medical students should have to pay a penny (Apologies,I can't remember who it was), I disagree. Doctors do a valuable job but their earnings potential is also very high, so they are rewarded.

In summary, I am in favour of all students paying towards their higher education. I actually think we value things more when we have to pay for them. I just don't want to see students leave University with debts that resemble another mortgage! They may charge high fees in America, but graduate salaries are also on average, much higher.

I agree with that totally. However now people are paying something towards their degree they think they deserve more of a school like experience. They don't realise that's not the point of universities.

dizzie

Thanks for your reply Olly.

I had talked about summer job in reply to the poster who sugested that this was useful for gaining relevant/valuable work experience and I was just wondering how many are actually in this position vs those who just take what they can in the hols purely for financial grounds.

I came from a low wage family, did a vocational degree and fortunately ended up with a graduate job after finishing Uni. My younger sister on the other hand did a non-vocational degree (in the Arts) and did not end up with a graduate-type job. She has always worked full time but has only recently managed to get a job that breaks the £20k/year barrier - 12 years after finishing Sheffield Uni. She feels that if she had been born later and was considering studying Uni now, the potential level of student debt would influence her degree choice - i.e. she would be more likely to chose a vocational degree rather than one based on her real interests/talents.