Why is it that going to University Costs so much.

dawyldthing

http://jobs.guardian.co.uk/job/952934/lecturersenior-lecturer/

Heres one thats not on the 60k that has been quoted. If the lecturers did not want to be lecturers then thats their choice, but they do get paid a lot for what they actually do, and as for them all doing independent research, thats their choice.

I do think that people in most of these jobs are overpaid, and would not get the same amount of money in the same field in other industries, including:

administrator
http://jobs.leedsmet.ac.uk/main/job_disp.htm?id_adv=3307&job_search=

marketing:

http://jobs.leedsmet.ac.uk/main/job_disp.htm?id_adv=3306&job_search=

compare this to other jobs with an external company:

administrator:
http://www.totaljobs.com/JobSeeking/Administrator--Customer-Service_job46330441

marketing:
http://www.totaljobs.com/JobSearch/JobDetails.aspx?JobId=46327910&Keywords=marketing&LTxt=Yorkshire%2c+UK&Radius=10&LIds1=CkX%2cm%2cz%2cBT%2cDE%2cDZ%2cDe%2cEI%2cE1%2cGK%2cHm%2cH2%2cH7%2cJE%2cJF%2cJY%2cJn%2cLq%2cN3%2cOn%2cQC%2cQO%2cQY%2cQr%2cQ5%2cSE%2cSP%2cTV%2cVA%2cVe&LIds3=Z6&LIds6=EBN%2cw%2cx%2cy%2cz%2c0%2c1%2c2%2c3%2c4%2c5%2c6%2c7%2c8%2c9%2c+%2c_%2cBA%2cBF%2cBJ%2cBL%2cBM%2cBO%2cBP%2cBR%2cBT%2cBX%2cBa%2cBb%2cBc%2cK5%2cNF&clid=1658&cltypeid=3&clName=Yorkshire

There were others, but heres 2 as an example thats similar roles but huge differences in wages, because it is a university (but its not mine i must add)

Also, not all teacher training courses get any grants, especaially if you do the full 3 or 4 year teacher training.

The person i was talking about was for student support, such as the welfare officer that helps to deal with any accomodation issues, and is a volunteer role within uni. There are some that are paid positions that deal with the finance and issues relating to the accomodation ect, but that was what I meant.

One of the main problems, which will be shown again, is that university will again turn out to be something for the rich and priviledged and the rest of us that do not have the money to go will be left to either go later on when we can afford it after many years saving or not go at all, which i do think is unfortunate as I think that if we have the capabilities of studying then we should be able to have the support to go with it, and we all should pay back what we owe. In Canada for instance, what I found out is that they take a loan out and have i think its 6 months or a year to pay it back, after that it then turns into a high interest loan that has to be paid back. If the loans were paid back, and the people there were paid less, then it would mean that it could cost less to go to university and people that want the opportunity to go could go.

Plus i'm not an arts student or a business student, I am actually doing teacher training, a four year degree with loans from the student loan system otherwise i would never have been able to afford to go in a million years, and I am grateful for it. I just hope it is there and available to all in the future, as I think a lot of it could be in jepody should (or should i say when) unfortunately the tories end up in parliament, as I think it will be a major problem to us all.

But that is my opinion, and is my view, which I am entitled to.

The_One_Who

snugglepet20 wrote: »

If anyone is worried about the cost of uni I will say this, go on a course which is actually worth something!
Most courses which are useful to society i.e NHS professions such as nursing and physiotherapy, teaching etc offer bursaries or financial rewards for completion so you needn't get into debt and you will have actual skills and a virtually certain job at the end. For those who want to take film studies 2 hours a week and spend the rest of your life drunk you deserve to be in debt because you are wasting your time and you know it.

I will be the first to say that universities should be for those academically capable, but I really, really dislike this attitude of 'subject snobbery'. Who are you, or anyone else, to decide what is valuable or useful? The staff in those departments are presumably doing research in that area and so there must be some call for it if they are getting funding to do it.

University shouldn't be about the 'job at the end', it's about learning about something you are interested in to a greater depth, etc.

Also, to the poster who said 'they can be lecturers if they want to be', it's not quite that simple. Yes if they want to do purely research then they can remain on the lower rungs of the academic ladder, and even research fellows and associates are not completely guaranteed to be free of some sort of teaching. For the people who are aiming for worldwide recognition, or merely a pay rise, they have little choice in doing teaching or not. It is now a requirement alongside all their other work. So they are trying to do two jobs at once. There are allowances for research leaves, but obviously someone can't do that all the time.

Rosie75

dawyldthing wrote: »

If the lecturers did not want to be lecturers then thats their choice, but they do get paid a lot for what they actually do, and as for them all doing independent research, thats their choice.

Doing research is not "a choice" for lecturers. It's the defining aspect of the job, and where most of a department's money comes from. Very little income is derived from student fees. Have a read of Simon Jenkins in today's Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/26/mandelson-university-funding-cuts-fees)
He makes the point that "Government grants cover half their total income of £23bn. The customers – students – contribute only £1.2bn. For the users of any service to pay so small a proportion of its costs is unsustainable... The future of university independence is bound up in fee income. This is currently so low as to bear no relation to the cost of a degree, especially in science subjects. Oxford and Cambridge subsidise their fees by £6,000-£7,000 per student a year, costing them each roughly £60m even after a similar government teaching grant. They can just afford it, but most universities cannot."

If lecturers don't do research and just teach, students can expect to stump up around twenty times more than they are currently paying in fees to plug that gap!

Oldernotwiser

dawyldthing wrote: »

The person i was talking about was for student support, such as the welfare officer that helps to deal with any accomodation issues, and is a volunteer role within uni. There are some that are paid positions that deal with the finance and issues relating to the accomodation ect, but that was what I meant.

One of the main problems, which will be shown again, is that university will again turn out to be something for the rich and priviledged and the rest of us that do not have the money to go will be left to either go later on when we can afford it after many years saving or not go at all, which i do think is unfortunate as I think that if we have the capabilities of studying then we should be able to have the support to go with it, and we all should pay back what we owe. In Canada for instance, what I found out is that they take a loan out and have i think its 6 months or a year to pay it back, after that it then turns into a high interest loan that has to be paid back. If the loans were paid back, and the people there were paid less, then it would mean that it could cost less to go to university and people that want the opportunity to go could go.

Plus i'm not an arts student or a business student, I am actually doing teacher training, a four year degree with loans from the student loan system otherwise i would never have been able to afford to go in a million years, and I am grateful for it. I just hope it is there and available to all in the future, as I think a lot of it could be in jepody should (or should i say when) unfortunately the tories end up in parliament, as I think it will be a major problem to us all.

You are, of course free to hold any opinion you wish, however ignorant. However, I really hope that you'll be teaching younger children so that you don't pass your prejudices on to teenagers who may be considering university study for themselves.

I also hope that you won't be teaching anything where your spelling and grammar are important or you risk passing this ignorance on as well.

pelirocco

giantmutantbroccoli wrote: »

The majority of the ones you've met, or the majority of the ones you've employed? I doubt the ones you've employed are a representative sample of all graduates in the UK.

Going off the graduates I've met, the majority go on to get high-paying jobs or do postgraduate study. I'm sure that isn't a representative sample, either.

Common sense and interest in other people isn't something that can be taught at university.

Then you havent met many , or you have been very fortunate. I think the official statistics show a very different picture .

Having a degree may give you a better chance of getting a job , but it doesnt give you a better chance of getting a ''good'' ( for want of a better word ) job. There will only ever be a set number of '' good'' jobs no matter how many people go on and get degrees

Humphrey10

Haven't read the whole thread, so I might be repeating what someone else has said.
I've never understood how the financial side can put people off going to uni. You don't have to have any money at all, you get all you need to live off during term time in grants and loans.
Yes of course you will struggle if you are trying to pay for a house, car, children, holidays, expensive meals out, alcohol, smoking, drugs, but student loans/grants aren't intended to pay for those things.

Also, if you send a few years as a poor student, when you get a job it will be wonderful, you will feel like you have so much money! I've spent about 6 years being a poor student, now I have a job and without trying my bank account keeps growing, I'm just so used to not spending much money! And that's with student loan repayments being deducted.

toxic1990

A few things !!!! me off royally about tuition fees.

1) Different fees for different parts of the union. Education IMO does not benefit from individual countries choosing its own policies based on its own needs. Sure the allocation of NHS funding is an acceptable devolution power. How much a student pays for university is not. I wouldn't be surprised if the Scots only do it to create tension.

2) Why are fees equal? why should I a Law student have to pay the same as a Chemist, saying teacher costs are the same, they use equipment that is a lot more expensive. I use nothing. They also tend to get scholarships.

University should be available for all those who are capable of going. Money should not be a factor. £20 000 price tag is still money, and is still scares the !!!! out of most students, not matter how well you dress it up as 'low interest'.

The_One_Who

toxic1990 wrote: »

1) Different fees for different parts of the union. Education IMO does not benefit from individual countries choosing its own policies based on its own needs. Sure the allocation of NHS funding is an acceptable devolution power. How much a student pays for university is not. I wouldn't be surprised if the Scots only do it to create tension.

Why are differences in NHS resources any more acceptable than educational differences? Scottish education is entirely different right from when they start primary school. The fees are paid for out of the Scottish budget. How it is spent is up to them. They have a fixed amount to play with so other aspects are squeezed to afford it.

2) Why are fees equal? why should I a Law student have to pay the same as a Chemist, saying teacher costs are the same, they use equipment that is a lot more expensive. I use nothing. They also tend to get scholarships.

It could end up with even less people choosing the sciences because they will need to pay more. The sciences (especially the 'hard' ones) have quite a lot of bursaries attached to try to sway students into applying for them since they are often so undersubscribed.

University should be available for all those who are capable of going. Money should not be a factor. £20 000 price tag is still money, and is still scares the !!!! out of most students, not matter how well you dress it up as 'low interest'.

I agree that university should be available to all who are intellectually capable. However it costs money, lots of money.

dawyldthing

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

You are, of course free to hold any opinion you wish, however ignorant. However, I really hope that you'll be teaching younger children so that you don't pass your prejudices on to teenagers who may be considering university study for themselves.

I also hope that you won't be teaching anything where your spelling and grammar are important or you risk passing this ignorance on as well.

I don't get where you find spelling mistakes, as i've read back through it and can't find where you say I can't spell. I would recommend that young people do go to uni if it is right for them, but to think of the amount of debt they are getting into before starting, as for many courses i would not say it is worth it, as what use is a degree if you are never going to use it. It is a bit like buying something from a shop and leaving it on the shelf for years - a bit of a waste of time and money really. Grammar is maybe a bit different, but I can't see that many problems. Plus I now have my English degree specialism and a-level English Language, so it can't be that bad. :j

dawyldthing

Rosie75 wrote: »

Doing research is not "a choice" for lecturers. It's the defining aspect of the job, and where most of a department's money comes from. Very little income is derived from student fees. Have a read of Simon Jenkins in today's Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/26/mandelson-university-funding-cuts-fees)
He makes the point that "Government grants cover half their total income of £23bn. The customers – students – contribute only £1.2bn. For the users of any service to pay so small a proportion of its costs is unsustainable... The future of university independence is bound up in fee income. This is currently so low as to bear no relation to the cost of a degree, especially in science subjects. Oxford and Cambridge subsidise their fees by £6,000-£7,000 per student a year, costing them each roughly £60m even after a similar government teaching grant. They can just afford it, but most universities cannot."

If lecturers don't do research and just teach, students can expect to stump up around twenty times more than they are currently paying in fees to plug that gap!

no doubt its a tory that has written this so the rest of the country all go 'arr, those hard done by lecturers on 40k a year, we should really feel sorry for them!'

Some important points that the research in the guardian brings out:

Research grants would be assessed on "impact on the economy and society", and funds would be directed to the "stem" subjects – science, technology, engineering and maths.

I also found this interesting:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/26/mandelson-university-funding-cuts-fees?showallcomments=true#CommentKey:276888f2-502d-4b80-aa6f-d9a5f7e4efb6