MSE News: University fees could rocket after funding review

WolfSong2000

I think fees should be payable by students for further education, but within reason...£12,000 per year would just be ridiculous! I say this as someone who's now doing a postgraduate course.

Also, as someone who initially applied to do philosophy at undergraduate level (graduated in history) I'd have to disagree with the comment that subjects like philosophy which are not overtly vocational are "useless". With subjects like philosophy, some of the things that you can get out of the course are the ability to analyse, see things from different perspectives and make valid arguments. These skills are highly valued by employers. Like I said, I did a history degree...not particularly vocational, but my subsequent analytical abilities have been recognised by the university which accepted me onto their postgrad course (in Peace and Conflict studies, if anyone's interested) and will also hopefully be recognised by employers.

Everyone's different. Some people excel at vocational subjects, whilst others, such as myself, suck at vocational things, but do reasonably well academically. So whilst I may not have the skills to be a plumber or electrician, hopefully by the time I finish my postgrad and rack up some practical experience I will be valuable to an employer in a consultancy role (that's the plan, anyhow).

melroccan

Lokolo wrote: »

I don't think it would stop the poor from going to uni, as the loans (and assumingly grants) would still be available. I just think it would slow the number of graduates.

I think it WILL put off a lot of poorer students as the much larger fees will seem even more in
comparison to their low family income if you see what I mean. My own son was not going to go and needed a lot of persuasion because the idea of racking up debts of £9000 in fees alone seemed enormous to him, and he now has a 1st class degree.

irishwench69

sarahs999 wrote: »

Yes, really. Teaching people to think is immeasurably useful. Sadly this doesn't seem to be on the syllabus of most courses.

It's the thinkers of the future who will hopefully find a way to get the country out of the mess it's in.

Hmmmm, that's funny, I thought it would be those actually making a practical contribution to this country....

Too many "thinkers" by the way of courses like PPE that have led to a lot of this mess - better to have politicians who've actually had a career and a life rather than career politicians or "thinkers"

(Do you not think practical courses like engineering or science involve some thinking along the way by the way?! There's more to things than pondering the meaning of life.....)

IW x

irishwench69

The_One_Who wrote: »

What constitutes real value? Who decides that? Also, a lot of people are at university because it is what is expected for them, they don't know of other options and because they think it's a golden ticket to a high-paying job.

I think university should be about education for education's sake, universities are not graduate-factories. The government are really doing everything in their power to destroy UK universities. Blue-skies research can lead to some amazing discoveries, but now research funding is being applied through a framework of 'policy-relevance' and 'impact' in the short-term.
This is a huge blow to the arts and humanities, which will impact on future students with departments like history and English literature (two of the most popular courses) really suffering.

Even if you think that there need to be some research facilities, surely there are far too many as things stand now.....does every university really need all departments or would it be better for places to specialise?

Wouldn't it be better for example to have say 10 really excellent Philosophy departments rather than 100 mediocre ones?

As for why people are at university, surely that needs addressing. People can't keep going to university to not get a job or support themselves afterwards - how is that at all sustainable?!

IW x

Mankysteve

Lokolo wrote: »

I don't think it would stop the poor from going to uni, as the loans (and assumingly grants) would still be available. I just think it would slow the number of graduates.

Its more the lower middle class who will be effected worse. Allthough there needs to be a reduction in the number of uni students and more vocational education this is not the way to do.

Mankysteve

oompahloompah wrote: »

I've also been looking to see when any changes will come into affect as I have 3 DSs, the eldest going to Uni in 2011, then the next in 2013 and finally the youngest in 2015, but can find nothing setting a date. All my children will need university degrees for their chosen occupations, so there is no avoiding it. It would also be handy to know what is happening in Scotland, where students do not currently repay tuition fees, but AFAIK this isn't even at the discussion stage yet!

As with the worse of there changes they won't come till after the next generally election, so they can try and get more seats and not damage there reputation as much.

This government are playing the short game and rapidly losing site of the long term game. I'll put money on the fact were going too see a double dip reception.

Its ok to say high uni cost work in America but it has always been that way over there people have been able to save for there children's feature. Its a completely unexpended move and will not give families enough time to save for there children Future education.


Then there this governments other attacks against science, technology and Cameron big Society rubbish.

The_One_Who

irishwench69 wrote: »

Even if you think that there need to be some research facilities, surely there are far too many as things stand now.....does every university really need all departments or would it be better for places to specialise?

Wouldn't it be better for example to have say 10 really excellent Philosophy departments rather than 100 mediocre ones?

As for why people are at university, surely that needs addressing. People can't keep going to university to not get a job or support themselves afterwards - how is that at all sustainable?!

IW x

I agree that there are too many universities and too many students, and that the current situation is unsustainable. I don't think raising fees is really going to combat though. School pupils are now all but expected to go to university, it's like a conveyor belt. If someone wants to get off and buck the trend of not going to university they can end up being shunned and not really being offered any advice on other options for them. Obviously this depends on the school, but if you are a 'good' student you are expected to go to university.

I'm not really wanting to get into a debate of university research funding, suffice to say that they are going to end up being shafted. I do think multi-faculty universities offer something the more specialised ones don't, both for students and staff. Especially now that cross-discipline work is all the rage. Some mediocre universities have some excellent departments, and on the flip side some excellent universities have some poor departments. There isn't really a simple answer to this problem.

JAYk_2

Well it's not that surprising and students do have several options - protest to see a change, become self-employed, find a job now; because that will be alot of loans to pay back.

Stryder

The_One_Who wrote: »

No. Compulsory schooling is a 'right', but further and higher education should be for those with the academic ability. I agree that it should not be about the ability to pay, but it is most certainly not a 'right'.



What constitutes real value? Who decides that? Also, a lot of people are at university because it is what is expected for them, they don't know of other options and because they think it's a golden ticket to a high-paying job.

I think university should be about education for education's sake, universities are not graduate-factories. The government are really doing everything in their power to destroy UK universities. Blue-skies research can lead to some amazing discoveries, but now research funding is being applied through a framework of 'policy-relevance' and 'impact' in the short-term. This is a huge blow to the arts and humanities, which will impact on future students with departments like history and English literature (two of the most popular courses) really suffering.

This shouldn't discourage poorer students, as loans will still be available. If they want to go to university, then they still can. Everyone might just need to justify it to themselves more than they do currently.

I am glad we have people such as you to choose who has academic ability and who is worthy of a higher education :T :T :T :T

Some people may have ambition and drive, and although massive potential, may struggle in the college/school environment. Thankfully these will not be allowed in under your plans - how dare they demand equality to those gifted with academic skills and probably, better quality schooling
:T:T:T:T:beer::T:T:T


YEY you make us all proud to be British!

pimento

It makes me laugh. They are happy enough to pay teenagers to pop out children and live on benefits, but if a teenager wants to improve his/her prospects by further education (and you try getting any job these days without a degree) and they want to put them off by pricing it out of the reach of most people.