MSE News: University fees could rocket after funding review

Rosie75

ilovemydebts wrote: »

And how long did labour wait after the Dearing report? Same day if memory serves!

You may well be right - I actually don't remember. And I'm sure that if Labour had won the election, they would also be increasing fees, although they may have opted for a graduate tax rather than increased loans.

Pont

farso wrote: »

Worrying news for students. All the articles I have read have looked at the way it will change lives for prospective students, does anyone know what will change to the current students? Will our fees increase for next year? Will our repayments for student loans be affected? (Despite of our current agreement for the loan)

It would be good to know what these plans mean if they come into law.

Many thanks

Bump - does anyone know if current students will be affected?

Taiko

Nothing confirmed, but all students on courses that started after 2006 who didn't have deferred entry from 2005 are on a variable fee scheme, so it could well apply to them.

Kilty_2

I'm at Uni in Scotland, so get off a lot lighter than current English students (however they're talking about a graduate tax up here now :eek:) - but as far as I can tell these proposals will just lead to the best institutions charging whatever they like in tuition fees, putting off prospective students and making skills gaps in some industries even worse.

The UK power industry for one is crying out for good quality Electrical/Mechanical Engineering graduates - and the future of this important national infrastructure depends on a growing influx of graduates over the next 20 years.

The_One_Who

The Scottish system is well overdue for a review. It is simply not sustainable. Even though the old Graduate Endownment was disliked and basically a tax, it at least got some money back. Although most students just took out an extra loan for it.

The problem with subjects like engineering, chemistry, physics, etc is that they cannot get the students in. A lot of departments have been offering fairly substantial bursaries for a few years, as well as the promise of high earnings. But there just aren't the students wanting to do it. Fixing that would require changing the primary and secondary school curriculums and really getting science back in.

ste_coxy

Stryder wrote: »

Money saving hint....

Don't go to University ...

Clegg went to Cambridge University; Cameron went to Oxford University ... neither paid.... Now are both wealthy enough to pay for their children to go.

Now put a hat on me and call me Susan, but does anyone think that this has any influence on how they perceive this issue?



Clegg is a joke

Students of the world Unite

EDUCATION IS A RIGHT, AND NOT A PRIVILEGED

SCRAP TUITION FEES, REINSTATE GRANTS FOR THOSE UNABLE TO AFFORD LIVING COSTS AND STOP BLAMING THOSE UNDER 18 FOR THE PROBLEMS AND POLICIES CAUSED BY THOSE (AND THOSE WHO VOTED FOR THEM) WHO ARE ALL OVER 18

SCRAP TUITION FEES, SCRAP CLEGG!

too right - i'm sick of seeing his smarmy face next to that other pillock cameron - the pair of them plotting and planning their next so called "progressive" move. This is seriously ill thought out and will make a laughing stock of the Lib Dems. Droves of their members and party faithful are leaving due to joining with the Tories in the first place but as more and more of the Tories proposals are introduced they will make it more and more likely their party won't get into power for another 90+ years.

I am seriously regretting not staying at college and doing my A-Levels and getting my degree when the tutition fees were first introduced.

By the time I study for my Access Course, these proposals will probably be in place and it will make me really reconsider actually going due to the further debt i will be in - I cannot afford to go to uni right now because of my financial situation - I want to get my current debt paid off first before then getting into further debt at current levels.

The only kind of leeway I have noticed is that funding will be available for part time students - think this might the root most people in future will be opting for.

StudentFun

Why is it that University fees always seem to rocket up in price and never seem to gracefully increase in price? It is almost like they are staving off the price hike for a few years before just increasing it in a huge lump sum in one particular year. We all hate a bump up of prices and pricing structures, let us just hope that in the future that they slowly increase the prices rather than killing us in one great financial blow to our wallets.

mememememe

Taiko wrote: »

Nothing confirmed, but all students on courses that started after 2006 who didn't have deferred entry from 2005 are on a variable fee scheme, so it could well apply to them.

I'm pretty sure that current students are unaffected.

From http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11483638 :

"The earliest the new system could be brought in is for students starting in September 2012."

I think the 'variable fee scheme' refers to the fact that currently fees can in theory vary from £0-3300ish a year (although of course most universities charge the maximum amount).

atypical

It seems that everyone accepts that universities are underfunded. But by the sounds of the leaks (i.e. cuts in central funding) it doesn't look like the universities are going to get any extra funding out of the proposals. All that will have happened is that the cost will have shifted from the state to the individual.

The argument about whether this shift is the right one is another matter, but it's looking like our central spending on higher education as a proportion of GDP will be pathetically small in comparison to our Western counterparts. It's also worth noting that America contributes nearly twice as much to funding higher education from central funds than the UK currently does even with their famously high fees.

Then you have to consider the effect it will have on access to higher education on the poor, the likely creation of a two-tier system and the drastic effect the general marketisation of higher education will have.

The Lib Dems deserve to take a battering for this. They reneged on one of their biggest commitments which they happily shouted about during the election campaign. The proposals as they stand seem to have had no Lib Dem input, in which case you have to wonder what purpose they serve in a coalition government.

Stryder

The_One_Who wrote: »

I'm unsure what it is I'm not grasping. As far as I am aware, there is little stopping people going to college to get a further education, at least that is how it appears to be with the college in my town.

We need to start acknowledging that education costs money, a lot more money than people pay in course and tuition fees. This money needs to come from somewhere.

You have as much grasp on this as a one legged Rhino has on a rope ladder

1) Education, like health and foreign aid, is a policy born out of a principal and ethics. There was a time when all three did not exist and if you are not clear on it read Jane Eyre! There are some things you do because it is right.
2) We have had something like 700 of class struggle from the first peasants revolt, the Magna Carta, etc. etc. The point is that the wealth of a CHILD should not determine its potential. If you block the poorer access after 18, this will also affect their choices as children.
3) Do you really think that high levels of education does not affect the economy for the better? Maggie killed manufacturing (which I assume are the jobs these "apprentices" should take. So our economy is based on technical skills, like banking (ok, unintentional joke), research, IT, etc. This needs a high level of education, not only for the workers but all the other professionals surrounding the system (contract lawyers, managers, HR professionals, IT engineers and programmers, etc etc).

I wonder - did you go to University and did you pay?