Huge student fees to limit house prices further?

misskool

vivatifosi wrote: »

Mine too. Are yours Russell Group as well missk? I swear its not just research they get together over but methods of getting to their alumni.

Having said that, imo the Russell Group must not lose its prestige in research, so if that's what it takes...

Yes, both of them are.

lostinrates

misskool wrote: »

I'm contacted by both my universities frequently to donate to their alumni fund Maybe I should have chosen universities based on how often they contact their alumni. :rotfl:

On a more serious note, it will be more common for all universities to ask for funding (or they will just have lower fees that students can and will pay for).

I'm just wondering when a public funded university will turn into a private one like in the states. It's interesting that the more "reputable" universities from the States are the private ones. The state universities appear to be second best.

My college has excellent income streams, but its all so ''nouveau'' ;)but I think also would cope very well if it went private tomorrow and independent from the uni..some of the courses are best rated internationally, or were. The course contents, IMHO, have dropped. BUT, it has few expensive old buildings to maintain...sold them off, well before peak though! I think a lot of the courses would be dropped though. Its main ''rival'' is old, and does ask for money...but had the reputation for being better networking, light on content. I believe things have changed again now though.

vivatifosi

Interesting one that. DH's first uni was nouveau (I love that expression, so much more romantic than red brick or former poly), they are just starting on the fund raising malarky. He's been asked to mentor students, which really appeals and is a good way of getting a volunteering movement going.

lostinrates

vivatifosi wrote: »

Interesting one that. DH's first uni was nouveau (I love that expression, so much more romantic than red brick or former poly), they are just starting on the fund raising malarky. He's been asked to mentor students, which really appeals and is a good way of getting a volunteering movement going.

Would be yes. Post grad drop out place was Russell Group. I never hear from them either! I think drop outs are let off the hook.

Wookster

blueboy43 wrote: »

This is a good point. Approx 10 years ago it was estimated that a graduate earned £400k more over their lifetime.

Now the average estimate is down to £100k. For many people it simply wont be worth the investment - or more correctly it is likely that people will study part-time, or live at home rather than go on the lash in another city.

We could go back to doing what we did in the days of Polytechnics, when studying could be mixed with practical paid work.

I think the closure of the gap is down to the BS courses that seem to be pouring out of people's ears. An example of the most useless degrees is here: http://www.toptenz.net/to-10-useless-college-classes-degrees.php

I mean David Beckham studies !!!!!!. Why is tax payer money going on that?

I would argue strongly that rather than raise tuition fees, the range of degrees offered was rationalised to remove such pointless degrees and utilise the money for more productive degrees, reducing the impact.

This whole idea that 50% of people should get a degree is utter BS. Its Labour's way of dumbing down qualifications to no one is excellent but everyone is mediocre. Keep the degree intake to 20% and greatly increase vocational studies like plumbing, electrics, gardening, cooking, dieticians etc.

jamespmg44

Wookster wrote: »

I think the closure of the gap is down to the BS courses that seem to be pouring out of people's ears. An example of the most useless degrees is here: http://www.toptenz.net/to-10-useless-college-classes-degrees.php

I mean David Beckham studies !!!!!!. Why is tax payer money going on that?

I would argue strongly that rather than raise tuition fees, the range of degrees offered was rationalised to remove such pointless degrees and utilise the money for more productive degrees, reducing the impact.

This whole idea that 50% of people should get a degree is utter BS. Its Labour's way of dumbing down qualifications to no one is excellent but everyone is mediocre. Keep the degree intake to 20% and greatly increase vocational studies like plumbing, electrics, gardening, cooking, dieticians etc.

Spot on - the only degrees that should be subsidised are ones that can put something back into the economy or society. Nothing like David Beckham studies or the likes. Engineering, Science, Medicine, Teaching and Language degrees should be top of the list.

Also, if the student doesn't get at a minimum BBB in their A levels or BBBBB in Highers in Scotland they should automatically be excluded from entering university as they are simply not up to the educational ability to study for a higher level of education and should be placed on vocational study.

In response to the original post - i'm not sure it will have that much of an effect on house prices. It will hopefully stop both taxpayers and would be students money being wasted on worthless degrees. If these people are in the workforce at a younger age, they should have a better opportunity to save up for a deposit rather than having 4 years of student debt built up for a poorly paid job.

neverdespairgirl

Lokolo wrote: »

A lot of people I go to uni don't know the different between they're, their and there..... I am pretty sure limiting university education won't change the fact that there are illiterate people out there.

Howver, I agree that the OP is stretching a bit. It might make student LL more risky with less students, but thats it.

Do you reckon the Uni types know the difference between less and fewer?

neverdespairgirl

lostinrates wrote: »

misskool, I agree with ALL of this. I note the difference in how much I am ..well ..never contacted for money by my uni and dh is frequently...perhaps its just the ''good ones'' that will do the asking?

University College London are always asking OH and me for money.

lostinrates

jamespmg44 wrote: »

Spot on - the only degrees that should be subsidised are ones that can put something back into the economy or society. Nothing like David Beckham studies or the likes. Engineering, Science, Medicine, Teaching and Language degrees should be top of the list.

Also, if the student doesn't get at a minimum BBB in their A levels or BBBBB in Highers in Scotland they should automatically be excluded from entering university as they are simply not up to the educational ability to study for a higher level of education and should be placed on vocational study.

In response to the original post - i'm not sure it will have that much of an effect on house prices. It will hopefully stop both taxpayers and would be students money being wasted on worthless degrees. If these people are in the workforce at a younger age, they should have a better opportunity to save up for a deposit rather than having 4 years of student debt built up for a poorly paid job.

Compounding this problem is that many ''give back'' careers were made degree courses. My grandmother, not an academic woman but a very capable practical one, was by all accounts a very good ward sister, then a very respected community nurse. She would not have wanted to, or been able to, complete an academic degree. I accept the nature of many jobs has changed, but suggesting that academic achievement is necessary is not always right, and furthermore must be off putting to many people who could use other routes more successfully.

olly300

jamespmg44 wrote: »

Also, if the student doesn't get at a minimum BBB in their A levels or BBBBB in Highers in Scotland they should automatically be excluded from entering university as they are simply not up to the educational ability to study for a higher level of education and should be placed on vocational study.

I know people who got less than BBB in their A levels and got firsts in engineering subjects from a Russell group university.

One thing you are presuming is that schools teach properly................

I also know mature students who got less than that in other subjects again they did very well once they were at university.

Excluding people because they weren't rich enough or encouraged to go to university is what use to happen now you are going to again exclude people because they again aren't rich enough to be able to pay for their education to ensure they get the entrance grades. Or do you really believe that richer parents don't pay to ensure their children get the right grades for uni?