tuition fees - cap raised to £9k

misskool

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

I work at a top university and vote LibDem, so this issue is doubly pertinent to me.

Basically, the genie was let out of the bottle with the introduction of tuition fees. This has already changed students' expectations towards learning, as they are now consumers of a product (eg they demand handouts of every lecture; in my day we had to listen and make our own notes). The top British universities are desperate to charge as much as their American counterparts, but are not providing the same service (American students rate their lecturers routinely; here it's extremely hard to sack an academic for being a rubbish teacher). A legacy from Blair's ridiculous target is that it's now assumed that if you're 18 and breathing you have a "right" to a university place. As has been discussed, there are an awful lot of "universities" that are not worthy of the name offering "degrees" that are not of sufficent academic rigour. It's an awful mess to try and sort out.

Bluntly, I believe that the state should fund higher education BUT on a lesser scale than currently. Only our brightest and best youngsters should be obtaining degrees. And of course there is a place for Arts subjects in a civilised society. Distance learning such as the OU (where I got my second degree) should be subsidised and promoted, as it offers a valuable option to those who wish to work and study.

It is easy for me to type "there are too many rubbish so-called universities and useless degrees in this country". Politically, it would mean forcing large scale closures of institutions, many job losses and loss of income in towns dependent upon student spending.

The LibDems are going to haemorrhage voters on this, however, it's not like Labour are going to campaign for the scrapping of fees, is it? What's their policy on this?

The main difference with the American and the universities here is that the best universities (Ivy League) are all private and charge fees accordingly. All the universities here are state funded (by the taxpayer) and are bound by their rules.

Gift-giving is ingrained in the alumni of American Ivy League universities. Colleagues who have studied at those institutions think nothing of gifting a few thousand dollars a year.

I'm waiting for the first UK state funded university to go private.

Students are consumers and they should expect quality teaching, but they aren't going to get it when the govt cuts funding to teaching by 90%.

lemonjelly

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

Academics only get promoted on the basis of their research output, not their teaching duties. It's a fine balance, as students (certainly in science/engineering) want to study at the research intensive universities which have the best lab facilities and the most interesting work going on around them.

Some students don't pass their exams (we had someone scoring 2% recently- a new record). But at 9k a year, are they going to swallow that, or sue for not receiving a quality product?

A big part iof the degree is the personal research. Hence the phrase "reading for a degree". It isn't supposed to be about copying from the lecturers notes, paraphrasing a bit & scraping by. Degrees are supposed to develop initiative, independent thought & independent learning.

It is supposed to be a vocation, not a consumer good.

Radiantsoul

lemonjelly wrote: »

A big part iof the degree is the personal research. Hence the phrase "reading for a degree". It isn't supposed to be about copying from the lecturers notes, paraphrasing a bit & scraping by. Degrees are supposed to develop initiative, independent thought & independent learning.

It is supposed to be a vocation, not a consumer good.

In a market system whoever pays the piper calls the tune.
There is no way groups such as academics, industry or even government are going to be able to prevent universities becoming what students want. So probably expect more modular programs, greater flexibility, more support and less emphasis on library time.

setmefree2

lynzpower wrote: »

also, just been reminded on radio 4- that if anyone dares to pay off the loans early- they will get a penalty charge for doing so!!

LOVELY :money:

No!!!!! Linky please..........

Just found Martin blogging about it here
http://blog.moneysavingexpert.com/2010/11/04/stopping-graduates-repaying-student-loans-early-would-be-a-terrible-mistake/

Still - I can't find anywhere that says students are not going to be able to pay these loans back early

setmefree2

lynzpower wrote: »

I didnt have to pay fees for my undergrad, missed it by a year, but I would not have been happy to pay 9k a year for it, not even 3k stuff like:
lecturers cancelled
lecturer left leaving modules untaught ( key modules too)
very very elderly professors, losing thier thread half way through and so on
not VFM. what I get now ( although modernisation has a lot to do with it) is really first class in terms of the quality of tuition

Full time undergrad - I had about 8 hours taughtr a week
Now PG taught part time- I have 12 hours a week.

Both courses require a phenomenal amount of outside work.

How true! Some Lecturers and institutions are going to have to pull up their socks and learn how to deliver... not that I have been near a Uni for decades;)

setmefree2

lemonjelly wrote: »

A friend is a University lecturer. We have discussed how people attending university have ceased to be students. Now they are consumers. As you state, they expect handouts (& use this as an excuse to be facebooking all lectures whilst on their blackberries/iphones). They complain regulary if the lecturers do not meet their expectations as to what they feel they should be entitled to. Students now see it as something they are paying for, therefore they should get all sorts of add ons to the course, & some even feel that paying for it should guarantee the qualification.

Which is totally right - you're not going to be happy for something that is crap are you?

setmefree2

ninky wrote: »

yes but there is at least a state education system that has steadily been gaining ground on private education.

yes merit is a reason to get a degree - at least it should be. i've benefitted from a state education and also a degree that had no tuition fees. there is no way i could have taken on the levels of debt suggested by these new rules and gone into the career i have now which is very low paying and erratic in the early years.

My son (and many of his friends) have just out classed many in the private sector at GCSE. That has saved us a fortune. And not one tutor either.... clever boy

ultrawomble

Davesnave wrote: »

My other daughter is studying fine art. She would be most amused to learn that her course is relatively easy, compared with a science degree.

She'd be even more amused to learn that her fees cross-subsidise those science degrees.;)

ultrawomble

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

here it's extremely hard to sack an academic for being a rubbish teacher.

If you're a lecturer (or above) at a 'top university', you're invariably employed on the basis of your research profile and the money it brings in rather than your teaching ability.

Davesnave

ultrawomble wrote: »

She'd be even more amused to learn that her fees cross-subsidise those science degrees.;)

If true, then I hope she wouldn't see it in that way, nor put what she does on a pedestal compared with other fields of learning.

I'm not sure if it is true though. It's a dedicated college with brilliant facilities and the staff/student ratio is favourable after the first yearor so. Many can't hack it and drop out; at least they are now paying for the privilege!