tuition fees - cap raised to £9k

lynzpower

From 2012-13, interest will be charged on the outstanding balance of student loan, at RPI plus 3%. This is an increase to the current rate of interest, which is linked to RPI or Bank of England Base Rate. During 2010-11 the rate of interest will be 1.5%.

Here it is about the interest rate rise, I think we can trust our freinds at Which? http://www.which.co.uk/news/2010/11/government-sets-student-fees-cap-at-9000----235236/

lynzpower

CPI annual inflation – the Government’s target measure – was 3.1 per cent in September, unchanged from August. Although unchanged overall, at the more detailed level, there were significant upward and downward pressures on CPI annual inflation between August and September

so rpi currently at 31 = 3% 6.1% - imagine that on 40 grand :eek: :eek: SCAREEEEEEEEEEEEEE

am i right in thinking when rpi rises - is that inflation of general prices?

Pont

Does anybody know what happens to existing students? Will their tuition fees (that they signed up for) remain the same for the duration of their course? The whole set-up stinks but it seems doubly unfair if existing students thought that they would be paying £3000ish per year to get their degrees then end up paying up to double (triple) the fees. If this is the case I can see many students dropping out, and therefore having some student debt without gaining the degree.

gingerdad

hopefully this rise will take away all those wasters who !!!! up the wall for 3 years... it seems daft in this country that they were pushing for 50% of the population to get a degree anyway.

People will have to decide if they really need to go to uni or not and maybe it will increase the worth of a degree.

nearlynew

They should have a sliding scale of fees in proportion to the bullsh1tedness of the course.

So, for example, a medical or engineering student pays nothing and at the other end of the scale anyone doing media studies and other cr4p pays the full 9k

sorted.

drc

It's kind of ironic that in the past people went to university to improve their long term economic situation (get a degree and a good job was easier to get). Now it's going to be the opposite - go to unviversity and your economic prospects are basically down the drain as you start your working life with huge debts. I can't imagine that many people will really see the benefit of getting a degree as how many jobs are likely to pay, in the longrun, enough to make up for the cost of university? Better to just get some vocational qualification or go to university abroad. I think the coalition have really shot themselves in the foot with this one.

lynzpower

Pont wrote: »

Does anybody know what happens to existing students? Will their tuition fees (that they signed up for) remain the same for the duration of their course? The whole set-up stinks but it seems doubly unfair if existing students thought that they would be paying £3000ish per year to get their degrees then end up paying up to double (triple) the fees. If this is the case I can see many students dropping out, and therefore having some student debt without gaining the degree.

I am assuming that the fee structure that you signed up for as a student would have to stay the same I signed a contract when I started my course that I would pay X amount and that is what I am contracted to pay. They could try to charge me more but good luck with that, I think it would be major litigation time and i doubt the unis would be able to afford that along with everything else

my uni ( russell group) is going through a major fundraising mission at the moment , i think they are trying to raise 50 million

olly300

lynzpower wrote: »

my uni ( russell group) is going through a major fundraising mission at the moment , i think they are trying to raise 50 million

All universities having been doing massive funding drives.

They are trying to be more like US colleges with the alumni helping to fund students from poorer backgrounds.

As my mates and I universities where Russell group we know who got the money and weren't impressed, as the students who should have been helped were much better at managing their lack of funds.

Cleaver

A couple of my thoughts, and apologies if others have said something similar.

Like a lot of issues, I sit on the fence on this one. If nearly half of our youngsters want to go to uni, often to do 7-hour a week courses for three years then why should the taxpayer pay for it? On the other hand, it sucks because Oxford, Cambridge, Durham, LSE and a whole host of other good unis could charge £15,000 a year for every course and still happily fill every single place with rich students. Seems that there should be some sort of happy medium somwehere in all this.

This leads me to think that won't a logical conclusion of this be enterprising universities starting to radically change the way in which degrees are delivered. Even at £3,000 a year it appears that students are happy with 8 hours of lectures and coming out with a 2:2 in Media Studies. It strikes me that they won't put up with that for £9,000 a year. So surely some enterprising university will come up with an intensive, 40 hour a week degree course, which fully expects you to do 15 hours a week in your own time too, and you could maybe achieve the degree in a year or so. Maybe charge £5,000 or something. An Engineering Degree at Cambridge probably needs to be three years as it's really hard. A degree in Media Relations from Sunderland could probably be done in a third of the time if someone put their mind to it. Maybe this introduction of fees will start bringing about some very different types of degrees?

lynzpower

This leads me to think that won't a logical conclusion of this be enterprising universities starting to radically change the way in which degrees are delivered. Even at £3,000 a year it appears that students are happy with 8 hours of lectures and coming out with a 2:2 in Media Studies. It strikes me that they won't put up with that for £9,000 a year. So surely some enterprising university will come up with an intensive, 40 hour a week degree course, which fully expects you to do 15 hours a week in your own time too, and you could maybe achieve the degree in a year or so. Maybe charge £5,000 or something. An Engineering Degree at Cambridge probably needs to be three years as it's really hard. A degree in Media Relations from Sunderland could probably be done in a third of the time if someone put their mind to it. Maybe this introduction of fees will start bringing about some very different types of d

egrees?

Interesting

I was at a ruseell group for my undergrad and now at a RG for my postgrad

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.

Why do people think that some courses that need minimum amount of tuition need less work all round? Ie the 8 hours is all you do. or that you think that some courses less "worthy" so clearly they must need a lot less work overall. Ie you can get a degree in a year. Well no, you can get the tuition over adn done with in a year but you still need 6 months for a dissertation and the rest of the research.

Even the OU cant manage that ( and have been an OU student myself as well) they have a limit on how many modules you are able to do in a year and you are not allowed to enrol for modules whilst you are registered at another institution ( I wanted to finish my second degree whilst undertaking my Masters)