MSE News: Tuition fees to hit £9,000 as Government wins vote

wiggywoo2

I'm with you on that one. Instead of looking to see where large savings can be made within the system at present. It is a typical knee jerk reaction to the financial situation that we all face in this country today.
There will be plenty of people within the universities, lecturers students admin staff who know full well where massive cuts could be made. Without the loss of any standards.
Just like any big organisation really you just have to ask the people who work within the system for views and opinions.
Unfortunatly this again has not been done.
So, as demonstrated on this site. Their are people who look towards the solution offered as the only way out and fail to look further.
The government have told them that this is the only solution and they believe it.

michaelvintner

Good, glad the governement won the vote. I never went to university being a !!!! poor working class person I never had the time.

If the students protesting actually bothered listening to what the government are saying they would realise that for the less well off they will actually pay less.

Nick Clegg has won my backing he has actually shown that he has a pair of bol*ocks.

wiggywoo2

xanthe wrote: »

The fee would be an investment in their future career. Young people can decide either leave school and get a guaranteed £6 an hour and work your way up, or risk carrying a large debt for a possible higher salary and the ability to reach a higher position.

Where did you see that guarantee? I'd get your money back.
I know a fair few that would be pleased of £6.00ph

SG_Guy

1. Higher Education is a privilege, not a right. Primary and secondary education, yes, but not higher education. Why?
A. The private returns to an individual from a university education are always and everywhere higher than the returns to society i.e. the individual benefits more from a university education than society. This is even after taking into account higher taxes that university graduates pay over their lifetime and also takes into account that society benefits from a better skilled workforce. The results from many studies show this to be true across different countries and different time periods.
B. Therefore, since the individual benefits more than society, it is only logical that the individual contributes more to his or her higher education than society i.e. other tax payers.

2. Education is not, and never will be, free. There is a huge cost to education. The real debate is who pays (more) for it: the university graduate or society?
A. How can it be equitable that tax payers, including many who do not have a degree, fund to a higher proportion the cost of a university education for the would-be graduate?

3. The graduate tax is an unworkable idea on so many levels despite what the NUS says.
A. How would the tax be collected from graduates who work overseas after graduation, and, similarly, how would the tax be collected from overseas students who return to their home countries?
B. A graduate tax would be paid to the Treasury directly, not to the university. This matters for the simple reason that it breaks the direct link between doing a university course and paying the provider directly in a way that lets the student be heard and in a way that reflects the value of the course (see next point below).
C. A graduate tax is also grossly inefficient because it will claw back from high-earning graduates more than they would have paid for their university course.

4. Many comments here have alluded to wasteful spending of loans and grants by students. Without tarring everyone with the same brush, this clearly does not apply to all students or even the majority. However, the anecdotal evidence does strongly suggest that at least some students would save a lot of money by not taking drugs and drinking excessively, etc. Throw in spending on unnecessary gadgets. Entertainment and relaxation yes; drunken behaviour and drugs, absolutely not. On the other hand, kudos to those students who spend wisely and take on part-time jobs.

5. Current proposals mean all full-time students do not pay upfront and only pay back once their income is above a certain threshold. Furthermore, lower earning graduates would pay less under the proposals than under the existing system.

6. Most students would not be deterred by higher fees. Fact: tuition fees have gone from zero to £1,000 to £3,250 and demand for higher education has never been more robust.
People instinctively and intuitively know the value of a degree and the vast majority will not be put off by higher fees especially when *no* upfront payment is needed.

The relaxing of the cap on university fees was always going to be inevitable given the cost of providing higher education and the need to attract good faculty. Don't forget the UK is competing with other well-established 'education exporters' i.e. the US, Australia and, increasingly, many excellent universities in Asia.

wiggywoo2

Hmm.
No up front fees. Sounds like a dodgy credit card deal to me.

I think that most young people today realise that its quite difficult to get a job without a degree.

Even though fees have gone up university places are sought after because of the above reason.

How far do you think that students will go (financial debt) before they stop going? £10k £20k £30k per year??

I think you are underestimating the value to society that graduates have.

I agree that they dont do themselves any favours by wasting money on booze and fags/drugs. As you say though there are many that do not follow that path.

ghostmadlittlemiss

Hellz85 wrote: »

The part that angers me is the tuition itself. The Uni I went to (Bath Spa) will probably be charging £6700 a year under the new fees. By the 3rd year tuition went down to 5 hours a week. At the time I think the fees were £1000-£1500. £6700 for 5 hours tuition a week?! I can't remember how many weeks there were in the year but for the sake of this we'll call it 30. That's about £45 per lecture/seminar!?! That doesn't take into account lectures being cancelled. Education should be of value- not a complete rip off!

Another Bath Spa student! Hello. I'm 3rd year, Religious Studies. And before the 'anti-Mickey' lot chip in here, I'm planning to become a teacher. Last time I checked, that was a job that was valuable to society.

The_One_Who wrote: »

You university doesn't have a gym? It must have clubs and societies, which will no doubt receive funding from the university.

At my library (one of the best academic libraries in the country) a normal fine is 5p/day. Annual access to a single electronic journal is thousands. You don't need to be a university student to work out that fines aren't going to cut it. What about the lighting and heating in there? Or the energy (and maintenance) costs of running the computers and the printers and photocopiers? What about staff costs?

You never had a heated lecture theatre? You should complain about that. What about lights? Must have had them. What about the lecturer who has had to fill in a book's worth of paperwork just to get the course approved, never mind everything needed to prepare it? Or the time spent marking coursework and exams? The admin people responsible for ensuring the department can actually run need paid, and so do the cleaners and caretakers.

We have a gym now, they built it last year in a room on the 1st floor of the SU, meaning we lost out on the usual society meeting place. It costs £100 a year if paid up front and £30 a month if paid monthly. Societies get £50 off the SU in their 1st year and either £50 or 50% of the current year's membership fees, whichever is the bigger amount. Membership fees are usually between £2 to £5 a year and the average society has about 20 members. That gives them £150 a year to run all activities, hire speakers, equipment, the mini-bus, ect. The Christian Union is probably the only society on campus who can run entirely off SU funds, the rest of us fundraise by hiring the SU for the night for an event and getting the money off the door. Sports teams go out and get sponsorship off local businesses. So, yes, societies get money off the SU, the SU then gets their money back many times over from bar revenue from society evenings. Source - I'm treasurer of the Bath Spa University Pagan Society, the one in charge of making sure we have the money to keep running.

Yes, we have lights. Sometimes we even have heating. The library has been running perfectly well on the fees we already pay for many years and is unable to expand any more as it's in a listed building. So out of the new fees, maybe we'll get more electronic journal access and have our lectures continue to tell us to remember to use the books as well. Actually, yes, I see the benefits of higher fees now: less students. No more fighting over library books when there's 3 books between 50 students and students finishing at 5pm might actually get home by bus before 7pm without having to stand for an hour in conditions that make the London Tube at rush hour look roomy. :mad: Plus, the Tube doesn't lurch sharply to a halt every 2 metres, sending everyone standing up flying forward like a upright mexican wave. Very funny to watch from the pavement, not so funny to be in.

Maybe I'm just having a rant here instead of making a point. I just feel bad for everyone on the ladder under me and hearing people who think we're all taking 'Mickey Mouse' degrees because their uni had "one of the best academic libraries in the country" and that we should just kick down the ladder on everyone below us isn't helping. Yes, we all understand how repayment works on here but we're the choir. The average Joe/Joanne on the street doesn't and they or their children may now be put off bettering themselves by seeing the higher loans as an hurdle they can't jump. But the higher loans are happening, so I guess we just have to educate those people better now.
Kayleigh

melancholly

misskool wrote: »

Student teaching counts for surprisingly little of a university funding. They would be rather more pleased with fewer subsidised (yes, even at £9000 it's still being subsidised) and more full fee paying students with no penalties.

Lecturers are not really judged on how well they teach, more on how much research they do and how much money they pull in.

but don't forget that our new secretary of state complained that unis focussed on research, saying that they'd got it wrong.... after making most uni funding dependent on research outcomes!

you know, i don't even care any more what the details are... early payment fees, above inflation rates of interest, all of those details that get missed out when they make their speeches. it's another betrayal by a political party..... the lib dems courted the student vote by saying they would never do this.... now they have. many of us will never forgive labour for doing the same thing. it's always a sad day for everyone when politicians get away with lying..... no matter what anyone thinks about the proposals (there is no 'good' solution to the situation anyway!), it shows politicians in a terrible light.

this isn't about the moneysaving in the short term - it's about cutting a bloated sector. if they could be honest about it, that would help!

RichPyke

you want it you pay for it, simple as that. Justify any other reason!

The cost isn't what the problem is, it's how you pay it back! Give students a burden free, or low burden loan, enough to cover fees and living costs, not payable until they reach an earnings threshold (set for each area of the country, not blanket coverage) and even then, with no or low interest.

Now give justified arguments against that. I would love for someone to have a valid and justified argument against why someone should pay for a choice they wish to take!

Look at it another way. One day training courses for your job are £200 upwards. That's £1,000 a week. If the academic year is 39 week (as I work it out, this may be wrong) that's £39,000. They should think themselves lucky they aren't paying £200 a day for learning!

The_One_Who

ghostmadlittlemiss wrote: »

We have a gym now, they built it last year in a room on the 1st floor of the SU, meaning we lost out on the usual society meeting place. It costs £100 a year if paid up front and £30 a month if paid monthly. Societies get £50 off the SU in their 1st year and either £50 or 50% of the current year's membership fees, whichever is the bigger amount. Membership fees are usually between £2 to £5 a year and the average society has about 20 members. That gives them £150 a year to run all activities, hire speakers, equipment, the mini-bus, ect. The Christian Union is probably the only society on campus who can run entirely off SU funds, the rest of us fundraise by hiring the SU for the night for an event and getting the money off the door. Sports teams go out and get sponsorship off local businesses. So, yes, societies get money off the SU, the SU then gets their money back many times over from bar revenue from society evenings. Source - I'm treasurer of the Bath Spa University Pagan Society, the one in charge of making sure we have the money to keep running.

My point was that there needs to be money to run these things, and money does not magic itself out of thin air. I only have experience of my own university.

Yes, we have lights. Sometimes we even have heating. The library has been running perfectly well on the fees we already pay for many years and is unable to expand any more as it's in a listed building. So out of the new fees, maybe we'll get more electronic journal access and have our lectures continue to tell us to remember to use the books as well. Actually, yes, I see the benefits of higher fees now: less students. No more fighting over library books when there's 3 books between 50 students

Libraries are something that needs regular costs, journals cost thousands, staff costs, maintenance costs. Books are about the only one-off cost there is for them. If you library wants to expand then there will need to be a new building, and they don't come cheap.

If you have an issue with getting books then take it to the librarians. Suggest different ways of doing things, perhaps having reference-only sections or restricted loan material.

Maybe I'm just having a rant here instead of making a point. I just feel bad for everyone on the ladder under me and hearing people who think we're all taking 'Mickey Mouse' degrees because their uni had "one of the best academic libraries in the country" and that we should just kick down the ladder on everyone below us isn't helping. Yes, we all understand how repayment works on here but we're the choir. The average Joe/Joanne on the street doesn't and they or their children may now be put off bettering themselves by seeing the higher loans as an hurdle they can't jump. But the higher loans are happening, so I guess we just have to educate those people better now.
Kayleigh

Please, do tell me where I have said that you (or anyone) is taking a 'Mickey Mouse degree' or insinuated that they are lesser people for studying it. I mentioned that my library is one of the best because it obviously impacts on how much it costs to exist. My library also had problems with the number of books per student wanting one, and that problem exists in every library (public as well) all around the world.

laughingboy

How will the new repayment structure affect previous students?

Currently it's 9% of any above £15000 and 25 years to pay it back. Will this now change to 9% of everything above £21000 and 30 years for graduates? (I graduated in 2007)

This seems grossly unfair to (potentially) retrospectively change loan conditions. If they can change it now what's to stop it being changed again in the future? I can see this in the pipeline...

" we will now increase the interest rate ..."
" student loans will never be written off ..."
" we will now take it from your pension ..."