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

Lokolo

Aless wrote: »

To be honest I care far more about people who should go to oxbridge or other taxing unis for taxing courses than a mass of students doing irrelevant degrees at poor universities - the latter should not be going to uni and they should not be persuaded from not going by high fees they should be persuaded out of going because there are viable alternatives. Unfortunately there are not viable alternatives for most young people at the moment and that is the problem. The policy is incoherent and that is a betrayal of young people.

Even if the latter end up contributing more to society than the former?

ghostmadlittlemiss

The_One_Who wrote: »

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.

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.


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.

Ok, point taken, universities need more money. The problem with increasing student loans though is that it turns universities into a business interested in making profits off its students rather then an institution of learning. Though maybe I'm being naive suggesting that universities were ever the latter in the first place. But if universities are now expected to be self-supporting off the loans of the students attending, then that will mean that they try to take on more students than they can realistically cope with in order to make more money. Yes, in the long term, more money will mean better and larger facilities but in the short term, it will mean over-crowding and a poorer learning enviroment for all. Which will also mean lower results and less likelyhood of being able to attract more students in order to get the money to build these new facilities. Not to mention trying to get planning permission when you're renting from the Ducy of Cornwall. You don't even want to know how long it took to get the driveway expanded so two buses could pass each other with more than 1cm room between them. :mad:

Hellz85 wrote: »

Hi Kayleigh

We did the same degree! I see that on the thisisbath site that it will cost more to go to Bath Spa that Bath Uni! I'm sure you'll agree that this is not value for money! We had lectures/seminars that couldn't go ahead because there weren't enough rooms, even though you could clearly see there were- so much for admin staff. I enjoyed the course itself. The lecturers in SofR were very good but I started my degree majoring in music which I dropped because it was so poor and should never be called a degree. I also planned to be a teacher but due to the lack of support from the schools in Bath and the surrounding areas I chose a different path. Luckily I'm now in a job that I love.

I didn't enjoy 'university life' but by going I met my partner and I've now lived in Bath for 6 years. Hey, only another 6 years and 9 months until I am free of the student debt! Good luck with getting placements in nearby schools.

Helen

You're kidding me?! More to go to Bath Spa! :rotfl: It's no laughing matter, I know, but my motto in life is, "You have to laugh, or you'll cry." I know what you mean about placements, one of my friends is doing primary and her placement's in Trowbridge! I barely see her anymore, she's rushed off her feet with the workload, never mind the commute. Luckly, I've managed to get a placement in Cambridge, accomodation provided, with a school run by a charity I did a skydive for. So yes, I had to throw myself out of a plane to get a decent placement! :rotfl:
Kayleigh

The_One_Who

SurfBowlSC wrote: »

The key is that only a small percentage of students will be charged the full 9k and they will be the ones from the more afluent backgrounds, with parents who can probably afford to support poor little Tarquin while he gets hammered every evening and "studies" with a hangover.

Everyone else will still get some form of subisdy. No doubt the government will still !!!! that up in the same way as the child tax credit shambles though.

Just as a thought, maybe it should be the Art, Media, Klingon courses that are the higher end of the fee scale in order to stop them becoming an excuse for not going out and getting a job.

The fees you pay aren't related to the wealth of your family, but to the degree itself. Plenty of students from poorer backgrounds are doing these sorts of courses (like medicine and engineering and science) and will continue to do so.

Aless wrote: »

To all those that say to the students get a job, my university (which I think is the joint highest rated in the country) did not and does not allow students to work during term time and I know it is not the only one. As I said it is one of the best in the world, probably top five and it is also the university that surveys have said students drink the most at. Imagine that, lots of clever hard working students that go out once or twice a week during term time and drink a lot, how deplorable! It clearly means they are no good wasters. That will never amount to anything, oh except maybe the leaders of all the main political parties, head of plcs, etc etc.

Your university is also one of the richest in the UK and has a lot, lot more money available to help out students who need it. I think that might be mainly college based, but there may well be a central fund as well. Terms are a lot shorter and although a lot of courses give work to do over the holidays, it is possible for those students to work during the long holidays.

Aless wrote: »

You are right, tt is out of touch with most students because I went to one of the best universities in the country and the world. I can assure you those institutions are full of children from affluent families paying their children's fees. My basic belief is that elite universities of this country should not be limited to children of affluent families but it should be open to those with talent.

No student is going to be barred from Oxford, Cambridge or any other institution. There are loans available to those who want or need them.

Aless

bestpud wrote: »

I disagree with that.

You are being elitist now.

There is more to HE than Oxbridge. True HE has been watered down but there are still many students working towards valuable degrees at other universities and doing paid work alongside.

Yes there are many students who should not be at university but it is wrong to suggest only those who make the top few universities are doing a worthwhile degree.

There is a lot wrong with HE at the moment but that doesn't mean we should disregard the majority of students in favour of a minority who (let's face it) have had better life chances before HE.

I have said several times on this thread that I think 50% of people going to uni is not a good thing. That is elitist and I have no qualms about that. Selection on ability and merit elitist and I think that is right. What I do not think has a role to play is how much money your family has.

Aless

The_One_Who wrote: »

The fees you pay aren't related to the wealth of your family, but to the degree itself. Plenty of students from poorer backgrounds are doing these sorts of courses (like medicine and engineering and science) and will continue to do so.



Your university is also one of the richest in the UK and has a lot, lot more money available to help out students who need it. I think that might be mainly college based, but there may well be a central fund as well. Terms are a lot shorter and although a lot of courses give work to do over the holidays, it is possible for those students to work during the long holidays.



No student is going to be barred from Oxford, Cambridge or any other institution. There are loans available to those who want or need them.

Taking your points in turn it is harder to find work for a couple of weeks every few months than a long term role. Also if you can't work during term time there are less weeks in which you can earn but I am not saying they cannot do any part time jobs, just pointing out the difficulties.

I have said before that I think the fees put some people from poorer families off. If you do not agree with that point, that is your opinion and debating it will not get anywhere as my opinion is completely the opposite.

Aless

Lokolo wrote: »

Even if the latter end up contributing more to society than the former?

Not sure what you mean by contribute, in wealth or social terms? Also are you asking because you think that is true or as an abstract theory?

Aless

bestpud wrote: »

Your experience is not the norm.

I do not know of one student whose parents did pay the fee and working is accepted in most universities.

The grants mentioned are student finance grants and you do not need to be at the free schools meals level to receive a full funding package from student finance.

If anything, it is students from wealthier backgrounds who have more to moan about when it comes to grants!

Sorry to say this but you are showing ignorance of the current system and your experience is a bit out of touch with that of most students.

I am not sure why you think your ancedotal experience is any better than anybody else's ancedotal experience. I provide my experience as a counter to yours and I would think both are equally valid.

I have not heard anyone else mention that there are wide spread grants available. I know the NHS often provides them for related courses but if there is a big part of this plan I am missing I would be interested to know what it is.

melancholly

blue_monkey wrote: »

And what sort of budget was that? And how many nights. Because surely Grants are not there to pay for cheap nights of boozing?
QUOTE]
just lost a post - but was basically trying to politely tell you where to go with your judgemental attitude. i worked in a bar 1/2 nights a week and did sport 3/4.... so didn't have long left to waste away getting drunk (had work to do too!). in a student bar £5 would easily do a night; the money for it coming from working during term time and in every holiday (including christmas day and new years day since i needed the money). not every student has access to work like that though - even less so now with a difficult job market.

you are really rude. how about you treat people like individuals rather than taking a nasty stereotype and applying to everyone who ever studied (i mean, what about all the muslim students in uk universities; i'm fairly sure that they don't spend all their money on alcohol!). you are massively ignorant about this and every post you make proves this a little bit more.

wiggywoo2

I think Tescos will be taking over the university system soon. Surely this is the first step to HE being privatized. Open 24/7, 3 lectures per day. Student discount on food. Part time work available. Free uniform provided. Double points for the upper classes.
By the way. I think it would be fairer to claw back £6000 to £9000 back from all previous graduates. Than to place the financial B**ls of the country onto future students only.

So all you guys and girls sitting pretty behind you large oak desks, you've all got a debt to pay back too. All the CEO out there all the people who were given grants to study. Get your hands in your pocket because their comming to get you. (wish)

Gunderful

This is very tricky argument and to be honest I am sat on the fence. On one hand the government cannot support the levels of funding for universities and therefore need to find funds from elsewhere, there is also a strong argument that the tax payer should not be paying for a student's education. On the other hand the economy and population in general benefits from students with a university education.

I think the following will happen:
- Some of dodgy universities offering joke degrees will see number of students decline and therefore close, which I think is a good thing.
- Universities will struggle to justify charging £9k a year, as this will put off a large number of the best students - it will be a balancing act, in reality fees will be less.
- A university education will become more a privilige, rather than a right, with a smaller percentage of the population going.
- More working class students going to university with the increase in grants.

All of which is a good thing.

I do enjoy the irony of pictures of students splashed over the front of the newspapers doing something illegal (e.g. smashing windows), when such pictures will permanently damage any chance of employment in the future making the whole issue of their university education somewhat irrelevant!