Student Loans 2012

setmefree2

melancholly wrote: »

i think anything that prolongs this 'up in the air' stage is a bad thing.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-12577227

Government announces delay to higher education plans



The government is to delay the publication of its plans to reform higher education in England, partly so that it can take into account what fees universities are likely to charge.
The Higher Education White Paper was due to be published by March 2011.
But universities minister David Willetts said he was delaying it in part to see how "price-setting works this spring".

Mr Willetts said: "We have decided to take more time on developing the White Paper - in part to test proposals more thoroughly among the sector, student and other experts; in part to learn from how price-setting works this spring".
A spokesman for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills said fee levels, and where and what students decided to study would influence how much money was available for universities.
He said the White Paper, which will set out the wider reforms to the university sector, was now likely to be published before June.
Universities have to submit their draft access agreements - their commitments on measures to help recruit disadvantaged students - to the Office for Fair Access in April.
These will then be finalised with the regulator and published in July.

And he confirmed that he would be inviting debate on the issue of whether universities would be allowed to accept additional self-funding students.
These are students who pay for their courses themselves without recourse to the government package of fees and loans.
He said: "What are the pros and cons of universities being able to recruit additional students off quota at no cost to public funds, and can that be done in a ...socially progressive way?"

I read that 20% of students don't take loans (source - The Times). I have no idea if this figure is correct. Presumably this will benefit the "top" Unis as they take most students from fee paying schools.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-12577227

setmefree2

More on Student Charters in the Telegraph

Under the plans for a student charter, universities will have to offer a “set of rights” for each course detailing exactly how many teaching hours will be provided each week or month, and even which academics will supervise students.
Teenagers will also be told how much work they will be expected to complete and how quickly their queries or concerns will be addressed. In return, students will have to agree to attend classes and to abide by certain standards of academic performance and behaviour.
The source added: “Students will have a set of rights. They will be consumers. By the time someone is paying upwards of £6,000 a year, it is right that consumer protection laws apply.
“We want the charters to be legally enforceable with the courts intervening if necessary to ensure proper attention is paid by universities to student rights. The details are being worked out.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8346468/Universities-need-student-charters-to-justify-top-fees.html

setmefree2

“There are also other potential options for freeing up the controls on numbers, which we want to debate with you and through the White Paper. What are the pros and cons of universities being able to recruit additional students off quota, at no cost to public funds, and can that be done in a needs-blind, socially progressive way?

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=415322&c=1


Can this be done in a socially progressive way?

As long as Unis don't make lower A Level offers to self-funding students than students taking loans from the government does it really matter? Or will it make it more likely that you will get an offer if you are a self paying student which would be unfair?

setmefree2

More on quotas in the FT

The main obstacle is one of the processes by which the government controls university costs – so-called “number control”.Universities are allocated a quota of places for undergraduates. This allows the government to cap total student numbers, and so control costs. But number control restricts competition by impeding the growth of popular courses.
Mr Willetts said that, because of the need for cost control, it was “simply not possible to remove all controls [on student numbers] at this stage.”
He suggested instead a “core and margin” model, under which each institution would be given a “core” allocation of places – fewer than they now receive. The remaining places would be placed into a central reserve.
Institutions, including new providers, could then enter a competition to claim places from this pot. The auction could then require them to demonstrate demand for their courses, letting popular institutions grow at the expense of unpopular ones. The government could use the process to cut the number of places at institutions that have raised fees far, yet have courses not deemed to be of a high quality.
Mr Willetts also suggested a new levy. Institutions would be allowed to exceed their quotas, if they paid a fee. This would recompense the Treasury for additional student loan and maintenance costs.

More on Private Providers

More private companies and community colleges will be allowed into the UK university system under plans to inject competition into the sector and keep tuition fees in check, a minister has revealed.David Willetts, universities minister, told the Universities UK conference that he was considering mechanisms to allow new providers, as well as encouraging more competition among existing ones.

Companies expected to enter the higher education market include Pearson, the information and education company that owns the Financial Times.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4f0806f0-4116-11e0-bf62-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1F39XVdwb

setmefree2

David Willetts, the higher education minister, said yesterday that local colleges or new private companies should be able to teach degree courses, with students sitting the same exams as those studying at leading universities. It is hoped that the new educational providers will offer cheaper degree courses, but students will obtain the same qualification.

The minister also set out his vision of students not having to study at the university which eventually awards them a degree: "Over the past 50 years, we have created a system which says that teaching students and awarding degrees must be done by the same institution. The growth of higher education in England between 1850 and 1950 was based on a very different model. Degrees were awarded by the University of London for the South, and the original proposal was for Manchester to do the same for the North. New entities were able to set up as colleges teaching students for the external degrees of those institutions. That system had great merits."

He added: "We have reached the position where the system makes such a model pretty much impossible today. [But] they should, once again, be widely available across Britain."

The Government will publish a White Paper setting out other higher education reforms, including allowing students to study away from the university which will award their degree, in the coming weeks.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8349014/Students-could-earn-university-degrees-without-studying-there.html

Oldernotwiser

So sad to see a once great educational system dismantled before our eyes. Particularly sad to see someone affected by this gloating over it.

melancholly

the government should not now be trying to work out what fees will be reasonable for unis to charge. they should have done this BEFORE setting up the new system. whether or not anyone thinks the fees are a good idea, this is an example of how to completely mess up introducing a system by not bothering to do any research in advance. it's embarassing! it's not like the tories had years in opposition to think this up properly or anything..... (the student charter information is all there already in any prospectus. it will not provide anything new and is a very poor attempt for willett's to look like he's all about the students!)

setmefree2

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

So sad to see a once great educational system dismantled before our eyes. Particularly sad to see someone affected by this gloating over it.

Gloating? I've no idea how you've reached that conclusion. I'm just trying to understand the facts and trying to work out how much it's all going to cost me and my family.

I'm so sorry you have a problem with that.

Did you vote for the coalition by any chance?

Oldernotwiser

setmefree2 wrote: »

Gloating? I've no idea how you've reached that conclusion. I'm just trying to understand the facts and trying to work out how much it's all going to cost me and my family.

I'm so sorry you have a problem with that.

Did you vote for the coalition by any chance? I'm just wondering why you keep attacking me that's all. Maybe you feel guilty?

Vote for the coalition - you must be joking!

Neither do I keep attacking you, I just disagree strongly with all you seem to be advocating.

I'm looking at what it's going to cost the HE system and the country and I don't mean in financial terms either; that's the least important aspect of the situation.

wintersunshine

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Particularly sad to see someone affected by this gloating over it.

Why shouldn't setmefree2 be happy that her kids are going to end up in less debt? This is a money saving web site and this is a "STUDENT" money saving board.

You seem to forget that this is not a board for members of NATFHE! Wanting students to get loaded with debt doesn't seem to fit in with MSE's ethos.