Student Loan 2015 Discussion

melancholly

Lokolo wrote: »

I still don't know why universities don't have companies sponsor courses, although it's a bit American to do so, it would help support and keep them alive.

you see i'm uncomfortable with universities being too strongly linked to private companies! i think their independence is important.

melancholly

arsenalbarnie wrote: »

I think they are more concerned with what the place is like, the 'feel' of it etc., courses on offer. One of mine was outlined as an Oxbridge candidate, we went to look round and he said he wouldn't want to go
there even if it was free, it just wasn't for him.

just to add that i looked around some colleges and felt very uncomfortable, but then applied to a different one and loved it. i also didn't meet any of the vile people from the open day when i was there! (although having been at a few unis now, the feel on a single short visit is tricky - almost all unis have such a large selection of accommodation, societies, clubs, sports facilities, music etc etc that everyone can find a niche anywhere - or the counter arguement of there can be selfish housemates and rubbish coursemates anywhere! but maybe with less money these are the first kinds of subsidised activities that will stop being available... who knows!).

WISHIWASRICH_2

Lokolo wrote: »

And thats my point - where will students cut the line? Will a student choose to go to Thames Valley where they may charge £6k, compared to Oxbridge at £9k? I cannot see it having a great impact in the decision making process.

We'd all pay more to go to Oxbridge, that's a given. But when choosing between TVU (now University of West London) and London South Bank, a student would choose the cheapest I think.

WISHIWASRICH_2

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

But does it matter?

For the Tax payer - Hell yeah! First the government will have to borrow less right now. Second, the government will have to write off less in the future. £7.5k is much better deal for all tax payers. Lower would be even better!

For the student - there's probably more chance that it will matter than it won't, so a student will pick the cheapest all other things being equal.

WISHIWASRICH_2

arsenalbarnie wrote: »

If they do doesn't that mean we may see some going to the wall eventually by undercharging?

They are more likely to go to the wall OVERCHARGING. Students will either stop going to uni or go elsewhere.

Unis need to start thinking outside the box. £9k pa is way too much!

It would seem that different VCs view things in different ways?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-13951020

WISHIWASRICH_2

Don't know what other posters think - many of my son's friends seem to be gettng offers from top unis? I'm thinking it might have something to do with the lifting of the AAB quotas?

Anyone got any other anecdotal evidence in this regard?

tyllwyd

WISHIWASRICH wrote: »

We'd all pay more to go to Oxbridge, that's a given. But when choosing between TVU (now University of West London) and London South Bank, a student would choose the cheapest I think.

I agree, there must be plenty of universities where they are roughly equal in terms of reputation, student experience and all the rest. And how many students are going to be chosing universities based on how close they are to the family home, to save on accommodation costs, travel costs etc? That's got to be another pressure with a financial aspect.

kayr_2

WISHIWASRICH wrote: »

Don't know what other posters think - many of my son's friends seem to be gettng offers from top unis? I'm thinking it might have something to do with the lifting of the AAB quotas?

Anyone got any other anecdotal evidence in this regard?

Might just be they have applied to appropriate courses and universities given their AS results and reference. My son got 4 offers straightaway last year (then 1 in January) so I imagine he'd written a satisfactory PS and had applied to places within his reach academically.
Some students don't do very good applications for one reason or another - maybe don't have supportive schools/parents and don't understand the system very well.

The_One_Who

WISHIWASRICH wrote: »

They are more likely to go to the wall OVERCHARGING. Students will either stop going to uni or go elsewhere.

Unis need to start thinking outside the box. £9k pa is way too much!

It would seem that different VCs view things in different ways?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-13951020

£9k isn't too much if the teaching grant has been slashed. I'm sure both SOAS and LSE have had their teaching grants been reduced by 100%, and some others have been reduced by about 80%. Where else are they going to get the money to teach their students? The previous £3k fees were being topped up by the government, but now they aren't getting anything or at least getting very little.

Like Melancholly I am not a fan of the idea of corporate sponsorship of courses, it just doesn't sit right with me.

kayr_2

WISHIWASRICH wrote: »

They are more likely to go to the wall OVERCHARGING. Students will either stop going to uni or go elsewhere.

Unis need to start thinking outside the box. £9k pa is way too much!

It would seem that different VCs view things in different ways?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-13951020

An excerpt from the VC at Cambridge's comments following the decision to set fees at £9K. He then goes on to talk about bursaries etc.

During 2008-9, the University saw its teaching funding from Government decline by more than £6 million. In addition, the Government is now proposing that the existing teaching grant be cut by 80% and that, from 2012, public funding would instead be concentrated on support for the student loan scheme that will underpin the move to higher student fees. Currently, the collegiate University receives total teaching income of £8,300 per student. The proposed increase in fees from the current level to £9,000, for the cohort of students entering in 2012, will barely cover the loss of the HEFCE grant, particularly when the increased costs of financial support and outreach work are taken into account.
The average annual per undergraduate cost in 2010-11 of providing intensive supervision based teaching across the Colleges and the Departments is more than £17,000. This means that the University and the Colleges already have to use other sources of income from, for example, endowments and donations to make the books balance. A fee lower than £9,000, in these circumstances, would significantly damage our ability to sustain the highest quality of undergraduate education.