MSE News: £6,000 or £9,000 uni fees? Is it an irrelevant decision?

tyllwyd

Occam/s_Razor wrote: »

I think you need to re-think the bolded bit again.

there is every incentive, as a university is not guaranteed a full quota of applicants if they do not provide value for money.

i.e. people won't apply to the crappy places, and that's probably a good thing. the real damage of people doing applied economic media studies through interpretative dance at the University of East Anglia is that it falsely raises expectations, incurs significant debt, and wastes 3 years of their lives.

we do not want people to do these fluffy crappy degrees, and if a university expects people to pay £30K for a degree it better deliver.

Who is 'we'? I personally don't think its my business to dictate what degree other people choose to study. Are you saying it damages society as a whole - if so, why does the government not just legislate to get rid of the 'fluffy crappy' degrees?

The whole argument of Martin's article is that you don't need to look for value for money in a degree course because chances are you won't ever pay it back before the 30 years are up, so you should just apply to the course you like best and resign yourself to paying what is effectively a graduate tax.

Now that it is clear that the idea of universities completing by setting different levels of fees isn't working, the government is panicking and trying to impose new rules on universities to get what it wants, but it still remains that the original idea of competition between universities on fees didn't turn out the way it was intended to.

Oldernotwiser

Occam/s_Razor wrote: »

the real damage of people doing applied economic media studies through interpretative dance at the University of East Anglia is that it falsely raises expectations, incurs significant debt, and wastes 3 years of their lives.

Whilst I appreciate that you're being humorous to make a point, it's worth pointing out that UEA is a respected, established university.

Occams_Razor_2

tyllwyd wrote: »

Who is 'we'? I personally don't think its my business to dictate what degree other people choose to study. Are you saying it damages society as a whole - if so, why does the government not just legislate to get rid of the 'fluffy crappy' degrees?

they have. what do you think this legislation is really about?

there is a reason some of the crappy former polytechnics are screaming, this is death by market forces.

The whole argument of Martin's article is that you don't need to look for value for money in a degree course because chances are you won't ever pay it back before the 30 years are up, so you should just apply to the course you like best and resign yourself to paying what is effectively a graduate tax.

well that's a stupid point if we are being kind, worse if not. you should do the course you want, and not make economic choices because its 3 years of your life.

its not the cost, its what you get. an elephant is dear at a pound if you wanted a pint a milk.

Now that it is clear that the idea of universities completing by setting different levels of fees isn't working, the government is panicking and trying to impose new rules on universities to get what it wants, but it still remains that the original idea of competition between universities on fees didn't turn out the way it was intended to.

I don't think you've really understood what's going on here.

tyllwyd

Occam/s_Razor wrote: »

they have. what do you think this legislation is really about?

there is a reason some of the crappy former polytechnics are screaming, this is death by market forces.

But if they wanted market forces, why bring in some kind of hybrid loan/graduate tax scheme that muddies the waters?

Occam/s_Razor wrote: »

well that's a stupid point if we are being kind, worse if not. you should do the course you want, and not make economic choices because its 3 years of your life.

its not the cost, its what you get. an elephant is dear at a pound if you wanted a pint a milk.

Sorry, I don't understand what you are saying. What do you mean 'not make economic choices because its 3 years of your life'? How is that different to 'you should apply to the course you like best and resign yourself to paying ... a graduate tax'?

Occam/s_Razor wrote: »

I don't think you've really understood what's going on here.

No, I'm OK with it thanks.

Occams_Razor_2

tyllwyd wrote: »

But if they wanted market forces, why bring in some kind of hybrid loan/graduate tax scheme that muddies the waters?

gosh, is this really so difficult? and if it is, you might want to do more listening than talking.

Both parties privately admit that the new labour scheme to get 50% of kids into universities was a mistake. not that many people are suited, and more importantly it distracts very worthy candidates away from technical fields where they would be better off.

however in order to achieve this 50% many technical colleges were allowed to convert into universities, and we've seen the dumbing down of A levels to go in concert with this.

no matter, we are where we are. too many universities, too much funding, poor standards in many, and this spectre of social mobility looming.

neither party can just abolish this program, as it would be seen as limiting social mobility which is political suicide and on the other hand the current state of play needs to change too.

so how would you go about being seen to be supportive of raising standards, being fiscally responsible, and trying to unwind years of interpretative media dance studies courses that are just as expensive to fund as pure sciences?

this is designed to discourage people from wasting 3 years of their lives, and incurring debt and obligations on the public purse for courses that will provide no tangible benefit to them at all.

whether you can see this or not, won't change the facts of the situation.

tyllwyd

Occam/s_Razor wrote: »

...this is designed to discourage people from wasting 3 years of their lives, and incurring debt and obligations on the public purse for courses that will provide no tangible benefit to them at all.

whether you can see this or not, won't change the facts of the situation.

I see your argument, but I can't see how the current set up achieves what you say it is designed to do. Since average tution fees are above £8K, there is very little difference to students in the cost of studying interpretive dance at a former poly compared to studying science at Oxford. OK, an Oxford science graduate is likely to earn more over their lifetime than a dance student, but that was always the case, so that's no change from before. If the dance student goes on to have a low paying career, their monthly payments stay low, their debt gets written off after 30 years and they pay back less in total than the high-earning Oxford graduate - so the state is still subsidising their dance studies.

If you want to get rid of courses you don't like, and close down institutions you don't like, just do it - much cheaper and more effective than changing the tution fees. And since it would be a short sharp shock, probably much less damaging to the government over the long term than this tuition fees argument rumbling on and on and on.

melancholly

tyllwyd wrote: »

If you want to get rid of courses you don't like, and close down institutions you don't like, just do it - much cheaper and more effective than changing the tution fees. And since it would be a short sharp shock, probably much less damaging to the government over the long term than this tuition fees argument rumbling on and on and on.

i couldn't agree more. making it all about the cost also puts the science departments under more pressure since they are more expensive courses to run. this policy could do more damage to STEM subjects than 'fluffy' ones, which seems like a catastrophically stupid long term plan. i think humanities subjects remain important, btw, but i think losing engineering and science courses would be a point of no return.

one of the most overlooked aspects of the new plans are how it relates to postgraduate study. that all seems to be ignored. how will we be sure that we can still train the future greats in all aspects of academic study..... and isn't that something we really should want to know about?

Oldernotwiser

Occam/s_Razor wrote: »

gosh, is this really so difficult? and if it is, you might want to do more listening than talking.

Both parties privately admit that the new labour scheme to get 50% of kids into universities was a mistake. not that many people are suited, and more importantly it distracts very worthy candidates away from technical fields where they would be better off.

however in order to achieve this 50% many technical colleges were allowed to convert into universities, and we've seen the dumbing down of A levels to go in concert with this.

no matter, we are where we are. too many universities, too much funding, poor standards in many, and this spectre of social mobility looming.

neither party can just abolish this program, as it would be seen as limiting social mobility which is political suicide and on the other hand the current state of play needs to change too.

so how would you go about being seen to be supportive of raising standards, being fiscally responsible, and trying to unwind years of interpretative media dance studies courses that are just as expensive to fund as pure sciences?

this is designed to discourage people from wasting 3 years of their lives, and incurring debt and obligations on the public purse for courses that will provide no tangible benefit to them at all.

whether you can see this or not, won't change the facts of the situation.

I like your thinking but I don't think that politicians are that bright to be able to come up with such a scheme deliberately.

fuglyjowls

tyllwyd wrote: »

It depends a lot on how much you he will need to borrow, and how quickly you think he will pay it off.

If he will still need to borrow a substantial amount, you could argue that since he will be paying anyway, he may as well borrow as much as possible with the plan that anything left at the end of 30 years will be written off.

If you are worried about his income in his 20s and 30s, before the loan is paid off he will be paying the same monthly amount whether he borrows £2000 or £50000, so it would make more sense to pay the money into his mortgage to bring that payment down.

Longer term, it depends whether he is comfortable with the payment terms of the student finance scheme, whether he is happy with the projections of the total amount he might pay back compared to what he might pay on a mortgage. It's totally impossible to make a straight comparison of the two figures because there are so many variables in the student finance scheme.

As I understand it, Martin's advice is that parents shouldn't try to help their children with fees, let them borrow it all on the student finance scheme and keep your money for yourself.

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/family/student-loans-tuition-fees-changes#17

"The reason I stress the tax concept is because many parents wrestle with 'how will I pay for my child to go to university?' and then risk their own financial solvency and security to do so.

Let me be clinical for a moment: it could sound callous but you need to decide whether paying for it really is your responsibility.

The system is set up that the cost is met by the beneficiary of the education - your child. When this is referred to as a 'loan' many parents feel guilty and become desperate to avoid their child getting into this debt, even though they may not need to repay it.

Yet if we'd called this system a graduate tax, would you still feel compelled to prevent your child paying a higher tax rate? Of course there is a balance to be had but it's worth thinking this through to judge your own reaction."

Thanks so much for clarifying that - it's what I was thinking but it's good to get it confirmed.

The_One_Who

Occam/s_Razor wrote: »

there is every incentive, as a university is not guaranteed a full quota of applicants if they do not provide value for money.

i.e. people won't apply to the crappy places, and that's probably a good thing.

It's not quite as simple as that. There are a lot of good courses/departments at not-so-brilliant universities, and conversely there are a lot of universities filling their courses on brand-name alone.

melancholly wrote: »

i couldn't agree more. making it all about the cost also puts the science departments under more pressure since they are more expensive courses to run. this policy could do more damage to STEM subjects than 'fluffy' ones, which seems like a catastrophically stupid long term plan. i think humanities subjects remain important, btw, but i think losing engineering and science courses would be a point of no return.

one of the most overlooked aspects of the new plans are how it relates to postgraduate study. that all seems to be ignored. how will we be sure that we can still train the future greats in all aspects of academic study..... and isn't that something we really should want to know about?

I think we need to get kids interested in science and engineering. The government have been throwing money at these courses (such as extra bursaries for people who do them) since half the chemistry departments closed down, but there just isn't the initial interest.

Humanities departments will be worst hit by the new research funding methods though, and this will impact on undergraduates. It's all connected. Humanities postgrads have been getting short-shrift for years now, and those who do science end up leaving academia for industry where they can earn a lot more money and work in a much nicer environment.

It makes me sad that academia is in such a mess.