Lower Tuition Fees in the Future?

melancholly

Idiophreak wrote: »

If I was paying £9k/year for a degree, you'd better believe I'd be knocking on the lecturer's door every time I didn't understand anything, had a query, needed help...if a lecturer didn't show for a lecture (as happened frequently in my own degree), I'd be in the office asking when the lecture I'd paid for was going to be rescheduled...

I guess my concern is that once you adopt this "I'm paying for..." attitude, you risk missing out on the independent learning and enquiry which is, sorry *was*, the point of a university education.

I guess there is a massive mismatch between what students at school get from teachers and what used to be expected from lecturers. If someone had pitched up without arranging a time to harass for extra help, they just wouldn't get it.... time away from teaching isn't spent just waiting around for a confused student to appear.... it's when they get their 'real' work done!

Universities are changing and ultimately, I don't think it's for the better. The 'now now now', 'I'm paying so you have to do more for me' type attiudes are completely understandable. But that take away everything about independent learning and initiative. That makes for less prepared graduates.......

Students are paying more, most unis are on recruitment freezes so there are fewer staff to go around, so staff are having to do more teaching at the same time as expectations are going up..... Unless the whole sector moves away from being research led, something has to give. With the next REF due next year, I don't even see how unis can easily prioritise teaching over research.

Fees have changed the whole nature of universities. I guess this must be what school teachers have complained about for years. Politicians meddling at the top and leaving all the implemention and extra work to be done by the people at the bottom, who think the changes are stupid!

Idiophreak

melancholly wrote: »

it's when they get their 'real' work done!

Which is a very key point. Used to be that the government/society, put some kind of value on the "real" work done by universities - advances in technology, medicine and so on - so they paid researchers to do this stuff...Now, of course, universities have to be much more self-funded, meaning that the lecturer's wages are paid from tuition fees - but students aren't really interested in research in the first instance, they're worried about getting value for money from their degree...so lecturers become more like teachers and less like researchers. Very sad.

melancholly

Idiophreak wrote: »

Which is a very key point. Used to be that the government/society, put some kind of value on the "real" work done by universities - advances in technology, medicine and so on - so they paid researchers to do this stuff...Now, of course, universities have to be much more self-funded, meaning that the lecturer's wages are paid from tuition fees - but students aren't really interested in research in the first instance, they're worried about getting value for money from their degree...so lecturers become more like teachers and less like researchers. Very sad.

Hence the large number of top researchers moving abroad......

The_One_Who

Idiophreak wrote: »

Although, certainly when I was at uni, these subsidies were provided by the student union, NUS and the athletic union - all of which you had to pay extra to join.

That will depend on the university. I never paid to join a student union (read: student bar), my university was not affiliated to NUS and the sports association cost £30 a year, which included unlimited access to the sporting facilities, gym, etc. So it was hardly breaking the bank. These facilities get most, if not all, of their funding from the university.

Students want everything, and they want everything now. The idea of sharing a bathroom in halls? For some people that is hideous. They want en-suite, and they want it in a decent location. They want lots of computers in the library/across campus, they want WIFI access, they want decent internet connections. They want new shiny buildings, because those perfectly functional concrete monstrosities from the sixties just aren't cutting it anymore. All of these things cost money, and considering a lot of universities were already operating on a deficit, the financial situation for many isn't looking much better.

Most staff will be happy to help students, if they contact them to arrange a suitable time. Or, better yet, make use of the woefully under-used 'office hours' that most lecturers and tutors will provide.

I don't see why lecturers have to become like teachers, however I understand why they are. Most are now putting up lecture notes online, and they'll all provide some sort of reading list to accompany their course, but there is no need to spoon-feed students.

Idiophreak

The_One_Who wrote: »

Students want everything, and they want everything now. The idea of sharing a bathroom in halls? For some people that is hideous. They want en-suite, and they want it in a decent location.

...and if they want that, they pay higher * accommodation* fees for the luxury. Again, this isn't what your *tuition* fees pay for...

The_One_Who wrote: »

They want lots of computers in the library/across campus, they want WIFI access, they want decent internet connections. They want new shiny buildings, because those perfectly functional concrete monstrosities from the sixties just aren't cutting it anymore. All of these things cost money, and considering a lot of universities were already operating on a deficit, the financial situation for many isn't looking much better.

I can only speak from my own experience, but even 8 odd years ago when I was in uni there was a feeling that we *didn't* need nearly so many computers on campus at all...it was madness...computer labs all over the place, a "library" full of the things, a cybercafe in every dining hall...And, the kicker, a laptop in pretty much every student's backpack. I think the bulk of students would be quite happy with somewhere quiet to set up their computer and a decent wifi signal.

The thing with the buildings is a bit chicken/egg...When you're paying £9kpa, you want the place to look nice...But again, I think the bulk of students would rather have a grand off their fees and keep with the old buildings. In actuality, of course, the shiney buildings aren't there for the benefit of students at all..they're there for the benefit of prospective students, it's just basic marketing.

I don't really think it's fair to describe universities as "operating on a deficit", either. It rather infers that they're performing poorly...but it's only very recently that universities have had to concern themselves with financial performance. Again, a massive concern. It can only be a matter of time before they start cancelling "deficit" degrees like fine art, literature and philosophy and focus on "profitable" subjects - computing, engineering, business. And so will end the spirit of higher education

The_One_Who

Idiophreak wrote: »

...and if they want that, they pay higher * accommodation* fees for the luxury. Again, this isn't what your *tuition* fees pay for...

The buildings have to be built in the first place, and the land bought, which is the more difficult aspect for most.

I can only speak from my own experience, but even 8 odd years ago when I was in uni there was a feeling that we *didn't* need nearly so many computers on campus at all...it was madness...computer labs all over the place, a "library" full of the things, a cybercafe in every dining hall...And, the kicker, a laptop in pretty much every student's backpack. I think the bulk of students would be quite happy with somewhere quiet to set up their computer and a decent wifi signal.

Around exam time there is not a spare computer to be found in the library. My university library was twelve floors, with computers to be found on at least seven or eight of them. There was also a building with seemingly nothing but computers in it (as well as desk space) which was also always full. I agree that I would have preferred a nice desk space, but a lot of space is being taken up by more and more computers. Which is understandable given that everyone complained about not being able to access one. Considering that these computers all have to be bought, maintained, paid for, etc the costs add up.

The thing with the buildings is a bit chicken/egg...When you're paying £9kpa, you want the place to look nice...But again, I think the bulk of students would rather have a grand off their fees and keep with the old buildings. In actuality, of course, the shiney buildings aren't there for the benefit of students at all..they're there for the benefit of prospective students, it's just basic marketing.

Of course, but I think it is still relevant since those prospective students may go on to be students. Liking your university location, atmosphere, etc can be a huge part of decision making, and buildings can play a part in that.

I don't really think it's fair to describe universities as "operating on a deficit", either. It rather infers that they're performing poorly...but it's only very recently that universities have had to concern themselves with financial performance. Again, a massive concern. It can only be a matter of time before they start cancelling "deficit" degrees like fine art, literature and philosophy and focus on "profitable" subjects - computing, engineering, business. And so will end the spirit of higher education

Financially, a lot have been, and more will continue to do so. I can't find the article right now, but I'm sure it was about one-in-five? It's not sustainable.

English literature and history (both arts subjects, both under threat with the new REF system) are consistently two of the most oversubscribed undergraduate courses around the country. It wasn't too long ago that chemistry departments were closing up and down the country because of lack of students.

I totally agree that it is sad that higher education has come to what it has, and I agree that higher tuition fees may have played a part in that. However, I don't think tuition fees are the only aspect. I am from Scotland, went to a Scottish university and had the benefit of no higher education fees. Students in Scotland are still wanting more and more and more, and wanting more out of their lecturers rather than seeking it out for themselves.

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

melancholly wrote: »

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=421227&c=2

I can't quickly find the student loan discussion thread, but here is as sensible a place as anywhere else to link to this article. It goes through all the reasons why the loans won't be as affordable as the government makes out. A little biased perhaps, but has a lot of numbers and explanations rather than just plain rhetoric.

From the Article:-

Is the new student loans system an affordable, progressive system of graduate contributions - or a dodgy move to get debt off the books that could bring grave fiscal consequences?

Yup I think it's that! :cool:

On a freezing day in December 2010, Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrat business secretary, moved the government's motion to raise the cap on undergraduate tuition fees to £9,000.

Should he ever be forgiven?

Critics have been picking away at the government calculations behind the new loan system. Some argue that removing most of the teaching grant and replacing it with higher fees is akin to a "dodgy private finance initiative" that hides the public borrowing still required, and that the government has dramatically overestimated the funds that it will receive from graduate repayments.

Probably true.

But the claims that the new student loans system is "unsustainable" lead to some startling future scenarios - including the possibility that the government could introduce more funding cuts for universities or demand more money from graduate borrowers.

Uhhh ohhh! But see this from ML

http://blog.moneysavingexpert.com/2012/08/14/once-ive-got-a-student-loan-can-the-government-change-the-terms/

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

melancholly wrote: »

I guess this must be what school teachers have complained about for years. Politicians meddling at the top and leaving all the implemention and extra work to be done by the people at the bottom, who think the changes are stupid!

Good post because that is just so true. Look at the current mess that the Coalition are making in High Schools - the EBacc is a joke!

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

Miliband: tuition fees could be cut further under Labour

Ed Miliband hinted Labour would attempt to reduce university fees by more than the party's previous promise, if it was elected.
Labour has already signalled it would look for ways to cut the maximum level of fees that can be charged from £9,000 a year to £6,000.

However, during a question-and-answer session on the eve of the party's conference, Mr Miliband said: "We've said we will cut [tuition fees] to £6,000 and in my view that is not enough – but it is a start. I would like to go further."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9576329/Miliband-tuition-fees-could-be-cut-further-under-Labour.html

melancholly

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

Should he ever be forgiven?

Arguably not. But everyone forgave/forgot about Labour breaking their explicit election pledge on tuition fees in 1997..... None of the parties can be trusted on this and arguably Labour was worst.....