Lower Tuition Fees in the Future?

Kennyboy66

The_One_Who wrote: »

You also get access to a library, full of very expensive books and pretty much unlimited access to both paper and online journals, something you can access all year around. You can make brilliant use of academics to talk to and discuss certain topics, if you want to. A lot of sporting and socialising activities are heavily subsidised as well.

If a student is only going to the lectures and tutorials, then that is their own fault for not making full use of the facilities made available to them.

Perhaps the point is that people on many courses offering very few hours contact time each week are cross subsidising those doing engineering, science or medicine.

It doesn't cost £9k a year to deliver the vast majority of humanities degrees or the heinz variety of business studies where many lectures have 150 people in attendance.

At some stage, people will wake up to the fact that some universities and courses are fantastic value and some are appalling value.

Kennyboy66

The_One_Who wrote: »

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.

While applications were dropping for Chemistry, the main reason for the closures was because science courses are more expensive to run.

The_One_Who

Kennyboy66 wrote: »

Perhaps the point is that people on many courses offering very few hours contact time each week are cross subsidising those doing engineering, science or medicine.

It doesn't cost £9k a year to deliver the vast majority of humanities degrees or the heinz variety of business studies where many lectures have 150 people in attendance.

At some stage, people will wake up to the fact that some universities and courses are fantastic value and some are appalling value.

Universities and courses, or just courses? Does it matter if history students are subsidising those doing science or engineering courses? A tiered tuition scale wouldn't work, it would simply drive even more students away from the sciences. To be honest, I think students wanting an exact breakdown of 'their' (which the vast majority aren't paying up front) money to the penny is a sad indictment of what the higher education sector has become.

Kennyboy66 wrote: »

While applications were dropping for Chemistry, the main reason for the closures was because science courses are more expensive to run.

Yes, generally they are, but lack of students certainly didn't help matters, did it? A lot of physics and engineering courses have tried to offer bursaries to students as a way to increase take-up, which rather variable and debatable results. There is also the 'behind the scenes' research work, which could be said is now facing more competition internationally. Of course, every department will be feeling this, but some more than others.

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

Kennyboy66 wrote: »

Perhaps the point is that people on many courses offering very few hours contact time each week are cross subsidising those doing engineering, science or medicine.

It doesn't cost £9k a year to deliver the vast majority of humanities degrees or the heinz variety of business studies where many lectures have 150 people in attendance.

At some stage, people will wake up to the fact that some universities and courses are fantastic value and some are appalling value.

Whilst that is true, it is also true that we all need scientists, medics, engineeres etc so we (as tax payers) would all end up subsidizing these courses - just in a different way -and that way would probably end up being more expensive to the tax payer so what would be the point?

Kennyboy66

The_One_Who wrote: »

Universities and courses, or just courses? Does it matter if history students are subsidising those doing science or engineering courses? A tiered tuition scale wouldn't work, it would simply drive even more students away from the sciences. To be honest, I think students wanting an exact breakdown of 'their' (which the vast majority aren't paying up front) money to the penny is a sad indictment of what the higher education sector has become.

As an engineer it doesn't matter to me one jot. However I suspect it will matter more and more to those receiving a sub-standard degree offering.
Whether you pay up front or through a deferred tax seems somewhat irrelevant. Too many in higher education have taken students for granted in the past.

Kennyboy66

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

Whilst that is true, it is also true that we all need scientists, medics, engineeres etc so we (as tax payers) would all end up subsidizing these courses - just in a different way -and that way would probably end up being more expensive to the tax payer so what would be the point?

The point is that the coalition want to impose the power of the market onto higher education.

It will thus appear perverse if some people are receiving a Trabant for the same money while a few get a Bentley.