Fees to rise to £9000

(421 Posts)
sarah293 Wed 03-Nov-10 09:56:15

Message withdrawn

mamatomany Wed 03-Nov-10 10:20:34

I'm not sure it's a bad thing if it puts people off going it'll lower the bar to entry positions again. Let people work their way up.
I have a friend who's son is 24, has been working in a bar and running one for nearly 5 years.
He is working for a hotel to fund his studies in, yes you guessed it bar management confused
Haven't dared suggest that he is wasting £30,000 and three years of his life because the truth is at the moment people do need a degree to serve drinks which is bonkers.

BadgersPaws Wed 03-Nov-10 10:28:58

It's worth pointing out that that it the maximum cap and that "poor" students will face maximum fees of £6k.

It's worth pointing out that I don't support this, but if we're going to debate it and have our voices heard we need to make sure that we're clear on exactly what's going on.

sarah293 Wed 03-Nov-10 11:23:37

Message withdrawn

lokaku Wed 03-Nov-10 11:28:42

Are they not changing the system regarding loans so that only the top 25-30% of graduate earners will have to pay it all back.
Still not sure I agree with this though.

chibi Wed 03-Nov-10 11:33:00

This is insane without some sort of system of bursaries and or scholarships available as in north america

This isn't going to put off a kid who wants to study footballology, this is also going to put off kids who want to do medicine, or law or chemistry or engineering or whatever

post secondary education will be for those whose parents can eat the cost

And capping it at 6k for poor students haw haw

I would be interested to know how much contact time a student gets with tutors/instructors for these kinds of fees- my impression is not much

chibi Wed 03-Nov-10 11:34:27

It would have put me off, and I come from a working class but not poor background

As long as dave n Gideon n nicks kids are ok...

mamatomany Wed 03-Nov-10 12:31:55

They don't get much contact time at all from what I can gather, I met with some dentistry students at a open day for a University which is considered top 10 and they even stated it was like a DIY course.
Maybe if students are seen as consumers the standards will improve.
Everything I have seen of FE as a mature student so far has been appalling, bad advice, poor teaching but nice shiny buildings.

mrsruffallo Wed 03-Nov-10 12:36:27

Disgracful. You can't expect people to start their working lives with such a huge amount of debt.
Having a degree doesn't mean you are going to be a suoer high earner, as in the case of teachers etc.
I don't understand the 'it will raise the bar' argument, unless you mean those students with wealthy parents are brighter hmm

mrsruffallo Wed 03-Nov-10 12:37:02

disgraceful

byrel Wed 03-Nov-10 12:40:54

I think that universitys should be free but I would look at removing the mickey mouse courses that actually won't help people get jobs.

longfingernails Wed 03-Nov-10 12:48:46

You don't pay back to £21k (£15k now). I don't see the problem - if you end up earning a decent wage, you can afford a small contribution.

If you end up earning a low wage, you don't need to pay anything.

longfingernails Wed 03-Nov-10 12:50:10

Also, no upfront fees at all.

This is basically a graduate tax in all but name.

Unfortunately, it seems that the interest rates charged will be "progressive" (in other words, redistributive) to appease the Lib Dems.

EightiesChick Wed 03-Nov-10 13:06:00

The 'mickey mouse courses' notion is a red herring. Many of the supposed degrees in David Beckham studies etc are a nice point of humour for the Daily Mail but don't actual exist. Meanwhile, employment rates for oft-derided courses like media studies are actually extremely good, better than average - reported in 2005: "Six months after leaving university, an average of 63% of students from all courses are in employment - while for media studies the figure is 71%".

The real problem here is pseudo-vocational courses like Applied Golf Studies Management (yes, this one DOES exist, and at a redbrick university, not one of the much-maligned new universities either), which get an easy pass from the media because they are 'job related', but which are surely less useful and applicable to the whole field of employment and the national economy. Why shouldn't golfing firms pay for their trainee manager's education, rather than expecting it to be part of the university system?

But I digress. mamatomany, students are already treated as, and feel like, consumers. No change there, except that they will no be paying out even more and getting less as it still won't cover the investment needed. And the new universities and the poorer students will be whipping boys here. I have never heard anything so idiotic as Gove saying that the higher fees won't put people off because they will make a 'rational' decision. Doesn't a rational decision involve reassessing the purchase of something when the price doubles or triples, then? It beggars belief that they come out with this nonsensical stuff.

JustGettingByMum Wed 03-Nov-10 13:20:04

I am not sure what we will do, DS1 will start Uni next year (hopefuilly), DS2 in 2013 and DD1 several years after that. I am really uncomfortable with the fact that whilst DS1 will have some debts, he will be able to clear them as he works and then get on with his life, whereas DC2 and 3 will have a 30 year additional tax debt hanging over them.
And to think, we try so hard to treat them equally, and we tell them that hard work will be rewarded. certainly doesnt feel that way atm.

greentomato Wed 03-Nov-10 13:47:16

I am appalled. Another rung off the social mobility ladder. I want to fight this. How?

telsa Wed 03-Nov-10 14:11:20

Demo on 10 November in London is a starting place to protest. This is going to change the character of the universities hugely. And those that remain teaching Arts and Humanities (now largely funded by fees instead of teaching grant) - will experience big job losses and higher teaching loads (which means a worse experience for students)(see speenh by VC at Roehampton Uni yesterday, for one example, detailing coming cuts). It will be a horrid mess.

It is all very well talking about reducing costs and reducing the debt, but what this government is doing is simply privatising it - so instead of the state carrying it, individuals do. Where is the economic sense in that?

gramercy Wed 03-Nov-10 14:19:35

It shouldn't be about poor students qualifying for lower fees, but poor bright students getting help but only for certain courses. I can just see a situation where someone from a "poor" background can get assistance to study, indeed, Applied Golf Studies Management (or Sports Massage Therapy, a real course at Chichester University ???!!!???) where a "wealthier" student whose parental income is £30K gets nowt to study physics.

And I hope the powers that be are looking at all the potential loopholes. Wouldn't it be a good move for students to delay study until they have lived away from home long enough to be assessed on their own (negligible) income? Should I buy a small flat in [insert cheapest town in Scotland] so I can say I live there and get free fees for my dcs to go to a Scottish university?

huddspur Wed 03-Nov-10 14:23:08

I think that tution fees should be abolished, the better educated the population is the more prosperous the country is likely to be. Graduates are crucial particulary as we are becoming a knowledge economy so I can't understand why the Government would want to implement policys that may put some people off getting a degree.

purits Wed 03-Nov-10 14:34:40

The so-called Graduate Premium is fast disappearing. I will not be encouraging DC2 to get £30,000 in debt for a 27% chance of being unemployed at the end of it.shock And that is from someone who is very pro-education.

longfingernails Wed 03-Nov-10 14:37:38

For all that are complaining:

Please explain how you would fund getting rid of fees, or keeping them low, when there is no money left.

Bear in mind the deferred revenue stream that makes a pure graduate tax totally unaffordable. Realistic solutions only please.

You can either put up general taxation (making the UK more uncompetitive), cut even more public spending (please give credible examples of further cuts - blithely saying "get rid of Trident" will show you are not serious because you haven't done the sums), or, as the current government is doing, have more copayments, supplanted with bursaries and easier payment conditions for low incomes.

longfingernails Wed 03-Nov-10 14:41:01

An alternative I would support, which would lower the fees, though not eliminate them, is to cut the number of people going to university.

We don't need 50% of our country to be graduates.

However, that means courses will get even more competitive. There are already huge numbers of rejected applicants. For me, that is a price which might be worth paying, providing the big growth we are seeing in manufacturing, construction and similar sectors continues, and leads to more blue-collar jobs.

JustGettingByMum Wed 03-Nov-10 14:50:30

I think it would be good to have variable fees even within universities so that those degrees that will help students get jobs, or in which we have a shortgae of skilled people, pay lower fees. Obvious examples would be the STEM subjects - but I am biased as my DSs want to study engineering smile

purits Wed 03-Nov-10 14:58:31

I agree that we don't need 50% of the country to be graduates. It has become an arms race, so that jobs that do need degrees are now asking for Masters.

purits Wed 03-Nov-10 15:00:05

JGBmum: do they need to study engineering full-time? The old system, where they learned on the job and did night school, was better.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now