To Think That Students Studying Science Degrees Shouldn't Be Charged Higher Fees?

[LadyLance]

www.theguardian.com/education/2018/feb/18/cutting-tuition-fees-would-backfire-justine-greening-warns-theresa-may

Teresa May wants to make arts/humanities courses cheaper for undergraduates, and not every university course should cost £9250. Her rather interesting position is that the market has not done what she has expected (sorry, the free market has not emerged), so she is going to try and force it into a shape that's more pleasing, and perhaps more appealing to young people.

I don't work for a university, so I don't know how much your average humanities course costs to run. I do know that many (most?) STEM courses with regular labs, expensive equipment and heavy contact hours cost more than £9250 to run. Although these departments can bring in the big money grants, I do think there is a perception that (some?) universities overfill humanities courses in order to subsidise their science departments.

However, I'm worried about the proposals putting people from low income backgrounds or who are the first in their family to go to uni off STEM courses. I'm also wary that the proposals really amount to a real terms cut for universities in terms of funding.

Obviously the current loans system is unsustainable for the government when many graduates in all fields will never pay their loans back in full. Even high earning doctors might go to work abroad, or take career breaks, and so not repay their huge debts. However, I don't think this is the answer.

But that's ridiculous - humanities are vastly more unemployable and lead to people in more generic jobs like "administrator" or "accounts assistant" or "project manager" than STEM degrees.

If anything, they should be subsidising STEM courses to encourage people to study for occupations that are really in demand - doctors, engineers, programmers, statisticians.

North American models don't have science students paying more than humanities students.

Theres not much interaction in a lecture theatre anyway. It would be much better and more targeted if you could just chat to your specific lecturer for 5/10 minutes or send an email if you had any questions

Lectures aren't the only contact hours on offer. Humanities courses also hold seminars where you can do the above. Did you go to any? There will also be office hours where you can talk to your tutors. Did you go to any of those? And you can of course email and ask questions too.

Higher fees for STEM degrees has been the case for overseas students since the Year Dot. I don't know whether this has made a difference to the number of overseas students choosing STEM vs non-STEM degrees, and whether this information would be in any way useful with regards to the choices of UK students.

STEM subjects do cost vastly more to run. More contact time from more staff, more support staff and resources behind the scenes, more (expensive) equipment and supplies, more maintenance of the above, more "real estate" required including specialised teaching spaces, all this means overall the full economic costing is higher.

But ultimately I have no idea what the solution is.

Thing is, many grad schemes do not require a specific degree, only a specific degree class.
I’m more surprised that the Tories are surprised that all universities are charging full whack. Of course they bloody are!! They’re going to want to be seen as competitive. £6000 as opposed to £9000 (under the old system) might have been more attractive in terms of a student graduating with less debt, but equally the student might’ve thought “oh, they’re not charging the full £9000, they’re probably not as good as x other place that does”.

The evidence does suggest that students doing arts degrees are currently subsidising students doing some STEM degrees- presumably because the equipment and lab time is expensive, whereas a degree with 8-12 hours of contact time can be taught much more cheaply. Some arts students will go on to well paid jobs, some will make excellent contributions to society. I think evidence suggests more students in STEM subjects will go on to well paid jobs, and they have the potential to make excellent contributions to society (e.g. developing new drugs). Some of them won't. Some arts students will go on to very high paying careers e.g. in law.

I do think it's unfair to charge arts students more in order to subsidise the scientists. However, arts students have shown themselves willing to pay the current level of fees- so obviously they feel those fees are worthwhile.

If you reduce university funding overall, do you leave STEM courses non-viable to run? What happens when universities say "Sorry, we can't afford to train any dentists?" Will the government make up this funding shortfall?

I do think there is a huge danger in making students from disadvantaged backgrounds less likely to chose a course that leads to a well paying career. I also think that discouraging people from studying STEM generally is bad for the country economically and generally.

I don't agree that arts degrees should be cheaper. IMHO arts degrees are an expensive hobby for most, formerly paid for by the taxpayer and now the student. I think people should think long and hard about whether to do a "hobby" degree that won't necessarily lead to any successful career path or contribution in tax paying. Making it cheaper eases that decision.
If any degrees are made cheaper they should be the STEM ones because were need more people doing STEM jobs.

I have an English degree btw and it was fucking useless.

@TheElementsSong International students are generally well off, or sponsored by a company from their home country- so a different demographic than home students.

@GardenGeek Surely on a humanities degree, part of what you are paying for is the discussions and interactions with different students? Yes, the lecture components could move to e-learning, but the seminars etc, couldn't. I recently went to a university for a PGCE interview that has done exactly this- the lectures are all online, so contact time is more productive for students. This does, however, require a level of investment and capability from students that you might not find in first year undergrads!

I really don’t think I would solely consider career prospects when considering a degree. It should be a factor, but not he only one. Like it or not, enjoyment of the subject is pretty crucial. And very few degrees lead directly onto a job. Even with a medicine degree you are still studying for years afterwards.

Some degrees that fall loosely under the arts umbrella do lead to careers that are well paying and valuable to society- law, for example. We also need English teachers, as a country, as well as a good quality press. Language degrees can also lead to well paying careers and good outcomes for graduates.

I also wonder if by making arts degrees cheaper, the government will further devalue them in the eyes of some people.

I do agree that STEM is important, but the fact is that not everyone is good at them. Surely it’s much better having a smaller cohort of scientists who are excellent and talented, rather than a large pool who are mostly mediocre?
Changing things around at degree level isn’t enough, we need to start before that. Sadly, with the way things are, most science graduates aren’t going to want to be teachers. The entire system needs an overhaul. In a totally ideal world politicians would have nothing to do with politics, but...

@toffee1000 I do agree with you, but I'm not sure that making STEM degrees comparatively more expensive is the way to get the best candidates. Most STEM degrees do have high entry requirements and ask for science subjects to be studied at level 3.

I agree that science teaching in schools does need to be better- the biggest problem, I think, is actually retention of science teachers. I guess they have more options so are more able to jump at jobs elsewhere. Recruiting new physics teachers is apparently especially hard, despite the generous bursary. I guess we may not be producing enough physics graduates- it's a self perpetuating cycle.

I think it's very important to encourage people to see STEM subjects as "for them"- especially girls. Inspiring teachers are obviously part of this.

The arts should definitely be valued though, and I do think this proposal would be bad in the long run for arts/humanities/social sciences as well!

I think it's a good idea! Arts graduates tend to earn less so they should pay less for their degree.

Also I am sick of the STEM snobbery. This country has a proud tradition of amazing artists, writers. We should value arts more than we do.

Is Law going to classified as an arts subject honestly Teresa May handling of everything smacks of cackhandedness

@GardenGeek I do see what you are saying, and you're right, that might suit some students more- I do think it would be a type of student, who is very self motivated, the sort who might currently study with the open university. Perhaps there is a gap in the market for unis to offer distance learning degrees at a reduced cost, maybe targeting mature students? People might pay for a second degree out of their own pockets if it cost less than

@ChampagneSocialist1* Well it's not a STEM subject, and it's not expensive to deliver, so I can't see how she could justify letting universities charge more under her current proposals.

@Scabbersley I do agree that we should value the arts more. Do you think that paying less for an arts degree will make people value the arts more?

Do you think paying more for something makes people value it more?

Most teens know what they want to study - dd will be delighted if English lit is cheaper for her to study! It's not going to mean she decides to do engineering as it's more of a luxury degree!

But law graduates can earn a lot than nurses or physiotherapists so should they pay more? Honestly it's a complete minefield going down this route

@ChapagneSocialist1 The whole "STEM grads earn more" is a bit of a myth- BioSciences grads earn (on average) less than history grads and languages grads, chemistry grads earn less than business and economics grads. The engineers are the high earning ones, as are doctors, dentists and vets.

Actually, law grads don't earn that well, compared to some other arts subjects- you'd be better off studying Russian (again on average). Land management and librarian degrees also seem to lead to well paying careers.

Anyway, it seems like the proposal is that lower cost degrees would pay less, so for cost/benefit, everyone should study economics.

@Scabbersly I think over time, it will lead to society valuing them less, yes. When something costs less, I think people wonder why it's cheaper, and there's already a trend of devaluing the arts. Also, if poorer students are less likely to study STEM (which I do think would be a consequence of this), then yes, I think that would also lead to a devaluing of some degrees.

AFAIK many science departments have been really struggling to balance the books because of the higher cost of delivering STEM teaching.

One way to get around it is to allow science departments to run at a deficit, but it could then be argued that this is "unfair" as the cheaper-to-run faculties are effectively subsiding the STEM subjects (which takes us on to the "STEM snobbery" issue).

Another idea I heard was to get rid of, or at least severely curtail, laboratory-based teaching in the early years of the degree. IMHO this would indeed devalue the degrees and we could end up with severely under-skilled science graduates who would not be considered good employment prospects.

No easy answers.

The new system costs about the same as the old one. It's just another example of exceptionally shit policymaking.

@GreyCloudsToday I agree, the new loan system is such a mess, and I guess that's part of the reason behind this proposal.

I agree there are no easy answers, but I don't think this is the answer at all!