Why does England have the highest tuition fees in Europe?

[Fiona2011231]

It seems to me that these days in England, every university tries to charge students as high as they can. Of course, they will present many reasons.

But England has the highest tuition fees in the European Union (plus Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Montenegro and Turkey), according to an analysis of current charges by the European Commission.

This is the link to the BBC article:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-30080662

England is an outlier with fees of up to £9,000 per year.

Other "relatively high fees" are charged in Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary and the Netherlands, with typical costs between about £800 to £4,000.

Surely there is something fishy and wrong with England.

If higher education is free in Germany, and costs little in other European countries, why is it so expensive in England? Are people misled by the government and the universities?

hen I went only 15% of people did go. It was very hard to get in and most people could not. Also those that did get in only a third of that 15% achieved a 2/1 or first. It was a very different world and by the way plenty of our families had to pay (not the fees (the state paid those) but for our keep - no student loans in those days and only the poor got a "full grant").

There are quality assurance procedures for universities, which include periodic inspection by the QAA, monitoring by HEFCE (or equivalents in the other UK countries) and the appointment of external examiners for every programme of study. The external examiners should be looking at the marks awarded against actual scripts/written work etc and considering whether the marking is fair. They should also be reviewing what the students are studying.

Having said all that, a couple of years ago a friend asked if I would look at her son's dissertation. I'm not an academic (just a sometime university administrator) and my own degree wasn't in his subject, so my input was limited to proofreading/making some suggestions about how to improve the structure/readability and the standard of English (much needed). Having said that, the subject was very accessible and I had no trouble following the argument.

It happened to be in the same subject as an A level one of my own children took. Having seen work produced for that A level, I really do feel that this final year BA student was not working at a higher level than a top notch A level student. I was absolutely astonished to learn subsequently that the student got a 2.1. The university concerned is not a big, research-intensive place but surely standards should be broadly comparable across the country?

I think employers know they aren't. You are much better with your 2/1 from a top 20 university or top 5 than a first from many an ex poly.

Half of students will never pay back their student loans so you could argue that for many university education remains largely free.

There are plenty of European universities which are considered as world leading, whilst also being free or with minimal fees - Leiden, Maastricht, Amsterdam, Leuven, Frei Univ Berlin, Humboldt, Heidelberg, Oslo, Stockholm, Uppsala, Helsinki, Copenhagen, Jagellonian - just to name a few. Most of these are actually ranked highly in the World University rankings.

The reason why some continental universities are 'rubbish' in comparison to the UK, is nothing to do with fees, IMO. The UK has had a customer service approach to students for at least the last decade (I.e even before the 9k and 3k fees). This is something we are emulating from the American market. Many continental universities have a completely different approach to higher education - students are there to learn from the 'sage on the stage'. The focus is on getting the material across, and not on the student experience. In the UK, lecturers are under constant pressure to make lectures fun, be entertaining, give constant feedback and be available to students 24/7. This is why most of us end up doing our research (a key part of our job) in our spare time.

The open-market logic which dominates UK and US universities comes at a great cost borne out by (mostly) younger and (usually) female academics. The majority of elite American universities staff their courses by precariously employed adjunct /part time staff who are poorly paid & have no job security (as this is cheaper than employing full time faculty), whilst the tenured professors get to concentrate on research that makes these institutions world leading.

Some European universities, like those in Scandinavian countries, are free and free to international students too. In Finland, students also receive a grant (not a loan) of a few hundred euros a month from the state. This is only possible because public spending is focused on education, child care , healthcare etc, and less on defence and god knows what else. Taxes are high but comparable to the UK. The difference is that the UK and the USA are rolling back the involvement of the state in higher education and investing less.

In the UK we pay less tax than a lot of European countries. Therefore the government has less money to fund Universities. So students pay higher tuition fees.

The learning experience at Oxbridge or Williams College (USA) is vastly superior to "Sage on a stage" but to reproduce in other places would need far more spent on it than even high tax European countries can afford - at least for mass education.
Lumping all UK or US institutions into one category is a total fallacy. I taught at one US (middling) University and was shocked when I returned to the UK to see the lack of resources academics in similar institutions had to deal with (no office - so no office hours).

The US has some huge state deficits to deal with, but on the whole isn't scaling back funding that much, but it has a lot of private HE institutions - which are often the highest ranking.

I don't think tax is that much higher if at all in many European countries. Someone paying 30-40% tax in the UK would be taxed about the same in e.g. Germany and even Finland. In the UK, once you have been taxed and paid your NI and council tax, you still have to shell out £800-£1000 PCM for childcare for example, which you would be unthinkable in pretty much all European countries where childcare is free or costs pennies in comparison. So the higher tax thing is quite misleading, if you are looking at it from the point of view from a regular tax payer. You get a lot more for your tax in other countries. The difference, IMO, is how tax income is spent by the state, not that there isn't enough of it in the UK (hence the decision to scale back on spending in HE). It's part of a Conservative strategy to cut back state involvement in many public services (which, once upon a time HE was).

True, we can't lump all uk and US universities, but nevertheless, it's evident that the UK has been following the American education-market system for some time, with notions of rankings, customer service, shrinking the labour force to cut costs etc. This is not a system
Followed elsewhere in Europe, although the trend seems to be catching on unfortunately.

Of course, the student experience - focused teaching is far superior. But it is very labour intensive, and requires more staff. The reality is that departments often increase the workloads of individual lecturers, year on year, increase the number of courses taught and numbers I students, but to save money, do not recruit additional staff. The existing staff are pushed to their limits providing the best educational experience. This is what happens when education becomes a market place. It's great for th students but from the point of view of most lecturers, it's simply not sustainable (not if we are expected to research at the same time). And let's not even get into the worsening conditions for academic staff - whislt fees have increased, academic staff's benefits such as pension and maternity leave have been progressively scaled back since 2011, all as a result of various deficits and cost cutting measures which resemble the private sector.

The open-market logic which dominates UK and US universities comes at a great cost borne out by (mostly) younger and (usually) female academics

Although the hierarchical system of Germany is also incredibly patriarchal. Definitely verboten for many female academics (young and not so young). For research reasons I spend a fair bit of time in Germany, but I am always relieved I don't have to work in the system. It's terrible for women.

It's great for the students but from the point of view of most lecturers, it's simply not sustainable (not if we are expected to research at the same time). And let's not even get into the worsening conditions for academic staff

Although I agree with your assessment of our working conditions.

True. Lovely SIL had a job interview in Bavaria where, if I am remembering rightly, they said 'but, you have a baby. You will want to stay at home for at least two years'.

There is an article (flawed, but kinda interesting in the Guardian about mothers and academia, btw. www.theguardian.com/education/2014/nov/18/academia-for-women-short-maternity-leave