To think that top universities and in demand university courses should be free?

[queefeey]

Do you think that top universities such as Oxford, Cambridge, UCL, LSE, Imperial, et al. should be free for students?

I do not see the government funding ex-poly courses to be worthwhile, unless of course they are funding for a skill that is in need.

Courses such as medicine or nursing ought to be free too. Then perhaps if someone fancies 3 years of very little work doing their passion that is not a worthwhile investment of government money, then they can get a loan like now.

My maternal grandmother went to the Slade School of Art in 1924; my paternal grandmother went to Newnham College Cambridge in 1924; my paternal great aunt went to Reading University in 1931. One other paternal great aunt died of flu in 1918 and her sister turned down a place at Cambridge when her sister and two brothers (war related) in 1918/19 as she didn’t want to leave her parents alone after they had lost three children in quick succession - my grandfather was working in India. What my one other great aunt, on my maternal side, did escapes me.

Oh I forgot - two great aunts, from a much more illustrious lineage, went to Swiss finishing schools! It was the poorer daughters in my family who got the better educations!

I think your family may have been a bit exceptional, Maria!

Maybe! Three of my grandparents went to Cambridge, and the other grandmother to the Slade.

What a snobby, elitist, classist and ultimately sexist op.

I think your family (rather happily) bucked the trend, Maria. It really was not the case for many girls who were kept at home to help out with the family or work locally. Very many did not get the chance to have an education or a career of their choice. Therefore I still think it was far more difficult back then because the vast majority of people really could not access these institutions. Your family were very forward thinking and probably rich because they did not need to go to work as soon as possible. Doing art would have been unheard of in my family. It simply would not have happened. They all had to work from the age of 15, clever, talented or not. Education was seen as pure luxury. Few see it like that now. I am peased about that.

The father of my grandmother who did art was an architect himself (Architecture training not being a degree at the time) and, from all accounts, very open minded and progressive. Her mother had a dress shop on Wimpole Street and copied Paris fashions for London ladies. So, not intellectuals or rich - they had made their own money.

Have you got a snow day?

I think that full grants for students on a very low income should be reintroduced.
I don't think that top universities such as Oxford, Cambridge etc should be free, as that would mostly benefit privileged students.

If those from poor backgrounds pick low paid work when they graduate and are on those lowish paid jobs for life they don't pay a penny back though do the so in a sense they still get a totally free education. Even if they earn £30k a year they just pay 8% of £5k a year back which £450 a year.

I found my uncle's 1936 Durham University bill recently - he read medicine (before grants). It is exactly what universities charge today for fees when I put it through the Bank of England inflatino calculator - it came to roughly £9000.

What a snobby, elitist, classist and ultimately sexist op

You saved me a post dadaduck

In an ideal world uni would go back to the old system but I agree that medical and teaching should be free or subsidised

if teaching was free then surely everyone would do that to show they can reach degree level standard and then take jobs doing something else more lucrative than teaching.

I can see the sense in not subsidising degrees that are no use to the country for people who wont earn over 21k

But why should someone at Oxford studying something irrelevant....lets say ancient greek get it for free, whilst someone at a russell group uni studying something useful for the country have to pay?

Nursing was free until a couple of years ago as students got a bursary to cover their fees.,

Quite a lot of general degrees like ancient Greek mentioned above or whatever do lead to good carers and give you a range of skills for careers. Eg half of lawyers don't read law and the degrees people do give them skills to write essays, think, debate and all kinds of things we need lawyers to do so it is quite difficult just to pick certain degrees and say - yes that one is really useful to the nation so let it be free of teh 9% graduate tax that is the student loan system.

if teaching was free then surely everyone would do that to show they can reach degree level standard and then take jobs doing something else more lucrative than teaching.

Afaik the model often proposed for bursaries for necessary but not particular lucrative professions such as teaching and nursing is that there's a requirement to be employed in that role for a certain number of years. I'd have thought it should be possible within the existing loan structure for employers (be that state or otherwise) to repay a certain amount on behalf of their employee at various points.

You took the words right out of my mouth daduck

A system like this would only advantage wealthy, middle class students and would hugely disadvantage those from poorer backgrounds and first generation students.

i dont see why the system would be to the advantage of middle class/2nd generation students - many study at a wide range of uni's and not just oxford/cambridge etc. My son, for example is at a russell group uni studying a national skill's shortage area wouldnt benefit. Currently he is paying 9k in fees, 3k of which goes to help poorer students (and why he has to subsidise them rather than the taxpayer doing it i dont know).

There needs to be less degrees and more apprenticeships. Employers will even pay for a degree through a degree apprenticeship. Win win situation for young people and employers.

dreaming who told you 3k of his fees are helping poorer students? I very much doubt that is happening.

It disadvantages poorer students because those students don't tend to apply or study at high ranking, high tariff universities. The reasons for that aren't financial so removing fees for those universities would not help social mobility it would in fact continue to reinforce it.

Dreaming where did you get that from? Students all pay 9k fees whatever their financial background, it's not means tested and nobody is subsidising anyone.

tax payers subsidise students most of whom will never pay their loans back and I think a quarter of university funding is from Government sources so against tax payers (including students once they pay tax) fund that. I pay over and above that as I pay my sons' fees without their taking out any loans too.

I think the 9250 just covers university costs (foreign students pay more like £15k a year) rather than a subsidy to other students.

Xenia you're right. What wasn't made public by the government when they increased tuition fees was the fact that they removed 80% of direct funding to universities. The £9k fee doesn't cover that shortfall.

It disadvantages poorer students because those students don't tend to apply or study at high ranking, high tariff universities

Because socio-economic advantage shows up as educational "success" from the age of around 3 in children.

And the division is increased by the socio-economic advantage of being able to buy educational advantage at independent fee-paying schools.

ref the 9k - it was in a lot of the material when they were first introduced. unis were only allowed to charge 6k tuition fees unless they could show that by charging 9k the money went to disadvantaged students. sort of says it here......www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11677862

i agree ref apprenticeships....alas there arent any for son's area currently and its likely he will have to do an msc...so yet more debt

costan - all his friends and the people he lives with, are from poorer backgrounds so i dont think your logic really follows, plus son at much lower ranking uni in posher town had primarily posh/rich friends