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.

Re the £9k fees: they don't cover the full cost of most degrees.

To see the full cost of any degree, look at what is charged to International students (non-Home/EU).

The shortfall is made up by university staff: by them winning research grants; by working many hours unpaid overtime; by lots of small, marginal cuts as well as large-scale redundancies, and the use of cheaper, precarious, hourly-paid (ie zero-hour) contracted tutors.

and how would everything else be paid for? The library resources, the student support, the counselling services, the water bills, the heating bills, the chairs in the cafe, the people who cut the grass, the new fridge in Flat C? Student fees don't cover just the tuition hours you know.

That's not quite right dreamer universities could only charge over the £6k if they had an access agreement in place which demonstrated a commitment to widening participation. That has a cost implication and it is expected that some of the fees (as income) would be used to fund that work. However, that was nothing new. Universities have had access agreements for years ( I studied them as part of my masters over 15 years ago) in fact there are fewer widening participation initiatives around since the introduction of higher fees due to the coalition government scrapping aimhigher.

Anecdotes aren't facts. Social mobility in higher education has stalled and may actually be in decline. First generation students and students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are two thirds less likely to attend a high ranking, high tariff university. Unfortunately that is a fact.

It is strange that is so as the same web search a middle class student prepared to take on loans with no parental support can be done by someone from a not very well off background and the less well off one will receive a higher maintenance loan than the better off one even though the better off once cannot force their parents to contribute a single penny.

The Sutton Trust is a really good source for this sort of information. I really rate their work (have worked with them on widening participation summer schools etc).

Here's a recent report of educational advantage in access to universities:
www.suttontrust.com/research-paper/access-to-advantage-university-admissions/

The Sutton report is interesting. I subscribe to them and find the research excellent but sometimes I want to challenge their findings!

However they point out in this report that schools must do more to overcome social mobility. There are not enough non selective schools who are consistently getting well qualified young people to aim high or even take the right A levels. Well informed families will know about this. The children that most need the best advice, don’t get it.

How many times do advisors say that all universities are the same? You must choose the course you like? Choose the A levels you like. You won’t fit into that university. Etc. It has to stop. Young people need to understand what choices mean and that RG attendance does yield a better economic result. Doing Economics at Wolverhampton won’t be the same as doing it at the LSE for job prospects. Schools and advisors need to sharpen up to help young people. It’s not just the universities. All the outreach in the world doesn’t help if you don’t go to it!

I don't know a single carers adviser who would tell a young person they wouldn't fit in at a certain university.

That is part of the problem though ....that fear of not fitting in but that's an issue that is multi faceted and complex. It certainly isn't because careers adviser told them that.

And I also don't know any careers advisers that say all universities are the same......

And most kids won't come across a careers advisor at all! They'll be guided by teachers and parents, who often have preconceived ideas about certain universities, and often aren't knowledgeable at all about subjects or reputations.

That is changing. The recent careers strategy makes it a requirement that all students have access to personal guidance from a suitably qualified person.

I agree ( as does the research) that teachers and parents aren't best placed to offer careers advice.

one of my son's was told by his teacher that he would struggle at grammar school - which i didnt find very aspirational. He is now starting his PHD. But I'm sure that if he came from a different sort of family things would be totally different

Just have some means tested scholarships for Russell group for in-demand subjects. No need to sit exam - just do it on interview at entrance. Maybe also have 5 year period after where they have to work in UK/nhs (to contribute back in tax etc).

No good to give for free. Students will just party and not study.

Why just Russell group? Being a part of the RG isn't necessarily an inductor of teaching excellence.

For a small amount of scholarships I guess you are either aiming to reduce barriers for current job shortages eg nursing/medicine, or you are aiming to help poor v talented students get to places where they can springboard into research/leadership. Russell group tend to be known for the latter but I guess there may be others and would be good for it to be reviewed rather than a static body.

The Russell Group are a self appointed mission group. It doesn't indicate quality. They tend to be research intensive and if we're talking skills shortages in the labour market then you need to be looking at course level not institutional.....many newer universities actually have a history of excellence in vocational courses.

No good to give for free. Students will just party and not study.

No evidence to support that at all

No. I think Uni should be free(state funded) or at least heavily subsidised(with no repayment) for everyone .

How do you define ‘lesser’ universities? For instance some League tables are heavily flawed in that they rank on expenditure per student - a university could burn through an extra 3-4m at year end in pointless shite just to keep their ranking.

The IOFS produced detailed data last year about the increased value of RG for students. It’s not just a name or marketing. Try reading the report! It specifically mentions Wolverhampton and LSE. It looked at which degrees and which universities gave grads better salaries after 5 years. Of course there are great universities and courses which are not RG but you have to know which ones they are to maximise job chances. You also have to know the difference between vocational courses such as MEng and BEng for example.

titchy is right. Plenty of teachers don’t suggest aspirational choices. They just know where they went. Children don’t see careers advisors or people who know specifics about careers early enough. Or at all. I hope it is changing.

Maybe it should be free to the motivated. No charge until you compete your course with a decent grade or else you have to replay if you fail or drop out?

May put off the ones who want to party and live the easy life.

@AliyyaJann I dropped out after a rape and subsequent abortion. I barely cared about being alive,much less how many cows per capita are raised in the US.

bubbles I've worked in HE for 20 years....I know what RG universities are and I'm also familiar with the other mission groups. I'm not saying they aren't any good but they are a self selected group of research intensive universities. It is not necessarily a quality mark across the board. It also doesn't mean that non-RG universities aren't as good or worthwhile.

Career guidance in schools and colleges was decimated after the 2011 education act. Thankfully it looks like it's starting to improve with the new careers strategy and the implementation of the Gatsby Benchmarks. However, there is a huge skills shortage of suitably qualified careers advisers at the moment.

@Costanza - I agree re: skills shortages - which is why I mentioned it. But for the non-skills shortage areas, RG unis with heavy research are likely to be better for developing future researchers/leaders (due to opportunities to do 3rd year projects etc).

I think a lot of professions now ‘require’ a degree when in the past they were done by someone without one. How many people use their degree - did it require 3 years of study? I think in a time of austerity we are over-educating people... a better route would be professional exams set by the professional body (accountants, IT, engineers, pharmacists etc). Any teaching institution/apprenticeship can teach for them. Possibly plus a log book for on the job work.

namenic - i can see that some subjects could be taught via apprenticeships.....business/accountancy for example lends itself. The student has some value to the firm whilst they learn steadily progressing to more stretching work. others such as pharmacy maybe, and geology...the person has no value until they have knowledge, so why would a firm employ them? they would just suck up resource for no gain - i've not even seen placement years for geology and many want people with msc's

and teachers wouldnt have enough specialist knowledge unless they were professor type level, which is a uni type education anyway

But getting a degree isn't all about learning a trade. For a large number of people it's the transferable skills developed while at university that makes the difference. Limiting that to RG or even just high ranking universities feels like we'd be returning to a pre 92 system...which was incredibly elitist.

Can you really over educate a society? Research shows that society as a whole benefits from a more educated population.

The government are pushing the apprenticeship agenda but its not as easy as it sounds. It's a red tape, administrative nightmare. It's one of those things that looks good on paper but has been made very difficult to implement. Which is a shame.