Unis request to raise fees to insane levels

[FlakeSnow]

Fees for 2023 and 2024 are agreed to be £9250. Article below appears to be calling for increase in fees to circa £24k ie on par with overseas students.

Do anyone think this is a remote chance this will happen? My initial reaction is one of horror. (Not read beyond the paywall).

Times uni fees article

Of course it won't! We did tell the government that back before 2012 but they knew best... except of course they didn't. The OU is much cheaper - very very few 18 year olds study with them. The 'market' is not price sensitive.

I was referring to your comment about a high number of graduates working in coffee shops. That is a myth.

I think that's just semantics and you are ignoring the points I'm making.

I think £24k a year would still be cheaper than the US. So I guess it’s conceivable.

It would be. It's also probably close to the actual cost per student to run the uni. Do UK universities get direct subsidies from the government now?

In the US, private universities get nothing and state universities get their budgets partially funded by the state. As those subsidies have gone down, fees at state universities have gone up.

Student loans in USA follow you to your grave.

Actually, they don't.

studentaid.gov/manage-loans/repayment/plans/income-driven

Maybe you are basing your knowledge of HE on what you experienced in the 70's? Things change..... student numbers, government policies, student demographics etc.

Not just the 70s and 80s and early 90s, also the 10s and 20s with DC and my own forays into teaching and research. There are of course varying processes between different unis, so I get that yours finds it not sensible to charge different fee blocks to home students, unlike international ones (if you have different international fee blocks).

I think from a HMG policy viewpoint, given that inflation will almost certainly hit 20% within a year, it would be interesting to see how well a flat home fee structure will reshape the market on courses and players.

I think that's just semantics and you are ignoring the points I'm making.

I'm not ignoring your points. I've worked in and with hundreds of schools and I've worked at a number of universities. If you genuinely think that a university can or should be run like a school then I would suggest you don't know how either works very well!

Universities are so much more than places that teach people but even if you just look at the staffing support required to ensure that aspect is done properly then you'll start to see where the money goes.

Of course there are differences and of course universities being bigger are harder to run, but they also have a considerably bigger income stream and far higher student to teacher ratios.

Well that's not necessarily true about staff student ratios. You're assuming all teaching is delivered in a big lecture theatre. That's quite a small part - labs, seminars, tutorials etc all delivered in much smaller groups.

Don't forget also that school teachers only teach, and therefore have far more contact time. Lecturers' contracts typically expect a third of their time to be on teaching activities (management, admin, development and research being the remainder), of which a further third is context (remainder prep and marking - don't forget that larger groups = more marking). It may well need four times as many staff to deliver to the same number of students as the average private school. Capital budgets will also be far higher.

*contact not context

How it's working now is they are taking in more overseas students so we will train Dr's nurses dentists for other countries nice for the University but not going to help us as a country is it

I missed this previously.

Some UK medical schools (newer ones with home students) aren't allowed to recruit international students. Others have a strict cap on their number of international students (7.5% of their 2017 intake number). They can't choose to take more international students and fewer home ones: they would be penalised financially if they did this. There are three new medical schools that function privately: they aren't allocated any home students (because the government won't fund them) but are allowed to recruit international students up to a number capped by the GMC. These students have to cover the entire cost of their training themselves so there is no cost to the OfS or the NHS.

Ha ha ha ha!

That is pretty much how universities were funded pre “full cost” tuition fees. Bands A, B, C, D depending on high cost (medicine, engineering), laboratory based, part - lab based (including humanities disciplines such as modern foreign languages and performing arts) and non-lab based.

Ha ha ha ha!

That is pretty much how universities were funded pre “full cost” tuition fees. Bands A, B, C, D depending on high cost (medicine, engineering), laboratory based, part - lab based (including humanities disciplines such as modern foreign languages and performing arts) and non-lab based.

It may work differently at my uni, @brookstar. I would give a lot of academic input into the Faculty admissions literature although the presentations I made were local. Our students are in STEM and all of them have a somewhat international mindset with many hoping to work in America so there could be differences across Faculties in the concerns students have, also.

The graduate income tax deduction

It's not a tax. It's repayments of a debt on a loan. The "debt" increases massively year on year because of the punitively high interest charged. So those who don't pay much of their debt off in the early years suffer a much higher interest charge, and pay the loan repayments for longer, than someone who takes a better paying job at first (or repays their debt from savings). Of course, some people pay nothing off their debt, and lots of others pay back the original loan (capital) but never pay off all the interest. But, at the end of the day, it's a debt, interest is charged, and repayments are made. So it has all the elements of a loan and few, if any, elements of being a "tax".

It's not a tax. It's repayments of a debt on a loan. The "debt" increases massively year on year because of the punitively high interest charged. So those who don't pay much of their debt off in the early years suffer a much higher interest charge, and pay the loan repayments for longer, than someone who takes a better paying job at first (or repays their debt from savings). Of course, some people pay nothing off their debt, and lots of others pay back the original loan (capital) but never pay off all the interest. But, at the end of the day, it's a debt, interest is charged, and repayments are made. So it has all the elements of a loan and few, if any, elements of being a "tax".

It is neither loan nor tax, however some would say more tax than loan. Martin Lewis uses the term "contribution" as a working compromise.

So the SLC rate is now 6.3% against inflation of 10%, and rising. That's a negative real interest rate. What is the commercial rate for an unsecured loan? At least 10% and up to 30% at the moment? Interest starts accruing at the same time and does not freeze at the end of the course. So SLC "loans" are relatively good value compared to every other funding option.

To an extent none of this matters, nobody needs to engage with the SLC if they have a better option. The question was whether the amount should go up to £24k from c.£9k. If there had not been a freeze, it is estimated it would be £12k now, and presumably rising fast with inflation. Vice-Chancellors have mentioned the £24k that internationals get charged, perhaps a crude negotiating opener? I can't see the any government agreeing to that.

Whatever it is, having a flat fee rate means humanities students subsidising STEM, if they contributed equally when working. However in general STEM graduates contribute more, having higher pay on average, so perhaps it's swings and roundabouts, and we can pretend that a flat fee rate resulting in say an Literature student (cost c.£20k) having the same "loan" balance as a Medicine student (cost c.£200k) is the best option.

However in general STEM graduates contribute more, having higher pay on average

Not really. If they earn more, sooner, then they pay off their loan sooner and therefore pay lower interest. So, overall they may well pay less than a humanities graduate who earns less, so pays the student loan repayments for the full 30 years, but never pays it off because of the interest.

As for the interest rate, it's been stupidly high for years - yes, for the moment, it's lower than inflation, but it will go back to being stupidly high once inflation is back under control. You can't just pick 1 year out of the 30 to claim it's a good rate!

It's been pegged to inflation now actually - was due to go up to 13% next month but that's been stopped. Plan 3 interest pegged to inflation from day 1, so an effective real rate of zero.

It's only seriously high flyers that will be likely to pay their (plan 2) loans off in full. High earners such as STEM grads will pay more than non STEM
on average but not quickly enough to knock years of repayments off. Not that it matter - both likely to pay same amount back.

All subjects have to be charged the same though. Science shouldn't be the preserve of the rich.

If you really have evidence that on average humanities graduates do worse, what's your suggestion? Apparently even medicine graduates who earn the most on average cannot contribute enough to cover their balances, so perhaps you could explain what you're saying?

As for interest rates, if the SLC option is not better than unsecured loans, and you believe it's a true loan, why on earth would you bother with the SLC? Just go to market for a cheaper option. I am not even asking you to "claim" anything, even if that would be difficult. At any point you can pay off the SLC "loan" and replace it with other funds.

Thanks, @titchy first time someone honestly has said that the flat rate is social policy. No issue there at all, it's a democratic choice. Not the "can't do despite we've been doing it for decades" or "not operationally worthwhile despite doing it for decades" etc. All these faux reasons just reduce trust and engagement.

So what bets would you put on the headline fees going to £10/12/15/20/24k?

I explained earlier what impact differential fees would have on widening participation and social mobility 🤷🏼‍♀️

These decisions are often made for a number of reasons. Some universities did choose to charge lower fees. It backfired and some of those universities are still trying to recover financially.

I don't think the flat fee rate was any great secret. It was widely commented on at the time. Though appreciate maybe it didn't get that much attention in mainstream media.

Fee increase though - no. They'll undoubtedly go up another £250, possibly a little more in 2024/5, but there won't be any increases in the amounts being discussed (Gov couldn't afford it for one!). It's a discussion/awareness raising piece, not a serious lobbying target.

How does Scotland afford to not charge it's student fees?

The Scottish Gov has decided to spend its funding (which comes from the UK Gov via the Barnett formula - don't know much about what drives that sorry) on directly supporting it's universities. Presumably that reduces the amount they can spend on other things. The price of no fees of course is a cap on students.

I went to uni in the US and the contact hours were well over 20 hours a week for a non science course. Here I understand it can be eight for some courses! I'm not sure if a hike to those fee levels can be justified.
I also must say though that my facilities were nothing compared to those on offer now. Of course we didn't have computers back then. But what I paid in tuition in the 1980s is on par with what UK students pay now. It was a private university- 25% of students go to private universities in the US ( Harvard etc are private). The average tuition fees for private university was about £30k last year, for Ivy League average was £50k/year. This is tuition only for domestic students (not room and board). Remember US degrees are usually four years too. There are a variety of scholarships and loans on offer and working part time in term time is also common.

The Scottish Gov has decided to spend its funding (which comes from the UK Gov via the Barnett formula - don't know much about what drives that sorry) on directly supporting it's universities.

As have many other countries around the world. Surely educating the next generation is money well spent?!