Completely unaffordable to do a masters

[sergeantmajor]

DS wants to become an economist. It seems he would need a masters (which he'd love to do) to pursue this line of work. He is in his final year of his Economics BSc, doing very well. I just can't believe that tuition fees alone are c.£25k for one year, while the government loan is c.£11k. He seems to be priced out before he's even begun.

There don't appear to be any scholarships for a masters in this subject. We saw one job ad that mentioned sponsoring their trainees for a masters which would be a dream come true, but only one.

He has some savings from bar work but this doesn't come close to enough. Our own income has taken a massive hit this year, so we can't close the gap.

Is there something that I'm missing???

Yes I did an llm (law masters)

As I was interested in the subject and wanted to study it further.

Rather than a career move (where your doing a professional qualification and just sticking a dissertation on the end to get a student loan)

Unfortunately, the current government line is that Masters degrees primarily benefit the individual and their current or future employer, delivering less societal or other systemic good than either undergraduate degrees or doctoral degrees. Consequently, it should be up to the individual and/or their employer to fund them.

Broadly, the way this approch goes is:

A small number comprised of the very most academically able should be channelled through the 1+3 Masters plus PhD route and given competitive research council funding so that these people can meet the limited needs of academia and other research-related professions. This system replaced the previous system of competitive research council funding being available separately for taught Masters and PhDs, to encourage this specific group of people to continue on to do the higher value research degree.

Everyone who is not in this most academically able group being prepared to meet research needs should pay for their own Masters if that is something they want to do for their own benefit or have their employer pay for it because it brings benefit to the employer, because their having a Masters does not generate enough other benefit to justify funding them.

To ensure some kind of equity in access to the individual benefits derived from having a Masters, universities should provide some limited scholarships at least to some extent tied to financial need.

To further promote equity, the SF(E, etc.) Masters loan was introduced so that people who wanted to do a Masters degree did not have to take out loans on commercial terms, as had previously been the case.

There are very, very many ideological, academic, social and economic / financial holes in this approach and it has done very little to solve the problems it was introduced to solve. It is also why some courses can charge £26K for a Masters degree.

There are very, very many ideological, academic, social and economic / financial holes in this approach and it has done very little to solve the problems it was introduced to solve

Exactly. Which is why it's a bit glib to say oh take a loan, same as everyone on my course did [alongside being subbed, generally by a parent], or work [easier said than done, either because it's not possible to generate the shortfall in funds through work if a day or two a week is doable, or because the course genuinely doesn't leave enough time to make even the smallest dent in the shortfall].

Anyone who says it's doable to fund a Masters without help/ external scholarship funding is most likely to be coming from a comfortable financial position themselves.

Consequently, it should be up to the individual and/or their employer to fund them.
Lines are blurred though for extra cost to society and families. Undergraduate degrees that last 4 years or have an integrated masters’ year are eligible for a maintenance loan which for most means continuing parental support for that fourth year. Plus quite a few universities will reduce their masters” fees for their own undergraduates.

Unfortunately Economic masters and postgraduate qualifications at business schools will always be priced at ‘brand’ value. However, to balance that out, economic or finance undergraduate degrees at those institutions already provide much higher earning potential than most other degrees.

But courses such as the MSt in History which I referred to above leaves a shortfall after the loan in excess of £13k, with no obvious compensatory higher earning potential. That's just the one random example.

I certainly wasn't trying to be glib, apologies if that's how I came across. I was merely trying to explain how DD funded her Masters – a combination of a second loan from Student Finance to cover the cost of the course itself, then savings from holiday work during 4-year undergrad to cover travel and expenses – in the hope that it might be of interest/help to others. She received no direct financial help from us, but did benefit from living at home so didn't have accommodation costs.

There's no doubt that our DCs need to consider the cost v benefit of a Masters quite carefully. It's worth doing one if it's going to be a necessity for your planned career or will lead to a more lucrative path; it possibly isn't if you are doing one because you can't quite decide what else to do, don't feel you are ready to get a job or just fancy another year at university.

Where it gets trickier is if you are really passionate about your subject and want to study it in more depth but without any clear benefit either to your future career or your future finances. Maybe there should be some sort of bursary available for those wanting to do a Masters in, say, a humanity? DD is a scientist, but I think Masters need to cater for people on the Arts side too, where it's still important that we have people studying even if they may not see any obvious benefit in career/financial terms.

I don't think there's any simple answer, though, particularly in the current financial climate.

Mine was a very general comment thing47, not aimed at you. Apologies.

You can see from what Oxford says re. the MSt in History, that only twenty percent of students get funding from the university or the college. I simply flicked up the MSt in History as a random example, but there's definitely a major issue for those who can't live at home and are in the category you describe.

Of course the other side of the coin is the funding stream that these courses provide for unis. One of my nieces did an MSc at one of the well known UoL colleges which had one single contact session a week (this was prior to Covid) and was clearly simply a cash cow for the institution. Her parents are very well off and were happy to pay but even then, my sister was pretty horrified at the lack of teaching.

My dd did her Master's part time and worked part time and got a career development loan from the bank to enable her to do it. If he really wants it, he will find a way. My dd knew she get in more debt but her reasoning was if she could not do it then, when she only had herself to think about, she would never do it once she had children to consider.

Could she live where her own home/ your home was caringcarer? Because all part time does if you don't happen to live within commuting distance of the provider is to (at least) double living costs for the course.

Yes that sounds poor, I'd be very disappointed with that. I know it's different with STEM subjects but DD2 was in the labs most days, for about half a day on average. She was carrying out original research – alongside her tutor and a PhD student – into vector-borne diseases.

In the afternoons/evenings she was either writing up her notes, reading papers on the subject or listening to lectures from the likes of Sir Chris Whitty or Anthony Fauci, both online and in person. It really was a quite stunning course.

Not of much interest to an economist, however. 😃

shortfall of £13,324.
As I said the lines of costs are blurred when you consider against the cost of 4 year undergraduate degree. In this example, an MA in history, there will be courses with lower fees eg at Durham that are fully covered by the postgraduate loan. The difference in living costs for 3 years undergraduate+masters compared to 4 year undergraduates will be the loss of the maintenance loan which for many families will be under £4000.

For Economics, taking the example of Durham, there are MSc courses such as Experimental Economics at ~£1000 more than postgraduate loan. So here the shortfall in upfront costs compared to a 4 year undergraduate course would be that plus the loss of the maintenance loan. That is assuming the student does n’t get an academic scholarship.

I see that the costs can seem more modest with that comparison. Indeed on MN one sees posts at regular intervals comparing the costs of school fees to undergraduate support, which is besides the point for the majority of parents. I was thinking more of the student on the maximum loan on a standard three year History degree, who read History at Oxford but is only on the seventy ninth percentile of those getting an offer for the course. That isn’t a particularly niche example. There are far fewer four year courses in History and other arts subjects which result in a Master’s award than there are in other areas.

There are far fewer four year courses in History and other arts subjects which result in a Master’s award than there are in other areas.
Yes but many families are prepared to fund 4 year courses in STEM or MFL subjects or living costs of an art foundation course. For the example of history it comes back to personal decisions on the ‘worth’ of a 4 year arts’ course.

For the example of history it comes back to personal decisions on the ‘worth’ of a 4 year arts’ course.

It does, but imo 'worth' isn't only financial. As a society we should also be encouraging students whose passion is history – study for study's sake is a good thing, and not every form of study should be undertaken purely as a vocational approach or as a means of getting a better paid job. And I say that as a family of mostly scientists. I wouldn't want to see arts and humanities students priced out of studying.

Well also, how much of a 'decision' is there to be made if you simply can't see a way to bridge £13, 324?

Parents being prepared to fund and being able to fund are two separate things.

Open University?

If everyone could get fully funded would not a huge amount of retiring people start doing them. Student funding cuts off at 60 but plenty of 55 year olds who would do it.
For free, and as no salary afterwards, l is sn never repaid.
(I could have done that to be fair)

So where is the cut off to avoid older people just doing them for interest (assuming they had correct undergrad degree and or career experience)

If you want to pursue a career in academia, get a masters. If not, don't bother.

Nobody has ever asked me about my master's. They're only interested in my ug classification.

Lot of institution snobbery going on here. Can they actually study and deliver level 7? Fantastic, go for it. Wherever they do it.

The hike in accommodation costs mean that an increasing number of undergraduate students will struggle to close the gap between their maintenance loan and living costs.
That is a more pressing problem for them and for equality in university education than the availability of an MA in arts at an expensive university to those falling below the top 20% or so cut-off for a post graduate scholarship.

Well that’s perfectly true but the OP posted about the seeming impossibility of affording a Masters. One can extend the argument about equality during the current economic crisis almost endlessly but it isn’t the point of the thread.

Yes you are right. However the OP was primarily highlighting the fees. As in your example and mine for Durham, the gap between fees and postgraduate loan can be minor compared to the living costs even for economics. Since the OP is not back we don’t know where her DS is on the scale between maximum or minimum maintenance loan and therefore the extra living support needed compared to a 4th year as an undergraduate.

Plus of course there are academic scholarships at certain universities and, at least after his degree , the option of a higher earning graduate job that would allow him to save for a masters.

bottleofbeer, I don't understand your post.

A lot of economic research is done outside Universities, mainly by banks and consultancies but also Governments and think tanks. Even the letting agent I use has an economist so they can circulate regular market updates and forecasts. At least some of these economist jobs will be looking for applicants with Masters degrees, and more specifically with those who have acquired specific analytical and forecasting skills. The better jobs can pay very well indeed.

There is a gap between what is offered at different institutions, and I think it is unfair to write it off as "snobbery". At one point DS was helping a friend, who I think was at Oxford Brooks with his Masters application, and was surprised at how little technical ground his friend had covered. Employers looking for specialist economists will be aware of this. (Oxford Brooks is looking for maths GCSE 4/C or above, whilst most successful applicants at LSE will have an A* in FM A level - so their first year econometrics will have to start at a different place.) We are lucky that in the UK some masters courses are well recognised internationally, which allows graduates an enormous range of opportunities. The issue as OP points out, is that these courses can be extra ordinarily expensive.

(In their defence, though happy to be corrected, I understand that the employment market for top academic economists is also very competitive and so the cost of running a top notch economics course can also be very expensive - especially for institutions that don't have large historic endowments.)

In terms of funding, I know it was an issue as DS was surprisingly grateful. Others though seems to have managed, including a couple of first generation Londoners whose parents would not have been in a position to help at all. A third friend worked for a year as a research assistant, good experience and presumably a chance to save.

(At times MN seems to assume a binary where people are assumed to be "very rich" or "very poor". We paid but put off replacing our 15 year old car, delayed doing anything about the 30 year old decoration in our house, and skipped a summer holiday. We know we and DS are lucky, but equally made a decision that the bank of mum and dad should support DS get over what is a real financial hurdle. He can save for his own house deposit.)

You don't say what field you are in @bottleofbeer but I can assure you that any number of STEM roles require at least a Masters, whether you are in industry or working for a charity or NGO. Particularly if you want to do research, which is most certainly not confined to academia.

Yes we are kind of in the middle too @Needmoresleep. We didn't directly fund any part of DD2's Masters but as previously stated she was able to live at home and commute for it and we were in the fortunate position of not needing her to pay rent during that year. Not because we are wealthy but because our mortgage was paid off just before she started and because we don't have a very expensive lifestyle in terms of house or car or holidays.

In the current financial climate it would have required a few more sacrifices I think, so I am very sympathetic to anyone whose DC is about to start a post-grad.