Why doesn’t the Government cap Masters degree fees?

[Theworried2]

Surely it would make sense for the Government to cap Masters degrees fees to ensure costs aren’t prohibitive for home students. DS is starting his undergraduate degree in economics this year and if he were to pursue a masters at say LSE for example, the cost would be north of 30 grand!
Those in STEM often get the chance to do an integrated masters where the cost is the same as an undergrad fee.
Surely this disparity should be fixed?

A degree course costs the university money to provide.

Undergraduate fees are capped because, via student loans, the government is essentially paying for them. And they can't afford to pay very much.

As with everything, the cost of providing a degree has increased over recent years, yet the undergraduate tuition fee cap has not. As such, for many degree courses £9,250 doesn't actually cover the university's costs of providing the degree.

The government doesn't fund Masters degrees, so it doesn't cap the fees. If a cap were introduced, universities simply wouldn't be able to run them, as they would be losing money.

An MBA at LBS is currently £110k. Might slightly cramp their style to have a limit!

@Sourcherriesarebest Executive courses (e.g. MBA) that are for professionals who have worked for a few years but those which are a natural stepping stone for those who have just finished their undergrad degree, should have capped fees. How could a student who has just finished their undergraduate studies afford very high fees, higher than the max student loan (12k).

@rbe78 the cap doesn’t have to be 9.25k. It should be set at the max student loan which I think is a bit higher for postgrad.
Edit: and how would an economics masters cost 35k to run anyway.

The government doesn't fund Masters degrees, so it doesn't cap the fees. ?

Government Postgraduate Loans

The fees aren't funded though, it's just a flat rate loan.

There is actually no cap to undergraduate fees - Norland charges I think £20k a year for their degrees. It's the loan for fees that is capped.

Introducing a capped Masters fee loan would mean the Gov also has to offer a maintenance loan for masters students which would be similar in cost as the UG maintenance loan - and increase the RAB cost significantly. Making it unsustainable, not to mention the adviser consequence to universities.

I'd argue there isn't really any Masters course that needs to be done straight after a Bachelors. And while I agree LSE is super expensive, the vast majority charge around the same as the loan. Nothing to stop anyone working for a year or two after UG, and saving up, and/or doing a PT Masters.

Sorry - no fee cap for private providers.

I work in finance in HE. The current UK undergrad fees nowhere near cover the cost of providing them, especially for science subjects. They have been heavily subsidised by overseas fees for a long time and we are rapidly approaching a point where even this won't be enough to balance the books. Add in caps on UK fees for masters and the whole thing comes crashing down.

It’s a fair comment though that some stem degrees are 4 years including an integrated masters so those students are funded and leave with a masters degree having been funded all the way through, seems bonkers that the discrepancy isn’t corrected, especially when it’s the stem degrees that cost so much to put on.

Integrated Masters don't have a full Masters year though - the fourth year is 120 credits at level 7 whereas a full Masters is 180 credits - the extra 60 usually coming from a much deeper research project than UG normally have.

The Gov tops up stem course costs - though by the same amount for the last god knows how many years so unis are still worse off year on year.

Our M(STEM) students do a project but graduate in July. MSc students do a proper thesis and graduate in September.

The M(STEM) is a good degree and I think it should be expanded. But it is no substitute for the full MSc

Am I right in thinking the stellar non-STEM undergrads aiming for academia go straight to fully funded PhDs and the rest aiming for academia go somewhere cheaper for a Masters in the hope of getting a funded PhD or do they work for a bit or raid the bank of mum and dad to go for a highly rated Masters.

Interested in the route into academia these days as it would be DDs plan B.

but surely there should be some fee regulation of MSC as otherwise there is a huge disparity in fees, making some inaccessible to many unlike undergraduate courses, where the government loan covers the whole fee.
for example MSC computing at Imperial is 18k
Msc Computing + Finance is 29k
How is the word finance allowing the uni to effectively charge 11k more!

I did 25 years ago - funded by the NERC - but it is much less common now - most expect a masters and this was pushed by the UK Research Councils.

I sit on studentship panels for both NERC and AHRC and cannot remember seeing a student funded without a Masters straight out of BA/BSc. Sometimes a mature student with relevant work experience but no masters will be funded.

The competition is fierce and most of my recently funded students have an MSc in the bag plus a paper or two accepted/published.

@Mytholmroyd useful info.

In that case unis must miss out on good candidates who can't fund a masters. Do unis discount fees substantially for home students based on academic excellence or to ensure wider participation?

I'd be in favour of mandating availability of good quality affordable masters for home students. Unis can always run the money grabbing equivalents for internationals.

@SandyIrving Expensive masters aren't necessary for a PhD. So the route to a PhD should be fairly accessible to all by choosing an MSc / MA with fees payable from the loan.

Funding a PhD is hugely competitive though, particularly in non-STEM fields.

Fees aren't discounted at all for anyone, although most unis offer maybe 10% off for their alumni.

Remember we've only had a masters loan for a few years. Prior to ?2018 there was no loan at all.

I'd forgotten that masters loans were newish. I had a full SERC grant and a few on my masters were self funding with graduate bank loans. Fees were low then plus masters students could pick up work helping at undergraduate tutorials/seminars not sure this is the case now.

I checked the unis in our area (fortunate to be with commuting distance) and only one out of 4 is within the masters loan levels but luckily rest are nothing like the 30k (half that at most).

Is PhD application funding blinded in some way so those assessing cannot tell which institutions applicant previously attended?

PhD funding from UKRI is not institution blind no. (Don't know about other funders.) But there's no particular advantage in gaining a Masters that costs £££ as opposed to one that costs £. It's the topic and dissertation and how the applicant can demonstrate their ability etc rather than having gained an MSc from University of Megabucks.

There is now also a doctoral loan of £25k for those without funding. Wouldn't be a sensible route for a STEM applicant but maybe for non-STEM?

Some universities do offer bursaries to good masters students - my department does that funded by a benefactor - but it does not cover half let alone all the fees unfortunately.

Another route for excellent undergrads is to do a Masters by Research - the fees for these are usually a lot less because they do not include any taught classes (although students can still attend any lectures they wish). They are essentially an extended research dissertation (like a mini PhD!) And very good evidence that a student is ready for PhD level study.

PhDs are also available sometimes through non-UKRI grants - such as those from the European Research Councils - and they are usually advertised and candidates interviewed and selected by the grant holder (an academic)/a panel so they could choose to take a good student without a Masters. It is not an absolute requirement to have a masters to do a PhD but when you are competing against people who have a distinction at masters level you are at a disadvantage.

We also have quite a lot of PhD students who self-fund - perhaps doing it part-time whilst working - not ideal but you can still do one without funding as long as a supervisor will agree to supervise you and the Dept accepts you. Would not necessarily need a masters in this case.

Once you get to PhD level there isn't the same emphasis on institution ranking that exists at UG. If anything it is more about the department you did the masters in and who you were taught by - the best departments/staff for some subjects are not always in what is perceived as the top ranked UK universities. I studied in an excellent department for my UG and PhD in what would be regarded here as a low ranked university but the department is very highly regarded internationally within the discipline.

Also, the supervisor you want to study with is key - there are 3 main categories funding is decided on - project - student - fit of supervisors. So you go where it is best for the topic you want to research.

Am I right in thinking that a lot of STEM PhDs students are essentially working on funded projects. So DD , with only an intercalated engineering degree, was told by the university lab she did her recent elective in, to approach them if she ever wanted to do a PhD in case they had anything suitable. No mention of needing a Masters. I have also heard it can be a bit of a tax dodge. You can give someone working towards a PhD a tax free stipend. If instead they were an employee they would be taxed so would have to be paid more.

Outside STEM it is a struggle. DS did his Masters at LSE, which we paid for. (He was surprisingly grateful. Several of his friends also stayed on but presumably had to work hard to identify funding.) He could have gone somewhere cheaper, but his Masters, Econometrics and Mathematical Economics, was known for delivering graduates with high levels of technical proficiency, something that future employers value, and which research focussed Universities are looking for. Given competition for PhD funding is intense, vanishingly few will be able to go straight from a BSc to a funded PhD. (We know of someone who did, but he consistently walked away with all the prizes throughout his school and university career.) You need a strong masters and the skills that come with it to compete.

DS applied to the US as well as the UK. (There was only funding for one PhD in DS' field at the LSE.) He was lucky to have references from some very high profile academics which helped a lot. His US funding is for six years: two years of taught Masters; three years of PhD; and a job market year. The first couple of years involved quite a lot of repetition, many US Universities don't seem to offer stand alone Econ Masters, and their UG degrees tend to be a lot less specialist than in the UK. But because of the competition he needed a Masters to compete for the PhD funding.

Out of 39 on his course, he was the only home student. The others came from everywhere: South and North American, Australia, Asia, Europe etc. Most had the same idea of a year building technical skills as the passport to technical economist jobs or academia. For many, though the fees were high, the very intense nature of the course made it a good choice and perhaps cheaper than similar courses elsewhere. Perhaps similar to a Law Conversion course. You need to have mastered the content in order to progress to the next step.

The government effectively made universities businesses when they stopped non-loan based funding. So now, universities make business minded decisions. Access to masters degrees isn't a right.