Tuition fees

[stoatsrevenge]

So we are to expect a massive increase in university tuition fees, as well as increasing interest ib student loans...

Here is the 6 year plan from the LibDem manifesto:

1
Scrap fees for final year full-time students

2
Begin regulating part-time fees

3
Part time fees become regulated and fee loans become available to part time students

4
Expand free tuition to all full-time students apart from first year undergraduates

5
Expand free tuition to all part-time students apart from first year undergraduates

6
Scrap tuition fees for all first degree students

How are they going to square this one?

If you went now Thunder, and you did your degree at a college near you, why would it be so bad if you were living at home?

I did both my degree and PGCE at a college near where dh and I lived, so that on the times when he wasn't at sea we could at least be in the same place.

The PGCE gives a bursary, pays your fees and with the minimum maintenance loan effectively replaced my part time salary. I started paying back the loan in 2002, and had cleared it by 2005. I had to ring the SLC to tell them I was leaving the country (dh appointed to Brussels) to get my overpayment back.

tokyonambu. Most of the uni's we have looked at offer bursaries of between £1500 and £4000 to students from lower income families. Went to an open day just last weekend and that one offered £4,000 which was means tested and depended on academic achievment.

£4,000 non repayable would make a huge difference to a budget.

The amount proposed equates to £140 a week and more that half of that is repayable. Considering that first year hall cost approx £100 a week it doesn't leave a lot left. Also with the fees doubling, it is adding to the costs/debt considerably compared to the present funding.

It's worrying that the the funding is going to be deemed as debt, a debt with our childrens name written on it. The report also says they expect 40% to be repaid in the 30 yrs. 20% will never be repaid so I suppose they may expect to recover about 20% of the remaining 40%. I wonder how much of the current fees/loans they are expecting back.

What would happen if students go and work abroad or emigrate, I wonder? Lots of questions and uncertainty, expecially for the current yr 12's.

It would be amusing for the Coalition to offer a return to the 1970s, as that's usually invoked as a golden age. They could offer full grants, means tested on generous interpretations of parental disposable income, and abolish tuition fees.

They could also close down 65% of undergraduate places, to return to the takeup rates of the 1970s, with a similar reduction in the number of academic staff, and remove degree-granting powers from all of the post-94 universities. Older universities that currently have 15K undergraduates would return to having 6K. University takeup would return to 12%, so the admission requriement for every course that was degree level (rather than HND) would be at least AAA.

The 1970s were great, weren't they? The UCU say so, and NUS say so: fully funded university education and stable funding for the sector. Everyone would be happy, yes?

I agree with Tokyonambu - a return to the 1970s would be a bad thing for the economy

We changed from the 1970s for a reason - the HE sector wasnt producing enough qualified candidates for the graduate jobs expected to be on offer. The aspirational take up rate of 50% set by Tony Blair's government was based on workforce projections - admittedly, they seem a little off now, mid recession.

But the economy simply can't afford to fully fund 40% of all 18/19 year olds going to university. And whether you agree with that statement depends on your political point of view - so that's just mine.

What unsettles me personally, apart from the fact I have 3 teenagers who this will affect in some way, is that although I agree in prinicple with individuals paying for their own education, the speed of the change - starting for intake 2012 - means that we just havent had the time to build up reserves - no chance to build up a 'college fund' as I believe American parents do.

Admittedly the writing has been on the wall for several years, but still not enough time to adequately plan for the cost of 3 univeristy degrees in the space of 5 years, for us.

So OK the debt is going to belong to my children, but that doesnt mean that I'm not going to feel parentally responsible for it.

Nevertheless, I see no real alternative for the economy

That's what worrying me the speed of such a radical change. Not so bad for students who have a few years to go but it's affecting my DD's year and she has to have her UCAS form in in 12 months time.

Does anyone know if it is going to change so soon, have they given a real time scale for uni's to decide on charges/bursary levels?

Also I asked earlier, does anyone know about the means testing system. Is it a snapshot of income levels at the time of applying for courses/funding or is it reviewed every year. e.g if I find a well paid job half way through DD's studies will she get the grants anyway or will it be reviewed.

Sorry about all these questions but if anyone has been through it I would appreciate the advice.

"The aspirational take up rate of 50% set by Tony Blair's government was based on workforce projections"

The original intent was that 50% of the population should have a post-18 educational experience. That includes whatever HNCs and HNDs are called this week, vocational qualifications, day and block release, etc, etc. It got rather mashed in the retelling, and Brown and Denham's annihilation of the adult education sector in favour of questionable degrees was the sort of "they don't understand the real world" crap that one normally associates with the Tories. About 1.4m evening class places disappeared under Labour.

So now, instead of a vibrant system of adult education which reached out to people who had not had good experiences in their youth and provided relevant, effective education that also gave a pathway towards more formal learning, we have a system that concentrates all its resources into degrees (in name, at least) that are targeted almost exclusively at the under-25s. Parts of the current HE sector amount to little more than self-funded national service, in that students are paying to be taken off the unemployment statistics in return to a qualification (or not, given the drop-out rate) that is simply not worth the time or money, either as employment or as self-development.

I?m left feeling quite fearful about the future for our family ? it?s all a bit too much change to deal with at once. You have children and have a rough financial plan for your life and then ? boom ? the future looks more uncertain than ever.

I?m also wondering how best to direct our children. It?s hard to know at this age what they might want to do or what they will be bright enough and motivated enough to do. And even if I accept and bring them up to accept that the University debt will be theirs, it won?t stop a mother from worrying about how her adult daughters are going to fit in establishing a career, paying off a huge debt, saving for a house and taking the financial hit of having a family (if that?s what they choose to do).

My thoughts are that this change needs to coincide with a massive overhaul of the education and university system and these ideas (which may or may not be workable in the UK) spring to mind. Combine the GCSE/GCE into a leaving certificate so that students leave school at 17, giving them a few years to work before they start University. Or so that they graduate sooner and can start paying the debt off sooner.

Make university courses more flexible, perhaps credits based, so students could stop and start or change universities half way through or do courses at night school or study more intensively or p/t and shorten or lengthen their degree as suits their circumstances.

Change the structure of the academic year , maybe like Canadian universities, so the students get a massive 5 months chunk of summer leave in which to work and earn some money. Charge less for accommodation ? if it was built 30 years ago ? the university won?t have many overheads on it. Accommodation costs should not be subsidising the uni as well as high fees. Go back to a system whereby fewer professions need degrees ? revert new unis back to institutions with technical/vocational specialisms and that offer shorter courses like the HNC and HND.

In principle, I don?t see too much wrong with increasing fees if graduates are able to pay them back and still retain a better standard of living than had they not gone to University. As the economy stands, I am not sure people are confident that is a given. This rise is coupled with the constant news that there are graduates with good degrees who cannot find jobs, so I think students currently at secondary school will be reconsidering going to University. If students coming out of university with a good degree still felt like they were the crème de la crème of the jobs market, then maybe they?d figure the debt worthwhile, but not with the current uncertainty.

Al50- "The government is petrified to take on and question these so called academics - how many actually do research and get work published?"

I don't know a single one of my colleagues aside from the (rare, few) on teaching only contracts, who are not extremely research active. This is not funded by undergraduate fees, it is not funded by overseas fees (of which, if an academic takes on an overseas PhD student, said academic will see very little of the fees for actually running the project). Research is funded by external grant applications (to research councils, EU, charities to name a few) and industry. Applications for external research funds accounts for an enormous amount of an academics time and (at least in a research intensive university), it is expected that each academic will bring in significant funds each year. If work is not published, it makes it more difficult to obtain further research funds (again from external bodies), so publication is essential to success. Many academics are also editors of journals, or will be on the editorial boards of journals in their fields and will sit on various advisory committees. The measure of research "success" of a department is given by the RAE rating.

Academics are not given a pot of money with which to do their research, they are expected to find their own funds. If they do not manage to do this, they will be relegated to teaching only, where the chances of promotion are thin.

"£140 a week and more that half of that is repayable. Considering that first year hall cost approx £100 a week it doesn't leave a lot left. "

Huh? How much are they planning to drink? A residential hall provides two meals a day, sometimes three at the weekends, and a fully funded roof over their head. Forty quid a week of walking about money seems generous, unless you have a cocaine habit to fund. In a wild fit of nostalgia I spent a week in catered university accommodation last month: good food, clean and bright room, fast internet connection, nice surroundings, pleasant company. £100 a week? Where do I sign up?

The economy could fund the tuition fees of the students if corporation tax was raised to the average level across Europe. The UK pays the least corporation tax in Europe.

The UK also puts in the least amount of money from government funds into paying for university costs - 1.6% of GDP compared to 2.somethings in other major European countries and 3.6% in the States.

Cue huge elitist divide amongst those applying for universities in future. Poorer students will just not dare apply. And pity those from poorer backgrounds who want to study medicine or architecture - esp. medicine as that would mostly be at the universities charging even higher costs than "lower" institutions.

HE should not be related to economic output. It 'can' be but should not be, in order to safeguard social cohesion and against a shrinking zone of those who can afford to learn.

" If students coming out of university with a good degree still felt like they were the crème de la crème of the jobs market, then maybe they?d figure the debt worthwhile, but not with the current uncertainty."

So, that's a vote for massively reducing uptake so thast degrees become rare again. What do you reckon: 1970s (12%), 1950s (6%)?

What's better: telling children that they're going to have to borrow money, or reducing the size of the higher education sector and telling them that 75% of children who intended to go to university won't be able to?

abouteve - I think I can answer the question on timing as well as anyone....

The timing is not exactly set until 20th October when the Comprenhensive Spending Review is announced in detail.

What is expected for Higher Education is that the grant given to the Higher Education Funding Council fro Teaching will be cut by about 80% - from £8bn to about £2bn (with roundings).

What that will mean in practice is that the Funding Council will stop payments to Universities for alot of courses - about half of all subjects. They will only continue to subsidise priority areas - for all intents and purposes that will be medicine, sciences, some healthcare. All other courses - greography, french, business etc - will not be subsidised at all so the only way for offering the courses is to charge fees.

All this is expected for the government financial year from April 2012 - so affecting the intake of September 2012 - the current lower sixth.

So by deduction, universities must charge the new fees from September 2012 because there will no longer be governemtn funding for those course.

But it is all dependent on what happens in the CSR and its all still beign negotiated in Whitehall...

Al50- "The government is petrified to take on and question these so called academics - how many actually do research and get work published?"

Not so:

UnseenAcademcialMum (earlier post) is absolutely right - research is separately funded or at least separately acocunted for. If research is subsidsed by teaching funding then it is done with knowledge for a reason to fit with the university mission. And lets not forget the interface between research and teaching! (discuss... no more than 3000 words.. due Tuesday....)

And academics feel like they've been fully taken to task by government recently. . There is currently a HUGE focus on accountability and justificaiton in research work so acacedmics as a group feel close to beleaguered with justification to government.

"What's better: telling children that they're going to have to borrow money, or reducing the size of the higher education sector and telling them that 75% of children who intended to go to university won't be able to?"

Well, it seems rather irresponsible to lend people a lot of money that they may not be able to pay back if there aren't enough high paying jobs for all the graduates that come out. There has to be some kind of limit.

Hi,

I don't know if anyone else has noticed but I think the changes are going to have a disproportionate effect on women. Currently it is suggested that graduates earn approx. £100k more than non-graduates in a lifetime, yet we also heard this week that women earn 16% less than men in UK. If the overall cost of going to university may reach £100k the calculations start to look poor in terms of rate of return for women in comparison to men.

I am of a generation of women that has come from a working class background in which my sisters and I were first generation graduates. I have been fortunate to be educated within the UK university system and my children are benefiting from my education, but it is looking bleak for my future and their future and I cannot help but feel it is wrong to continue to attack middle-income families in this way. We are setting up a series of disincentives to learn and develop. I understand that we need to balance the books and the last Government have been irresponsible in their management of our country, but we need to think very carefully about the messages we are sending out to the next generation and to those who have worked solidly to improve their lot in life.

Abouteve - when my DC went to university in the last 5/3 years, the student fills in an application for a loan to cover fees and an application for a loan to cover accommodation/living costs. It may have changed since then but you can either opt to have parents finances assessed or you can opt for a non assessed loan.

There is a threshold for parental earnings above which no financial help is given (can't remember exactly but about £40,0000 a year I think, may be a bit more).

Parents obviously have to give evidence of their earnings, P60s etc.

The fee loan is paid directly to the university, so the student doesn't get the money and then have to take it to the bursary or anything like that. The other loan is paid termly.

We paid our DCs accommodation so that didn't have to come out of their loan, but obviously not everyone can afford to do that. The loan is meant to cover accommodation costs, but we had saved specifically so we could help out. Many students have much more generous parents (who provide monthly allowances etc etc) but also some of my DCs fellow students had worked themselves and saved up to supplement their loans.

i just don't understand how a basic BA in say, Philosophy (my own degree, so i speak from experience here) can possibly cost the university enough to justify the increase in fees since I graduated 7 years ago.

I had 4-8 hrs contact time per week, in a class of between 10-20 other students. We had 3 different lecturers for core topics, average university lecturer earns £36,388 according to 'My Salary' website. We all paid about £3000 in fees each year, if i recall correctly (or rather my impoverished parents had to pay mine). All materials (ok, books) purchased by us on ridiculously low student loan), 90% of my degree was done alone in the university library. Unless the overheads are absolutely astronomical i can't see where this extra money would actually go.

"Well, it seems rather irresponsible to lend people a lot of money that they may not be able to pay back if there aren't enough high paying jobs for all the graduates that come out."

Oh come on. Firstly, universities are not some Gradrindian exercise in financial engineering, and most graduates would regard their degree as a worthwhile experience even if it doesn't increase their long-term income. Unless I missed a meeting, the liberal concept of education as making people better hasn't entirely died.

Secondly, the system provides careful balances so that people who don't improve, or at least break even, on their earning power don't repay it anyway. It's like Ladbrokes giving you a money back offer on horses that don't come in.

And thirdly, the idea that governments should protect people from the consequences of their own wish to better themselves seems downright command economy. How do you propose that the limited places at university would be rationed? If the intend is to prevent people from taking on debts they can't repay, how does "cash up front" sound? No? What about limiting undergraduate numbers to those who have confirmed job offers for three years time: that should work. Make us a third world country, mind you.

Thanks lastresort and kidsmum.

So will have to sit tight for a couple of weeks and find out if they are going to apply it to the Sept 2012 intake for sure.

I am fed up being on means tested benefits and was hoping to be out of it when DD reaches 18 so I can benefit from working more etc, that's why I am keen to find out if the means tested grants are reviewed on a yearly basis or once granted, apply for the length of the course, iyswim.

Tokyonambu, I was thinking £40 wasn't a lot for travel both to campus and home, books, laundry and clothes rather than alcohol and crack, but can see it's probably doable.

Gradgrindian, of course.

The current situation is that cheap-to-run degrees like philosophy subsidise expensive ones like science, engineering, medicine.

Long may it continue...

It would be absolutely disasterous if these degrees became unaffordably expensive. While doctors may expect to eventually be on high salaries, scientists and engineers are typically undervalued in our society but we need the best people to go into these fields. The UK is good at technology and its one of the few ways we actually make money. The UK can't afford anything if we don't have a strong science and engineering base.

tokyonambu you have a very agressive posting style. In my post I said I agreed with paying fees in principle and touched on a lot of other suggestions about making it easier for some students to complete a degree and manage funding it. I was merely pointing out a reason why students who are close to the UCAS phase may be put off applying, having higher tuition fees sprung on them at a time when graduates don't seem to be prospering as much.

It's a tad disingenuous to jump on that one point and use it to forward your own argument especially as I agree with you that a higher education has its own value beyond a larger pay packet.

Do you think that 100% of young people should go to University? Where and how do you draw your line?

"So will have to sit tight for a couple of weeks and find out if they are going to apply it to the Sept 2012 intake for sure."

What odds does it make? You're on means tested benefits, so your child will get a full grant, just as before. The debts for the fees and maintenance don't kick in until your child is earning above the threshold, and in fact the new arrangements (£21K) would be more attractive than the current ones (£15K). That you're on benefits makes no real difference to the palatability of the debts, which is for your child to assess. But it would be helpful if they looked at the actual facts (tapered repayment based on income, nothing to pay until a threshold) rather than some of the more excitable (and wrong) interpretations being bandied about.

To answer your other question, in the past the system has operated with the grant being re-assessed against income each year. This obviously protects children whose parents' income falls over the course of the three/four/five years.

"Do you think that 100% of young people should go to University? Where and how do you draw your line?"

I think everyone who thinks they will benefit from it, and which a university is prepared to offer a place to, should be able to go. I don't think there should be an artificial cap based on affordability, employability or anything other than the willingness of students to pay and the willingness of charter-holding institutions to offer places.

One consequence of the HEFCE-imposed quotas being removed is going to be that successful, over-subscribed universities will offer more places. This is an entirely good thing. Another consequence of the Browne proposals is that universities will also have to publish metrics on contact time, class sizes and drop-out rates. That's also a good thing.

Browne's report means that HEFCE will no longer be able to prop up unpopular institutions at the expense of popular ones. At the moment, popular universities are able to demand AAA because they are oversubscribed and unable to expand because of HEFCE quotas; one aspect of that is being "fair" to other institutions that are unpopular. No degree "needs" AAA at A Level: it's just the only rationing tool available to universities. If popular departments can expand, while unpopular ones contract, that's good for everyone, surely? The grades required for popular courses drop, for a start off.

I won't be on any benefits when she leaves school and starts uni, non at all. It's means tested income for any bursaries that we want to know about, which is all change since yesterday.

It's OK to say that it doesn't matter but if one course is 12K and one is 6K then it does matter. Also if one uni gives a bursary of 1.5K based on income of less than 25K and one gives 4K based on income of less than 20K then it will all need to be taken into consideration when chosing were to visit and apply and whether it's worth me staying under the limit or finding a better paid job.

Think our situation is probably quite unique.