Tuition Fees

[KateMumsnet]

As you've probably heard, the government has announced changes to the way universities are funded, and this means that, starting in 2012, the amount that students will be expected to pay for university tuition will rise to a maximum of £9000 per year. Here's the BBC's story.

We thought we'd test the water to see if there was a strong consensus on this issue amongst MNers, so do let us know what you think. Whether you're for or agin', it would be very useful if you could indicate (briefly!) your reasoning.

Those of you who are firmly against the changes might like to know that there will be a rally for students, future students and their families, on Horse Guards Avenue SW1 at 11:30am tomorrow, Wednesday 10th November. The event is organised by the NUS and supported by the British Youth Council, which includes organisations like the Scouts, the Woodcraft Folk, and St John Ambulance.

I agree with AliceWorld and Whitecloud.

Do the gov really not understand that our whole society benefits from a more KNOWLEDGEABLE population? Knowledge should be worked for, not paid for.

I like the idea of universities being completely open for the first years - for absolutely anyone and everyone. The only stipulation thereafter is that you pass the first year exams.

can any of those against the rise in tuition fees tell me what they propose instead

a) restricting acess to higher education, in the present climate this will further the class divide as it is the richer children that get the better A level results

b) increasing taxes for everyone, this means that the poor may more to make the rich richer.

c) reducing expenditure on other things that the state provides

it makes me quite sick actually that people are campaigning against this (imo quite sensible and fair proposal) and not against the abolotion of EMA. Getting rid of ema will do far more to make higher education a finsihing school that increasing the student contribution to fees

Yes I'd be for it. I hate the thought of higher education becoming the preserve of the well off, and I do think this will put off loads of lower income (and middle income) families.

But I'm aware that there is an issue of funding for higher education - SOMEONE has to pay for it. I work in an institution which appears to be totally happy with the proposed fee changes, and it urges us not to challenge them, because it knows it can attract the affluent students and it will survive (but with even fewer students from low income backgrounds).

Education maintainance allowance swallowed money given to 16-18 year olds in poorer families to help fund them through sixth form or college

witchwithallthetrimmings

how about b) increasing taxes for the rich, so that they pay more to make themselves richer

why not just increase the taxes for rich graduates? oh wait that is what is being proposed!

witch, if I were running the country I'd raise taxes for higher earners (rather than for graduates per se, but that's coloured by how many graduates I know who have gone into lowish paid Worthy Jobs).

I'd perhaps compress the universities so there would be fewer people going, because I do think at the moment 18 year olds often feel they have no choice but to go, and I think it should be seen as a choice.

I would rather only teach people who want to be there too.

And I would look into squashing degrees into 2 years, with longer terms and a bit more work in those terms.

I'm against. i could stomach an increase - but not one of this size. plus introducing it as they have will cause problems for my oldest who's applying now as he may not be able to get a place.

england needs an educated workforce - everyone benefits and higher education should be available to anyone with the intelligence who wishes to do a course that benefits the country. it should not be the preserve only of very poor or very rich people.

we are saddling our children with vast amounts of debt and mine are already asking it its worth getting a degree.

so anyone with mental health problems; anyone who's house is built on a flood plain; anyone who loses shares/pension fund because companies go bust - if you can't get help thats because children like mine decided not to get a degree because it was too expensive.

Oh wait! Because by that time, you have already effectively excluded a segment of poorer students, who don't come from backgrounds with a sanguine attitude to debt and an assumption that they will be able to pay it off, from HE.

Collect the revenue in advance from those who can already afford to pay it and who have already benefited from a subsidised education.

Utterly agree that there should be fewer people going to university -- and better non-university options for those 18 year olds who, as you say Fennel, feel they have no other option but to join in with mass university attendance. The swelling of university education, coupled with a loss of vision about what it is really for, has meant a massive loss of quality, and a loss of practicality for the objective of properly funding able poorer students.

Ironically the expansion of university education, allegedly to make it available to all classes, has brought about the situation in which all parties have agreeed to abandon the free provision of it, therefore making it once again the increasing preserve of the wealthy.

but starbelly the payment strucure is such that if you cannot pay it off you won't have to! It is phrases like "saddled with debt" that will do far more to put off students from poorer backgrounds going to uni than the actual mechanisms of repayment.

Broadly a good thing to introduce these. It has to be paid for and second the comments about Wales and Scotland. If they want no TF why should the english have to subsidise - outrageous IMHO.

The alternative, how about the government making a commitment to invest some of our countries money into educating bright students to degree level.

If too many school leavers are going to Uni then cut down on the number of institutions, courses and places. Don't think that will go down well, see post by Fennel.

having 'a' levels must improve your earning power and not everyone does these. so surely people in sixth form should be made to pay? The arguments for this are the same as the ones for degrees.

I don't, incidentally, think that this would make a good campaigning issue for MN, because the 'deep consensus' that the OP enquires about would have to be more than a consensus that we don't want our children to pay this vast amount for higher education. It would have to make some statement about what if any amount of tuition fees is acceptable; what the alternative source of funding for students should be; whether a market in higher education in wrong in principle or in detail; why a market in higher education is wrong, whether mass ubniversity education is an ideal that should be pursued, etc. I don't understand at all how MNHQ thinks it can take a credible stance on an issue so deeply enmeshed in such a wide range of controversial questions about social justice, and claim to represent more than the few hundred MNers who actually post on the thread they have started.

And I also can't see a campaign having any effect on the govt's decision. I think it might be seen as rather odd for a parenting website to campaign in such a deeply political way on a matter that isn't even strictly a parenting issue (since for all but the wealthiest MNer it will be our children as adults repaying these debts). Also, personally, I find it an offensive pastiche of democratic engagement to have a the business that owns the forum on which I talk claiming to do politics on my behalf on the basis of a very casual consultation. We are already expected to do much of our charity-giving via a host of businesses that promote good causes as part of their PR. Now we are supposed to do politics in the same way? Horrible.

I agree with Elieson, mostly. I have 3 primary aged children, we are likely to be hit with huge tuition fees in a few years, obviously I'd prefer we didn't have these but that wouldn't be a campaigning issue. We're a familiy so over-invested in universities that the idea of our little darlings not having 3 years to ponder the meaning of life is beyond our experience. so in the end mine are highly likely to go, whether or not we pay upfront or they pay it back.

But it's all the other possible students I worry for, the issue of widening access/keeping it wide, not putting off the bright motivated children from families without a history of university attendence. I would want a campaign to be based on social justice and inclusion for those students, not on my not really wanting to pay these horribly big fees.

Tuition rises are not pleasant, but they are necessary. Whilst I think £9000 is a bit steep, I do think people need to start taking some responsibility and paying for their education. There are too many many handouts in this country and we simply can't afford to go on as we have in recent years.

So, I support the rise in tuition fees. But, I hope to see some of that funding directed to those less able to pay the fees and more able to succeed in the course work (i.e. some kind of scholarship fund).

If you choose a course wisely, £9000 per year should not hinder but rather enhance your future earnings.

For those who cannot get scholarships, loans should be available. But, I see no reason why people shouldn't have to pay the money back at a resonable rate and over a reasonable time.

In that case Fennel, then any campaign needs to focus on providing adequate funding for students from lower income families in the way of bursaries as it's unclear what help that is there now will be there in 2012.

In some ways we are resigned to the fee rise but want extra help. Can imagine all the middle income families not agreeing with this as fair.

Oi, back off the Scots! The fact that English students have to pay in Scotland is down to the English system, not the Scottish (as has been discussed on another thread - see here for a rather more informed take on the argument). It is the English who are refusing to pay English students' fees, not the Scots. Education is devolved to Scotland, and the Scottish government chooses to spend its block grant from Westminster in this way, just as the English have chosen a different system for spending theirs. They (or 'you', if you want to put it that way) don't give us 'extra' money to pay for our students. And all Scottish students going to English unis will have to pay for tuition fees.

And, fwiw, it's unlikely to be financially sustainable in the long term once the English introduce mahoosive fees, imo. So perhaps then 'we' can blame 'you' for ruining our lovely free higher education system?

And I agree with eleison.

I am against. I have gone back to uni (Biology) and couldn't have done so at the proposed fees. And it's so unfair that children will have such a large debt.

The slashing of funding for humanities is scandelous as well!!!

Have those of you opposed to the increased funding considered where UK universities will rank on a global scale when your children get to them if they are not allowed to charge fees.

I, personally, would like for there to be UK universities worth attending when my now primary aged children get to them.

stix - we are not suggesting they aren't allowed to charge fees - they do that already. its the size and suddeness of the increase that i'm opposed to. its just english uni's - currently scottish, welsh and N.ireland aren't affected.

Actually, i agree that the rise is rather sudden and rather steep. But, I am for universities having the right to collect fees beyond what the government can afford to fork over. (and by government I of course mean all of us tax payers)