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 horton completely

Completely against.

It is elitist and will on benefit those who come from priveledge.

Education needs to offer more and no not everyone should go to Uni, but this will price so many out of the system. It is totally unfair.

£21K is barley even a living wage in London or Edinburgh for that matter.

Uni will be for those and such who come from means.

Education will not be for all, but for few.

Shame on you David Cameron.

Just to share. I work in the independent sector and I was really surprised to hear the comments in the playground this morning. My parents are very definitely right of centre and yet they were overwhelmingly delighted with the protest. Even saying that young people should be forgiven for taking things a bit too far. Some even said that Mr Cameron was a bit of a dark horse and that him just thinking that you can tell people what to do and take opportunities away had somehow caused this. Others were even saying that the government were 'Just like the Thatcher government' or even 'Worse than the Thatcher government'.

I was amazed. There was a lot of chortling too (there's no other word for it) about the Millbank incident. Stunned!!!

That's interesting, alicatte. I think that witnessing or participating in relatively extreme protest can actually radicalise our thoughts about a political issue. (Like they say in cognitive behavioural therapy, behaviour can influence thought as much as the opposite.) Quietly accepting without protest a bad state of affairs supresses our oppositional thoughts about it. Taking action energises thought. That's why I welcome the demo. I think it does bring home to people what the political situation is. A bit.

Against tuition fees increase. For MN campaign, the more voices heard, the better. I think it's a worthwhile cause.

I hadn't thought of it in 'gestalten' terms (sorry - I love the word) but Eleison I can really see what you mean. I was stunned though - these are the wealthy, true blue, 'self-made' people. If their oppositional thoughts are being energised - crikey what will those people who have less to lose be thinking?

Obviously the teaching staff were absolutely discreet and silent - including me. If I didn't have MN how would I ever express myself?

Can I just shove in two penn'orth about contact hours? Yes we could condense a degree into two years or possibly even less but that would then mean spoonfeeding to a large extent. The idea of not having many contact hours is that the student is supposed to be reading round, and thinking. Not just taking notes and regurgitating them in the exam.

OK 2 contact hours a week is ridiculous, but there has to be some responsibility for doing the work yourself and thinking, rather than just turning up at lectures ready for your next lot of info.

Against, I shall be studying medicine, yes I will earn a good salary when i graduate but i am not going into the profession for the money. The whole of society will benefit from my education and yet funding it is entirely down to the individual.

You could say the same for nurses, teachers, dentists to name but a few.

I don't want MN to run a campaign.

What you say is all true swallowedafly. It's hard already to do all the reading you're meant to do on most degrees. If you condense a degree you're cutting down its coverage, even if the total contact hours remain the same.

Actually I do think 2 year degrees might work. It's the academics who would complain cos it would cut into their research time. But undergrads don't really need to spend half the year on holiday.

When I was at uni we had 8 week terms, 6 weeks off at Christmas and Easter, and about 4 months in the summer. It was ridiculously short, especially back in those days when there was no internet, and my parents lived in the back of beyond with no university level libraries. So you couldn't easily do lots of work in the vacations. and where I lived you couldn't easily get paid work for those vacations either.

Longer terms, like school terms, would work fine I think. Still leaving 13-14 weeks vacation. Which is far far more than people in the working world get.

Can we please get off this pointless tangent about how much contact time any of us had back in the day, or how we think courses maybe could be run, or that too many are being educated so it should be restricted so that only the rich can, and get back to the point - should there be a campaign for keeping state-funded higher education equally accessible for all, and not saddling students AND their parents with such a lifetime's worth of debt that many are put off ever going?

too many are being educated so it should be restricted so that only the rich can

It's nothing to do with trying to restrict it to rich people.

The whole point IMO is that it is precisely BECAUSE too many people are being educated to degree level that the amount of financial support for those who are students is so laughable. Either we educate a lot more people than we really need to have degrees and we expect those people to pay a good whack for their studies or we educate a lot fewer to degree level and pay them a reasonable amount of money to do so. You simply cannot have it both ways, unfortunately.

it does seem a bit daft to educate people to degree level and then have them workig in bars or call centres (as many seem to be doing currently) - especially if its these people that don't have to repay their tuition fees because they earn too little. it'd be better if they didn't get degrees - for the country anyway.

other thing i've noticed is that when people work out the cost of a degree they don't include the amount you are losing by not working - so in effect cost of degree is 9k tuition x3 years +6k?? living costs x3 + 15k could have earned x3= £90k

It's not just reading as an end in itself though, is it -- it's reading to get to a high enough level to debate the material with people who have spent half their lives getting to grips with it, and then be examined on it. The contact hours are where you are challenged and consolidate and develop your thinking. How are you going to do that without spending a lot of time reading? There is no way that extra contact hours can substitute for the reading. If you want to study Middlemarch, you have to read it. You can't just go to a lecture where someone tells you what it's about and then build your ideas on that basis. It just doesn't work. You could maybe train a nation of blaggers, but judging from today's news about the LibDem attitude to fees we have enough of those already. Degrees aren't just about the delivery of information, they're about developing skills of enquiry and analysis.