Really shocked at myself for thinking this (tuition fees)

[Concordia]

I don't really want my kids to be paying back debt their whole lives.
I want them to be able to buy a home of their own.
If they want to do a longer course or a course at a more prestigiuous uni i don't want them to go for a less good option because they are scared of debt. i want them to achieve the best they are capable.
was at myself when i found myself wondering if we would inherit any money in the next 15 years which would enable them to avoid this.
feeling
it's rough that teachers and social workers will end up paying so much more for their degrees than investment bankers who can pay off quickly.
this government really doesn't give a sh*t about those in the £18, 000 to £35, 000 bracket. after all we must be pretty feckless to be that poor and our education isnt' important at all now, is it.

Expat - University education in the US is not more expensive - for any bright but poor student, there are numerous bursaries - neither of my brothers, who studied at US Ivy League colleges, paid a penny on fees. And living costs are generally cheaper than here.

Apart from the US, they can study in any othe English speaking country, or do English language courses in a number of other countries, eg Scandinavia, Netherlands etc.

Would you like me to post the link?

I've posted it before.

Plus I said above that students will look abroad for cheaper, not fre, courses - it will hardly be difficult to find a cheaper course, given that English unis will then have THE HIGHEST CHARGES OF ANY PUBLICUNIS IN THE WORLD.

Oh, and some UK students might quite fancy learning a foreign language, too - fancy the Sorbonne, ay? I think c 1.5K a year.

So that, or Hull for 9K a year?

Tough choice...

'I can assure you, university education as an international student in N. America is more expensive, even at state universities.
...Strangely, no one is peeved by this and plenty of people still go.'

In the States, they also only get two weeks holiday a year, and there is no NHS. We don't want to live like they have to in the States. That's why students are protesting for the rights of all future generations, and for the entire country.

granted, who wrote the books on your reading list? Who wrote the reading list? You're telling me there were NO relevant lectures? I thought all lectures were available to Oxford students and they chose which to go to?

What did you do for your 1.5 hours tuition a week? Did you read, write tutorial essays? Did your tutor guide you, mark them, give you feedback, direct you where to go next?

Which part of the 250 per hour paid for the Oxford interview time you would have had? For the books in the library? For the college support system?

I certainly couldn't get away with teaching like that but why, do you think, despite the model of education being as it is at Oxford (and Cambridge), it is still regarded by many as the gold standard of university education?

Good point, well made, claig.

By the way, I'm agreeing that people will see such a bargain as shocking. But it doesn't mean that more contact time will necessarily improve a student's education.

WilfShelf - thanks. I agree that the universities would be damaged by a centralised curriculum. But is it a foregone conclusion that more contact hours will be demanded for the perceived increase in the cost of HE? As per your post on the AIBU thread, contact hours are not the whole story - a university education should be equipping students to learn how to think for themselves, not just how to continue to learn in the FE mould. I would be genuinely surprised if contact hours and FE-style curricula are what people expect from a university education, but perhaps I am in the minority (I come from a family of academics and went to Cambridge and believe firmly in education for education's sake, though I am not an academic myself)?

'Expat - University education in the US is not more expensive - for any bright but poor student, there are numerous bursaries - neither of my brothers, who studied at US Ivy League colleges, paid a penny on fees. And living costs are generally cheaper than here.'

It's way more expensive for the vast majority. Bursaries at Ivy League universities are scarce for all but a very very slender few, and loans cover cost of living along with work for even the very poor.

My good friend went to Cornell to do SW, she still had a load of debt despite being from a single-parent family that was homeless her senior year.

Cost of living is not that much cheaper in the locations of those institutions, either.

I'm from there, FWIW.

People there do not expect the government to pay for university education and act accordingly.

University education has had to change to reflect that and be far more flexible than it is here for the most part.

I agree, claig, I don't live there anymore because yes, you only get a fortnight holiday (IF you are lucky, it is not compulsory for your employer to pay it all) and you have to pay for nearly all services, but it would be very hard to find a society that could afford for 50% of its school-leavers to go to university fee-free without incredible tax levels, which no one here wants or can afford to pay.

Hence, something has to change and give.

Perhaps it would be better to limit places the way much of Europe does, via the bac.

I went to high school with a number of pupils who had to sit the bac as they were European and wished to return for university, but not so many school-leavers were expected to attend university.

I hope not snowball. But my thoughts are that this is where the market in HE will lead us - some of the posts on these tuition fees threads seem to indicate this. Already - since fees were introduced in the first place - there is a different 'feel' in our university. Granted's post below about Oxford tutorials is a case in point: if it isn't good enough there, what hope is there for the rest of us in more middling institutions (leaving aside the question of whether the education is, actually, already better in the other institutions )

I can't find them right now, but in a couple of speeches, Cable and Willetts have been hinting at what I'm suggesting perhaps. I certainly think there will be a two tier system - lots of new universities will go to the wall and the more 'prestigious' places will provide curricula for other institutions: Willetts explicitly said this a few months ago.

And I think the external examining system is right in their firing line. Perhaps rightly - it is difficult to have standardisation the way we do things. However I do think such a lot is lost in the move to standardisation. I prefer a properly-resourced, trust driven model in which you professionalise people and then let them get on with it.

I very much doubt there will be serious pressure to change the Oxbridge system from students (rather than from administrators - which is more plausible). It's unlikely both because Oxbridge is never going to have a problem filling places for the vast majority of subjects; and also because both Oxford and Cambridge inculcate an almost cult-like belief in the superiority of the tutorial/supervision system in students while they are there!

But then I doubt any of the Russell Group will be very much affected by these changes in any case (except of course for the serious questions about access and diversity). These are all universities with a well-publicised and widely-accepted 'brand'. Students will continue to choose them because they believe they represent quality.

I agree with Wilf that increased demand from students (and perhaps more significantly, their parents) may have an impact upon how universities teach in due course. I'm not sure about centralised teaching though. I do think there may be a move towards broader degrees (more like a 'liberal arts' degree) so that students can be reading for a degree in something they perceive as career-useful (like law or business studies) while also taking a module each term in other things (e.g. French or film studies). That would be quite a big change to how many UK undergraduate degrees currently work (although some already do something similar), but it would be in line with increased widening of the curriculum at the sixth form stage and I don't think it would necessarily be a bad thing.

It would of course have an impact upon the sort of teaching academics get to do (less specialised at undergrad level; more general intro stuff), but there might be advantages too, especially for smaller departments (students get a chance to try out their subject).

I don't think we should romanticise university education on the continent - it's cheap, yes, and fairly widely accessible, but the culture is very different: students stay at home, and typically the first couple of years consist of vast lectures with very little personal contact with lecturers at all. So a very large number enroll and a very large number drop out. We tend to have quite a different, much more teacher-intensive and personal model of what university education should be like (perhaps derived ultimately from Oxbridge). But that's a very expensive model.

Do you think I'm being absurdly cynical to think that, one day, people's estates will be plundered after their deaths, if they fall into the 50% projected not to pay off their tuition fees during their working lives?

Concordia I have every sympathy for you; this new situation is a nightmare. I'm wondering whether more charities (eg like the Prince's Trust)will allocate funding for would-be students, now so many schoolchildren will feel barred from universities. The government has been allowed to turn the clock back more than sixty years - sixty years (I shuddered every time I heard the proponents of doubled/tripled fees call the then-proposed system 'progressive'.)
Overseas universities might be worth considering, until and unless we go back to offering university access equitably in this country.

I wanted my dd to apply to the University of Malta! I thought it would have been stonkingly wonderful to spend three years there, and would have cost no more than a UK university in 2009.

And yes, some people have pointed out that doubling/trebling the already high cost of going to university will encourage a brain drain. I think that's true - if you spend three years overseas when you're young, you make your friendships there, you get used to the way of life, you may well decide to stay.

Poor old Blighty, eh, governed again by the nobs, with a lot of the brightest and best toiling away overseas.

Like sixty years ago - like more than sixty years ago (but without the Empire.)

dotnet everybody's estates are used to pay their debts, why would that be cynical?

the uk is one of the few (if not only) countries in the world where students seem to expect to get a degree for free or a fraction of the real cost.

healthcare for free. education for free. the benefits culture. we're sounding like a bunch of whiny kids tbh. where does all this money come from? it's not sustainable.

wake up to the real world. yes, it's tough.

Yeah, bloody whiny kids, wanting healthcare and education and reassurance society will not let them starve.

Different countries have different spending priorities. For example - the French part fund their health service with upfront payments, as they do in Belgium.

The Dutch (I believe) pay some direct payment towards their dc's schooling.

And many other countries have much higher tax rates than us (even at the basic rate).

IMO - if Ucas applications drop significantly - then the government will have to think again and adjust it's priorities.

warthog - it comes from the massive amount of tax my family pays. would be nice to get something back for it, but we will now have to pay vast amounts in tuition fees now as well

I think we have grown into a nation where everything is expected to be handed to us on a plate and now the gravy train has come to and end.

If DS wants to go to uni for a particular career then he can, he'll know the costs and can work out if its worth it or not.

So many people do degrees that they never use to gain work or take out loans and never pay them back that things need to change. Graduates no longer have the pick of the job market for their efforts as everybody practically goes onto uni now. Perhaps limited numbers will mean better jobs for those that go through uni and actually use their degree in the designed field.

I agree with HappyMum on this.

Everyone pays taxes. It doesn't work like a shop, unless there's such thing as a shop selling good infrastructure and peace that allows most people to go about making a living how they see fit largely unmolested).

It is not affordable for any society to fund fee-free university education for 50% of school leavers unless we are all willing to pay hella lot more taxes.

Yes, in the past, people got free university education (far fewer people were going, too). They also got nice final salary pensions and more afforable house prices.

And now we can't afford any of that.

That's tough shit for people my age (40 early next year). There is now point throwing teddies out the pram about it. It is how it is.

There's no money to magic up.

People have to start making their own way more as they can and not expect the government to do it all unless they really want to pay out.

happymummy - this encourages people to do degrees that they don't use for work - those that earn under 21k get them for free still

if the country can't provide education for free then where should it draw the line? Can it provide healthcare, roads, bin collection for free of should we pay for them ontop of taxation?

University education is not an essential the way healthcare, bin collection and roads are. It is optional. Some go, some don't. Everyone uses healthcare at one point, even if it's only at birth, or roads (even if they don't drive, they need them for food transport), bin collection.

expat - thought everyone currently used education at some point, in this country, as well as healthcare even if its at primary.

Yes, they do (well, actually, some don't, they home educate) but obviously not all use university education.

It's optional.

And now, there isn't the money to pay for it for all.

So they are being expected to fund it themselves.

Imagine!

Yes - Mrmanager. Most of countries in the world DON'T have these things. It's not a RIGHT.

the UK government spends 55% of GDP. China spends 15% of GDP. Who is more communist / capitalist?

i think we need to start taking more responsibility ourselves and not expecting the state to pay for every damn thing. we're acting and being treated like children.

we should all be thinking about our pensions / investments and not expecting the state to provide. absolutely ludicrous that this level of support should continue. it's not affordable.

and i think we should be paying a lot less tax. i don't want the government spending MY money for me. they're not efficient at it and don't have an incentive to get the best value for money.

expat

"University education is not an essential the way healthcare [is]"

So your doctor didn't go to university then?

warthog just because most of the countries don't have those things isn't a good argument. Most countries don't have free speech, but that's a right.