Should we abolish student fees?

[Roar87]

I have no problem with paying for degrees in industries the country is lacking in, I have a problem with paying for people with below average intelligence to study pointless degrees so they can get drunk for 3 years and earn the same as they would've done without a degree.

 

[dark-knight]

I once argued with a labour candidate on my doorstep regarding tuition fees, he as well as I completed our degrees when no fees had been introduced. I explained that the policy they where introducing would open the flood gates that all universities (no matter what subject) would increase the cost to the max level at that time. He explained there would be a cap and no interest would be paid forward and that it would increase competitiveness in the market.
Needless to say I told him where to go and I would not be voting labour because of this proposal. Fast forward years later going up to £9250 per term with an interest rate if I`m correct of 6.1%, a third party will buy out the debt and lobby parliament in order to force those on lower paid work to now pay towards their debt.
As said above, this country should by all means encourage those that would like to go to university and contribute to society through free or very small contribution of money towards their degrees. Any government that introduce anything by mean of self payment will eventually raise those costs no matter what. Look at the council tax as an example too.

English trainee nurses are now also having to pay for their own education where as some in europe pay nothing and can come here to work. Where as its all free for the time being across the border in Scotland.

 

[adolf hamster]

So, for every person that decides to go to HE, does every person who doesn't do they get a cheque in the post for the same value?

yes they do, it's called 3 years of paychecks.....

 

[dalehitchy1]

I'm a big supporter of this but I'm also a bit more realistic on the money side of things.

I think we should start off by having no fees for stem subjects and have a much drive in promoting that. It will really help with issues such as the NHS staff crisis.

 

[kindai]

There is actually a reasonable argument for that. Basically everyone gets given a bursary as a kick start - they can then choose to go to university, or into training, or whatever they want to do. The amount be highly debatable of course.

Given the utter number of trash courses out there that people sign upto just to have a jolly for X number of years, then it would be only fair that everyone gets a fixed payment.

Probably 8/10 people I went to school with who went to uni are now in warehouse/supermarket/retail/office jobs and certainly didnt need a degree in social arts or tree hugging to land those jobs.

On the other hand if someone had given me the same money to help give me a safety net while setting up my business at that age, it would have helped massively.

 

[Nasher]

Degrees are becoming less of a requirement in some industries as they are simply writing them off as too expensive for most people to afford. They are looking for good experience above all else now, as well as providing hands on training on the job (plus professional courses).

I work in IT and only one person in our current team has a degree. He's also a disaster area and probably not going to be here much longer

Those mickey mouse degrees (social ********, arty stuff, makup, sports, etc) are generally not even looked at by employers, might even put them off because they may think your a time waster. So don't bother.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

Speaking as an academic, you are woefully incorrect. In terms of course content and difficulty of examination, there is an absolutely huge spectrum out there.

I think that's just academic snobbery kicking in there.

Let me guess, you're an academic at one of the "higher" placed institutions?

 

[Chuk_Chuk]

Shouldn't the focus be turned on why universities are charging £9000 a year and doing the maths as I personally think the universities are milking students as the sums don't add up.

Lets say on an average academic course there's 50 students to each professor for lectures and overseeing the students work. Thats 50 x £9000 = £450,000

According to the survey linked below which shows average "professor" salaries ranging from roughly £45k to £76k and allowing for other non academic administrative staff in admin, cleaning and then allowing 10% for buildings etc, thats still perhaps £200,000+ per 50 students that for the life of me I can't imagine where it goes?

https://www.timeshighereducation.co.../average-salary-full-time-staff-2013-2014.pdf

I think £9000 x 3/4 years + living expenses for those years is too much debt and think a fairer system would be around £3000K student pays, £2000k government (or LEA) resulting in a university taking £5k per student/year which seems to be to be more than enough for most subjects although I know there will be some disaplines such as medicine and very high tech science were perhaps there could be a slightly larger fee.

This is for the US but i think most of it translates over here. (Actual cost my vary)

 

[Vonhelmet]

I've got a 2:1 in natural sciences from Durham, which is pretty serious by anyone's standards. It's been useless to me. I could have got the job I have now (tax accountant) by starting on an apprenticeship and working my way up. I'd have had three years of money instead of three years of debt, and I'd be three years further ahead in my career.

I'd hazard that most degrees aren't any use to the jobs people have ultimately ended up doing.

 

[w11tho]

I think that's just academic snobbery kicking in there.

Let me guess, you're an academic at one of the "higher" placed institutions?

You're free to think that, but it doesn't change the fact that the breadth and depth of courses, along with the standard of associated examinations, varies a lot between institutions.

 

[Orionaut]

We should abolish fees, (And indeed pay a retainer) to UK citizens to study those specialities that we are short of and need people to be educated in in-order for the UK to be economically successful as a country in the future.

People should not however expect to have fees paid for subjects that we have a surplus of

(Of course, this is not cast in stone, I would make it a dynamic thing)

How do we identify those subjects/specialities? Easy Peasy.

All those specialities that we are supposedly short of and need to meet our requirement for by employing immigrant workers.

Those ones....

(Incidentally, I would also advocate using part of our "Foreign Aid" budget to educate foreign students in the specialities that their countries need on the basis that they will go back home once qualified and use their knowledge to benefit their societies. But that is another issue...)

 

[Amp34]

Do you NEED a degree to empty bins?

That was aimed at your comment that nurses, police and the fire service shouldn't have to pay taxes.

The sooner we realise that no one job is "more important" than most others then we can move on. Just because you need more qualifications to do it, or it's perceived to be more dangerous/publicly important doesn't mean its actually any more vital than other jobs.

That's also an argument against tuition fees. We need people with that education for our society to function, so why should those people pay for it? That goes for all qualifications, not just degrees.

That said I'm not necessarily against tuition fees. I paid when I went to uni (neither of them were loans), however the current cost at the moment is exceptionally high, offset by the fact it's just a capped tax. You're not going to struggle because of your loan, you're not going to go bankrupt because of your loan (well not directly).

 

[Deleted member 66701]

You're free to think that, but it doesn't change the fact that the breadth and depth of courses, along with the standard of associated examinations, varies a lot between institutions.

I still stand by my statement that it doesn't vary as much as some think it does, especially when I think of my experience of moderation and validation by quality teams and lecturers visiting from external universities.

For example, This summer I've worked with Durham lecturers moderating Lancaster assignments, Lancaster lecturers moderating Coventry assignments, Coventry lecturers moderating Cambridge assignments and Cambridge lecturers moderating Durham assignments. There is certainly a concerted effort among universities to equalise academic standards between institutions, one which I think to a large extent actually works.

 

[southernorth]

I think entry requirements should become a lot higher. The number of universities should decline massively as a result, which will in turn increase the value of a degree. If 50% of young people go to university, employers will just continually require them for jobs even when not necessary (as they can). There should be an attitude change about university, you shouldn't be 'expected' to go (thanks Mr.Blair). Universities should have to follow very strict guidelines on presenting information regarding employability & salary based upon degree, and should report this in prospectuses. I think there should be some factor relating the cost of the degree to the fees you pay; especially as more expensive (to teach) degrees often have higher salaries. Or, you could subsidize the cost of in-demand degrees, but this will be tricky as I'm sure government bureaucracy will take years to create these quotas, by which point they might be out-dated.

In terms of the current fees system, it seems highly unsustainable and needs to change. Currently, interests rates are so high for the loans that most people don't even start paying off the degree sum itself, but merely the interest. You need a very high paying job to ever be able to actually pay off the entire borrowed amount. This effectively means the tax-payer has paid for everything, and not the borrowing student. I'm not sure what the most effective solution is, forgiving student loans could happen (highly unlikely) but how would you do it? All type 2 loans from now backwards forgiven? All student loans forever? Whatever the decision, a large amount of people will be upset.

 

[dowie]

Universities should have to follow very strict guidelines on presenting information regarding employability & salary based upon degree, and should report this in prospectuses.

This then becomes a bit dodgy, though lots of people go to university to improve their career prospects they don't just exist to offer work training programs. I'm not sure that the employment prospects or starting salary of someone studying say classics at a good university vs someone who has studied say IT at a poor university would be a good reflection of either course. The low rate STEM course that provided vocational training (and perhaps some vendor certs and industrial placement) is going to look better under such a system even though academically it could have been rather weak in its field in comparison to say the depth at which the subject areas are studied at better universities.

 

[Amp34]

I'd say abolish student fees... But I'm actually all for a graduate tax.

The rich will pay if off silly early because of parents just throwing money at it. The poor get lots of grants so have to pay off less at the end of it.
The middle class get the worst of both worlds, ending with the full amount to pay with little prospect of paying it off.

Personally, if you go to university and get a good job out of it, I'd say you've done well enough out of it to contribute the costs+ to society.

Presumably we can then have a situation where if you pay the going rate for the course out of pocket you don't have to pay the tax? Or are we going to have a situation where everyone, no matter what will pay a tax? In which case people will either study abroad more to avoid the UK based tax, or emigrate.

A tax will result in the rich/those able to afford it avoiding it (by paying up front/studying abroad) and the poor never having to pay it, so you'll end up with the load being back on the middle classes, but this time they will be paying it until they die, rather than just paying back what they borrowed.

 

[southernorth]

This then becomes a bit dodgy, though lots of people go to university to improve their career prospects they don't just exist to offer work training programs. I'm not sure that the employment prospects or starting salary of someone studying say classics at a good university vs someone who has studied say IT at a poor university would be a good reflection of either course. The low rate STEM course that provided vocational training (and perhaps some vendor certs and industrial placement) is going to look better under such a system even though academically it could have been rather weak in its field in comparison to say the depth at which the subject areas are studied at better universities.

To make a massive assumption, I guess it's fair to assume if someone studies Classics at Oxbridge they already have lots of doors open to them, due to family connections, friends, general wealthiness. Its often who you know, not what you know.

 

[Amp34]

Really? Not sure that is correct. I haven't gone to university, so a bit light on evidence, then again unless someone has studied the same degree at two different universities who would know?

My friends predominantly went Anglia Ruskin and come out with mixture of 2:1s and 2:2s by basically partying for 3 years. Sister went Leicester and came out with 2:1 and she is much brighter than my mates, also worked harder. Not that this is much evidence. Partner got a 1st in law from Hertfordshire but she worked her socks off. Family friend got a 1st in law from Durham. Family friend didn't struggle to walk into a law firm. Partner struggled to get in then lost interest now is doing well in HR focused role. Again not really evidence of course difficulty but why does university matter to employers so much if degrees from any university are the same?

You said you got a degree from Lancaster and it's not holding you back, well why would it? It's in the top 10 in the uk?

Haven't done the same degree at two different universities but have done a postgrad degree on a very competitive course at a 13th place uni (at the time) with entrants from a range of universities.

I went to a middle of the range Ex Poly for my undergrad, along with around half the UK students on the Masters course. The other half went to Russell's Group Unis. All of us had similar undergrad grades and life experiences - what type of university seems to have had very little bearing on the grade we came out with at the end of the Masters.

While at the Ex Poly I've also had marks increased for coursework when the external examiner (I believe from Bristol) deemed the marking to harsh. As far as I'm aware the main purpose of external examiners is to make sure grades and grade boundaries are relatively consistent across all similar accredited courses in the country.

Neither of them are conclusive proof of anything but to me that indicates there isn't as big a margin in ability and grades as many seem to think there is. At least in the discipline I studied.

 

[dowie]

Where's your response to the QAA stuff, bro?

presumably the QAA 'bod' who he was due to be with today didn't give him the answer he wanted to hear and he's decided to ignore it

 

[FloppyPoppy]

Just depends on the subjects and requirements for said jobs that those quals are for.