University tuition fees set to rise again

If you've been born into upper or even middle class, quite a damn lot. Of course there same people will judge those not quite as lucky by their own standards. Except when the same people surpass them, then it's "luck" lol

To warrant fee increases, I think more evidence should exist that you're being offered greater opportunities with what you're paying for. But, with diminishing graduate starting salaries, higher quality apprenticeships coming into fruition, as well as university not feeling very exclusive considering just about anybody can get in, I don't see how it's justifiable to pay more.

What do we all think of this
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/student-tuition-fees-set-to-rise-as-government-unveils-university-teaching-reforms-a7030671.html

So once again, regarding undergraduate education - no, it's not significantly better in the UK than Europe. League tables don't tell you a huge amount about the quality of undergraduate education in the first place, particularly not international league tables since all of their metrics are largely wholly irrelevant for undergraduates. The higher education system of Germany, for instance, is outstanding. The fact that they haven't got an Oxbridge doesn't change the fact that it serves their undergraduate population as a whole just as well as the British system. Except their system doesn't punish their population with a working-life's worth of fee repayments.

And why should people be taxed for doing something that society as a whole needs for development? It never ceases to amaze me why some people have a total lack of appreciation for the concept of a society. We pay taxes for a reason, to fund things that benefits everyone. Investing in higher education is no different from investing in other basic societal infrastructure, like roads or the healthcare system. Using your logic, people with poorer health or people in flood-prone areas or people who use the roads a lot should be taxed more too. The fact that this system isn't as broken as, for instance, America doesn't mean that it's right. It's not a race to the bottom.

If you read the article, then you will see its only certain unis that can reach certain standards. Quite easy that anyone can decie to not ho to those unis and choose a cheaper one.

Investing in higher education is no different from investing in other basic societal infrastructure, like roads or the healthcare system.

I know, but lowering your expectations and cutting yourself off from a university with the highest teaching standards for the sake of money isn't an education system I'd be happy with.

I never said higher education in Germany wasn't outstanding. Simply that it's even better in the UK.
Also I hate to break it to you, but German universities aren't funded by wishes and goodwill. There is no entitlement without obligation. Entitlements are paid for, in the end, by the taxpayer. The German system simply spreads the punishment over everyone regardless of whether they went to university or not.

You want low-earning school leavers to contribute to the cost of a high flying graduates degree even though they could easily afford to pay for it themselves, but I'm the one who doesn't appreciate the concept of society?
'Society' is not simply having everything billed to the taxman. 'Society' is about those with the broadest shoulders carrying the heaviest burdens.
I can't reiterate this enough- the current UK system is more progressive. Students pay nothing when they study, and pay back more when they earn more. Those who directly benefit the least pay the least.
You're argument also would hold some weight if no one was going to university, but they are. It would be one thing if no one was getting a degree level education now, and we needed to take drastic action. But no, we're still educating our workforce, hundreds of thousands of people are still going to university, the only difference now is that we're doing it in a more progressive fashion.
Put it another way, the government is willing to sub you 50k at generous rates to better yourself and people are still complaining! But no, no self-entitlement here, none at all...

No it's not.

I plan to never use my degree. I am doing it for a 'backup' and just to 'develop' me. I am more than happy to pay for every penny myself, but unfortunately the tax payer will still contribute.

Now, what does the tax payer get out of people like me?

It makes perfect sense. Your education is an investment, so its either worth the price or not, in which case choose a cheaper one. the reason it cna charge more is because it makes more financial sense.

It would widen the inequality gap - those from low income families might be persuaded by the price of university and opt for a cheaper one, so aim for lower grades. Wealthy people would study at the higher priced institutions, and I presume there'd be a correlation between high quality teaching and the overall quality of the university, meaning the wealthier students at the high cost universities would also look more desirable by certain, more selective employers.

Rather, you should be wiser with your decision. It costs the same to study at Cambridge as Bolton. It makes financial sense to invest the same money into the service that's going to facilitate your development. Therefore, you should be inspired to try as hard as you can at school to give yourself more possibilities to invest in something that's better value for the same price.

Hopefully your degree has aided your development as a person even if you're not directly applying the things you've learned for your career. If you want to pay for every penny yourself you are very welcome to pay the extra back into HMRC. Or donate the money to charity.

I think I'm the lucky generation, I was the last year that paid the 3000 pounds a year tuition fees.
It looks like a joke now, I feel so sorry for you guys....I feel they are doing this to lower university numbers. A bachelors degree these days has no weight compared to what it had 40 years ago. Too many poor courses and more and more new businesses (sorry, universities) opening up.

I was also looking at MSc fees and they are rising in general, way above inflation mind you. The course I did on my MSc has gone up from 9000 pounds to 10650 pounds in 2 years, nearly a 20% increase....way way above inflation.

Might as well just privatise education at this rate.

So once again, regarding undergraduate education - no, it's not significantly better in the UK than Europe. League tables don't tell you a huge amount about the quality of undergraduate education in the first place, particularly not international league tables since all of their metrics are largely wholly irrelevant for undergraduates. The higher education system of Germany, for instance, is outstanding. The fact that they haven't got an Oxbridge doesn't change the fact that it serves their undergraduate population as a whole just as well as the British system. Except their system doesn't punish their population with a working-life's worth of fee repayments.

And why should people be taxed for doing something that society as a whole needs for development? It never ceases to amaze me why some people have a total lack of appreciation for the concept of a society. We pay taxes for a reason, to fund things that benefits everyone. Investing in higher education is no different from investing in other basic societal infrastructure, like roads or the healthcare system. Using your logic, people with poorer health or people in flood-prone areas or people who use the roads a lot should be taxed more too. The fact that this system isn't as broken as, for instance, America doesn't mean that it's right. It's not a race to the bottom.

No they wouldnt. If ab Oxvrudge degree cost 50% more you would still go there.

The idea that because some unis charge more for places, then that would cause students to aim for lower grades is stupid. people are going to wnat to go to the best unis they can and as they arent paying up front, then rising fees isnt going to be a problem. It is one for the government though becayse a lot of the money is never repaid.

Whether you accept it or not, fees influence some people to forego university, and the concept of higher fees exacerbates that. You previously said that if students want to go to a cheaper university, then they can. That's acknowledgement that some people will opt for cheaper choices, and the people most likely to do that are from low income backgrounds. Therefore, if they're applying to lower priced institutions, which are likely to have lower grade expectations, then of course many applicants are going to 'aim' for the grades demanded by that university, because where's the incentive to exceed them?