STEM students should pay higher tuition fees

Scroll to see replies

No because it might discourage some students from choosing a STEM degree, which can damage the economy if our workforce isn't prepared for the industries of the future

Not necessarily - they're already paying high fees atm. I'm suggesting the fees drop to about 9k.
Students will be prepared to pay whatever if there's a high chance of them getting a nicely paid graduate job at the end of everything.
It might even give a lot of them an ego boost if they're doing an expensive high-status course. :u:

Reply 21

Doones

Original post by Lh030396

Yeah, but the internationals get charged a huge amount whether they study STEM or not. I'm talking about British students.

The rates vary depending on the course, and in many cases more closely match the true costs of providing that course. They also factor in supply and demand.

Eg http://www.ucl.ac.uk/prospective-students/undergraduate/fees-funding/tuition-fees/overseas

Posted from TSR Mobile

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 22

TheBBQ

ITT: Salty arts students who are upset about the money other people will be making

Reply 23

Dannyboy2015

Original post by Luke7456

Stem Degrees are more rigorous and demanding and more useful to the world at large. if we charge students more for this then less useful degrees we are actively discouraging people from studying rigorous degrees and encouraging them to study degrees that have little utility and are less valuable. My position isn't a moral one it is a simple practical economic one.

This wouldn't lead to less people studying STEM degrees. Lets say it did though, suddenly there aren't say enough scientists, employers are going to be forced to increase their salary so that they get more scientists coming to work for them rather than company xyz.

This would encourage more people to pursue a degree as say (in this example) a scientist. Additionally as long as you keep the same principal of you only pay back when you can afford to then why would people not chose the degree despite the higher cost? Student loans are not terrible loans to have. Sure the scientist in this example might have more than anyone else but they are also in a better to position to pay it off.

Reply 24

Luke7456

Original post by Dannyboy2015

No because if Uk scientists cost more then from a business point of view it would make sense to run the business in other countries. or to employ from outside the UK.

Further I am not sure if you genuinely understand how university funding or economics works.

Are you aware that even with students paying the high tuition fees as it is the government still has to subsidize universities to a large degree and are still footing a substantial proportion of the bill.

Now in all honesty I am not quite sure how the numbers break down but I am aware that the tax payer still has to subsidize universities. I disagree with Chaos on here who seems to think that we should abort student loans all together and hike the fees.

However I think that would be a better option then lowering the fees for less useful degrees.

I really do get fed up of this wishy washy mentality that education should be free. You realize that this doesn't mean the cost magically disappears ? It means the taxpayer foots the bill when we already have a very large deficit and a huge national debt. Now this is one thing if the student is going to work hard get a Quality degree pay back a substantial proportion of this and Pay a lot more in taxes over the years. that works for everyone.

However it is a different story when they are going to do an easy degree spend most of their time partying drinking and sleeping around. add little value to their earning potential, the tax payer foots most of the bill, then they end up not earning enough to pay taxes or even better cannot get work so on the dull and consuming more taxes.

I mean its bad enough when people say raise the taxes on those that earn more money, because they have more. When they work harder. The classic comment been Jeremy Corbyn who wanted to set a maximum wage.

however it gets to a new point of ridiculousness when someone who wants to make poorer economic decisions realizes in advance that they are poor economic decisions so wants other people to compensate them/subsidize them for that.

Why the hell should someone who spends sixty hours a week working their asses of doing a maths or law degree from Cambridge be in a similar economic position to someone that does a sub standard degree from some random polytechnic puts in less then 14 hours a week and spends the majority of their time drinking and partying.

It is an absurd notion.

Reply 25

Reality Check

Surely the reverse of your suggestion is true. If, as you say, STEM students go on to well, highly-paid jobs then they're paying their tuition back over and over again in increased tax revenue. By your analysis, it should be the ARTS students who pay higher tuition fees to insure against the archetypal under/unemployed history graduate.

Obviously, I don't agree with either STEM or arts students paying more. And you go to university for a lot more than just to get a job at the end of it.

Reply 26

Luke7456

Original post by Reality Check

thank you some sense.

Reply 27

#ChaosKass

It should be based on supply and demand - the more demand for a degree course, the higher the fees. I also think that the current fees are far too low, though that's a different story.

Reply 28

Luke7456

Original post by #ChaosKass

It should be based on supply and demand - the more demand for a degree course, the higher the fees. I also think that the current fees are far too low, though that's a different story.

come on chaos their is a chance to be so much more invidious then that. You can do better. :biggrin:

Reply 29

Lh030396

Original post by #ChaosKass

It should be based on supply and demand - the more demand for a degree course, the higher the fees. I also think that the current fees are far too low, though that's a different story.

What would you increase the fees to? And would you abolish "Mickey Mouse" degrees?

Reply 30

rainbow.panda

Original post by Lh030396

If a Maths grad is unemployed after finishing uni they have done something seriously wrong... :frown:

Wow thanks that makes me feel so much better about my current situation :smile:

Reply 31

#ChaosKass

Original post by Lh030396

What would you increase the fees to? And would you abolish "Mickey Mouse" degrees?

I would begin with a base of £20,000 a year, then universities would be able to adjust them based on supply and demand (this would require the higher education sector to be completely privatised, to allow universities to have complete control).

I would not completely abolish them, but put severe restrictions on the quality and quantity of people who are accepted onto them, for example if you want to do psychology then you would need to have evidence of wanting a career in psychology, not just because you want "the university experience" and are picking the easy course.

Reply 32

Tsrsarahhhh

I'm doing a humanities degree and it's frustrating that we have to pay the same amount of money as stem students as they receive so much more contact time! Imo we should be paying for what we actually receive. For example If I'm only getting 8 hours of contact time I should be paying for that. Of course there's other factors that the loan covers like library usage for example but 9000 pounds a year is really ridiculous :frown:

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 33

chazwomaq

There is actually some logic to this.

STEM degrees cost a lot more to teach because it's not just sitting around discussing books.

A graduate tax system would do this as people who earned more money would pay more back. The current system is like a pseudo-graduate tax - those who don't earn much will end up having their loans written off i.e. paid for by the government.

But universities are welcome to charge different prices for courses at the moment. But they won't as it seems students are happy to pay the top rate for less useful degrees. Supply and demand...*

*albeit with a cap.

Reply 34

chazwomaq

Original post by Tsrsarahhhh

but 9000 pounds a year is really ridiculous :frown:

And yet you're paying it...

Reply 35

Lh030396

Well, maybe fees should be dependant on university prestige and facilities. That way, all STEM students across all universities wouldn't have to pay the same.
I still think STEM students should pay a bit more. They have longer hours of study, more in-depth teaching, etc. Not to mention added job satisfaction after their courses have finished. You should get what you pay for.

Reply 36

Doones

Original post by chazwomaq

STEM degrees cost a lot more to teach because it's not just sitting around discussing books.

Or in a lecture/seminar discussing Maths. Maths is relatively cheap to teach.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 37

chazwomaq

Original post by jneill

Or in a lecture/seminar discussing Maths. Maths is relatively cheap to teach.

Posted from TSR Mobile

True.

Reply 38

chazwomaq

Everyone is eligible for loans to cover costs. Noone can not afford the fees.

I'm a STEM student. I don't get any more teaching than any other students in other courses. I get 12 hours a week, 6 hours of lectures and 6 hours of practicals, just like every other student at my university.

This is unusual. Generally STEM students have lots more contact time: https://www.theguardian.com/education/mortarboard/2014/jul/21/science-students-contact-hours

Out of interest, how do humanities students do practicals?

Reply 39

1c8e2

100% do not agree with this!

People should not be penalised for picking a STEM subject. Upon graduation average student debt will be £40k+ and it is quickly becoming normal for STEM jobs to require a masters just to get on the grad scheme!

Average starting salary is around £25k, if you work for a good company you'd probably retire 45 years later on maybe £45k?

I've got friends who have done degrees in business, art, english etc and not one of them works in that field, mainly because they don't want to work an office job. Should they have the incentive of a low price degree to not work in the industry? No way!

A STEM degree requires a lot of work. 30 hours + contact time and then the same again in completing tutorials, group projects etc. Now its expected by employers for students to be unique. This requires self learning of programming, languages, getting imvolved with science based societies, volunteering, basically anything you can put on your cv.

Further education is not a right, you're not owed anything. The whole point of going to university is to better yourself and become qualified and work in that field, not to have an experience of living away from home and sitting through lectures hungover.

Graduating with a degree does not equal employability. 40% of young people go to university you have to stand out, it's not to do with the job market it's about how much you really want the job.

STEM subjects are needed badly to help the country - medical researchers, engineers, physicists, chemists are all needed to provide energy, water, healthcare and homes. Do you really want to make these people pay more?