Fee Levels set for next academic year

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20

HLS

Original post by DouglasBrown

I think it is a matter of prioritisation. If there are limited funds then arguably those without degrees should have priority.

But why even have graduate entry routes to traditional degrees (medicine, for instance) if you are then going to remove the means by which people support themselves on it?

I think the issue of whether to prioritise a graduate entrant or an undergraduate entrant to a mode of study should rest with the University and not with the government.

It is a false assumption to presuppose that swathes of people will continue in full time education indefinitely. The only reason the ELQ policy was introduced is because it creates a disincentive to go back into full time education (and therefore encourages people to earn and pay back loans).

The whole HE policy has been geared toward trying to ensure that the government gets the maximum rate of return on its investment (i.e. people pay back loans). If you remove the 'investment' policy and simply accept that the successful will pay higher taxes anyway, then the necessity for some of these policies (including ELQ) melts away.

Open University

Milton Keynes

Visit website

Reply 21

bufferz

Personally, i am 34, and this is my 1st degree, why should i be getting "punished" as such with increasingly higher year on year payments just because i started work after my gcses, and (potentially) next year my 30 point course that is £400 this year could be £1000 or more, and i cant get a financial award as i was unfortunately enough to work hard and between me and my wife earn too much money. Surely the system should have 2 levels, one for those in my situation, and those who are after a 2nd+ degree, who should pay more, as they have already had their bite of the cherry!

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 22

hmm_what?

Original post by bufferz

Firstly if you're doing over 30 points you'll be eligible for a student loan from Autumn 2012.

The system currently punishes those who worked hard enough at school and college to go to university but at the same time did not receive good guidance/support and so ended up doing a useless degree.

Reply 23

bufferz

Original post by hmm_what?

I dont want a "loan", Id rather have a cheaper course as i havent got a degree yet, and there isnt a limitless pot of money, but why should someone just drift along doing degree after degree, should they not pay more if they have a degree already, and your term useless degree is in what context? No degree is "useless", due to the skills that are acquired during the degree, plus it sounds like you are trying to put down those of us who didnt bother with a-levels etc at the time as we managed to get jobs instead...

Reply 24

HLS

Original post by bufferz

The trouble with your logic is that this is the current system - if you already have a degree you pay more.

Under the new system you will pay the same regardless of whether or not you already have a degree. The difference will be that the government will lend you the money for the first degree and (in most cases) not for the second.

My specific problem is that some degrees (graduate entry medicine) are designed for people who already have a degree - you cannot apply to them without a degree. They exist to serve this very constituency of graduates and yet the financial system currently equates to selection by wealth (you can't do the course if you can't cough up a vast sum of money up front).

Why even design the course if you're not prepared to properly fund it? It's madness.

I think you need to do a degree and get the other side of your education before you can judge about whether or not the absence of funding for a second degree is a good thing.

I went to a 'brick' University before starting with the OU and the 'brick' University was a complete shambles - the teaching was a disgrace, some examination papers had not been revised for upwards of 10 years, the resources were appalling and the much-vaunted statistics about "100% of our graduates go on to achieve employment within six months" turned out to be a complete fudge as several of them ended up working in bars/minimum wage jobs which they could've gotten without a degree.

It's all well to get high-and-mighty about access to Universities but until you've actually been involved with one it's difficult to really comprehend some of the pitfalls that await people.

Personally, I would remove all public funding for the lower level institutions and leave them to compete in a free market (many would not survive long), concentrating public funds in those that perform well and keeping the OU well funded and free at the point of use for those who want a 'fair access' option.