Open University
Milton Keynes
Some thoughts on the fee change
I've been thinking about the fee changes to come into effect from 2012. I'm already a student so mercifully they don't affect me, but the following did strike me as pertinent:
- The purpose of the fee change is so the government can withdraw their Higher Education Funding Council grants. This is because grants have to be declared in the public accounts as "expenditure" whereas loans to students do not (and it magically looks like you've reduced the deficit if you suddenly start lending billions to students).
- This means new students from 2012 will have to either pay up front or take out loans in order to study with the OU.
- On my course (history), I would say that the majority of the people studying have actually already retired. They are studying simply to further their personal interests or to achieve something they couldn't when younger.
- Those that aren't retired are usually middle aged.
- Those that have already retired are not going to, upon graduation, "go on to earn above £21k per year" in some fancy graduate job and thus will never repay any of their loans (unless their pension income is above £21k a year - this is unlikely in my opinion).
- Those that are middle aged, even if they do go into graduate positions (and many do not), are unlikely to have 30 working years left open to them (this is the time the government are willing to give people to pay back their loans).
- So basically, the vast majority - maybe even up to about 80% - of the money lent to students of the OU is probably going to have to be written off the moment it is lent.
- A lot of the students who do not fit into either of the above demographics study 'speculatively' - they do a module because they don't have any previous Higher Education experience and want to see whether or not they enjoy it. They are also unlikely to step into graduate employment.
- It also has to be considered that retention rates - for all the reasons listed above and more - are quite low at the OU.
- So basically, the government are, in the case of the OU especially, going to generate massive quantities of debt which they know at the outset will never be repaid and will accumulate interest over their 30 year life span.
Conclusion - the new fees policy is absolute madness.
- The purpose of the fee change is so the government can withdraw their Higher Education Funding Council grants. This is because grants have to be declared in the public accounts as "expenditure" whereas loans to students do not (and it magically looks like you've reduced the deficit if you suddenly start lending billions to students).
- This means new students from 2012 will have to either pay up front or take out loans in order to study with the OU.
- On my course (history), I would say that the majority of the people studying have actually already retired. They are studying simply to further their personal interests or to achieve something they couldn't when younger.
- Those that aren't retired are usually middle aged.
- Those that have already retired are not going to, upon graduation, "go on to earn above £21k per year" in some fancy graduate job and thus will never repay any of their loans (unless their pension income is above £21k a year - this is unlikely in my opinion).
- Those that are middle aged, even if they do go into graduate positions (and many do not), are unlikely to have 30 working years left open to them (this is the time the government are willing to give people to pay back their loans).
- So basically, the vast majority - maybe even up to about 80% - of the money lent to students of the OU is probably going to have to be written off the moment it is lent.
- A lot of the students who do not fit into either of the above demographics study 'speculatively' - they do a module because they don't have any previous Higher Education experience and want to see whether or not they enjoy it. They are also unlikely to step into graduate employment.
- It also has to be considered that retention rates - for all the reasons listed above and more - are quite low at the OU.
- So basically, the government are, in the case of the OU especially, going to generate massive quantities of debt which they know at the outset will never be repaid and will accumulate interest over their 30 year life span.
Conclusion - the new fees policy is absolute madness.
Original post by HLS
I've been thinking about the fee changes to come into effect from 2012. I'm already a student so mercifully they don't affect me, but the following did strike me as pertinent:
- The purpose of the fee change is so the government can withdraw their Higher Education Funding Council grants. This is because grants have to be declared in the public accounts as "expenditure" whereas loans to students do not (and it magically looks like you've reduced the deficit if you suddenly start lending billions to students).
- This means new students from 2012 will have to either pay up front or take out loans in order to study with the OU.
- On my course (history), I would say that the majority of the people studying have actually already retired. They are studying simply to further their personal interests or to achieve something they couldn't when younger.
- Those that aren't retired are usually middle aged.
- Those that have already retired are not going to, upon graduation, "go on to earn above £21k per year" in some fancy graduate job and thus will never repay any of their loans (unless their pension income is above £21k a year - this is unlikely in my opinion).
- Those that are middle aged, even if they do go into graduate positions (and many do not), are unlikely to have 30 working years left open to them (this is the time the government are willing to give people to pay back their loans).
- So basically, the vast majority - maybe even up to about 80% - of the money lent to students of the OU is probably going to have to be written off the moment it is lent.
- A lot of the students who do not fit into either of the above demographics study 'speculatively' - they do a module because they don't have any previous Higher Education experience and want to see whether or not they enjoy it. They are also unlikely to step into graduate employment.
- It also has to be considered that retention rates - for all the reasons listed above and more - are quite low at the OU.
- So basically, the government are, in the case of the OU especially, going to generate massive quantities of debt which they know at the outset will never be repaid and will accumulate interest over their 30 year life span.
Conclusion - the new fees policy is absolute madness.
- The purpose of the fee change is so the government can withdraw their Higher Education Funding Council grants. This is because grants have to be declared in the public accounts as "expenditure" whereas loans to students do not (and it magically looks like you've reduced the deficit if you suddenly start lending billions to students).
- This means new students from 2012 will have to either pay up front or take out loans in order to study with the OU.
- On my course (history), I would say that the majority of the people studying have actually already retired. They are studying simply to further their personal interests or to achieve something they couldn't when younger.
- Those that aren't retired are usually middle aged.
- Those that have already retired are not going to, upon graduation, "go on to earn above £21k per year" in some fancy graduate job and thus will never repay any of their loans (unless their pension income is above £21k a year - this is unlikely in my opinion).
- Those that are middle aged, even if they do go into graduate positions (and many do not), are unlikely to have 30 working years left open to them (this is the time the government are willing to give people to pay back their loans).
- So basically, the vast majority - maybe even up to about 80% - of the money lent to students of the OU is probably going to have to be written off the moment it is lent.
- A lot of the students who do not fit into either of the above demographics study 'speculatively' - they do a module because they don't have any previous Higher Education experience and want to see whether or not they enjoy it. They are also unlikely to step into graduate employment.
- It also has to be considered that retention rates - for all the reasons listed above and more - are quite low at the OU.
- So basically, the government are, in the case of the OU especially, going to generate massive quantities of debt which they know at the outset will never be repaid and will accumulate interest over their 30 year life span.
Conclusion - the new fees policy is absolute madness.
That's why the OU are trying to appeal to potential students under 25. As for the fee rises what else could they do? The ELQ policy pushed the OU to the edge and I think the funding cut will push it over.
Open University
Milton Keynes
Original post by hmm_what?
That's why the OU are trying to appeal to potential students under 25. As for the fee rises what else could they do? The ELQ policy pushed the OU to the edge and I think the funding cut will push it over.
I agree - I don't blame the OU at all. This is all a problem of the Government's making.
I do think this funding farce is the death knell for the OU.
Original post by bufferz
I think doing that will work well, particularly for the likes of law students, where it is half the cost of traditional uni, however there will be the problem for the OU that "kids" dont really count it as a viable alternative for other courses
Not half. Remember if you're a poor kid who wants to do law you get fee remissions.
A poor kid who wanted to do law at Oxford would pay only £15k tuition - exactly the same as with the OU. And the Oxbridge degree will open infinitely more doors.
Most of the advantages of the OU for young people have been eradicated by this fee change. The only remaining advantage (if you want to call it that) is that there are no formal entry requirements.
How long will that last now?
Original post by HLS
Most of the advantages of the OU for young people have been eradicated by this fee change.
Most of the advantages of the OU for young people have been eradicated by this fee change.
I would have to disagree with that, respectfully.
3 years @ £9000 fees plus £6000 minimum living expenses equates to £45,000.
Compare that with 3 x £5000 for the OU on a full-time basis, which could be additionally subsidised while living at home by doing a McJob for spare cash, and I think it will serve to put the OU ON the map, and raise its profile as more and more 18-year-olds take this option.
On the OU's side, however, I would expect much more lecture support for each module than is currently offered in order to justify the end-user cost.
Original post by matherrrrrmatician
I would have to disagree with that, respectfully.
3 years @ £9000 fees plus £6000 minimum living expenses equates to £45,000.
Compare that with 3 x £5000 for the OU on a full-time basis, which could be additionally subsidised while living at home by doing a McJob for spare cash, and I think it will serve to put the OU ON the map, and raise its profile as more and more 18-year-olds take this option.
On the OU's side, however, I would expect much more lecture support for each module than is currently offered in order to justify the end-user cost.
3 years @ £9000 fees plus £6000 minimum living expenses equates to £45,000.
Compare that with 3 x £5000 for the OU on a full-time basis, which could be additionally subsidised while living at home by doing a McJob for spare cash, and I think it will serve to put the OU ON the map, and raise its profile as more and more 18-year-olds take this option.
On the OU's side, however, I would expect much more lecture support for each module than is currently offered in order to justify the end-user cost.
Did you even read my post? For a student from a poor background tuition will cost the same at Oxford as it does at the OU.
Original post by HLS
Did you even read my post? For a student from a poor background tuition will cost the same at Oxford as it does at the OU.
That doesn't matter to everyone though, there are still people who would pick the OU. I've been to a brick uni, hated it and would still stick to the OU. I like working full-time and having enough money to move out and have my own flat, car, holidays, etc. I like not having to go to lectures all the time and working entirely at my own pace. The OU is perfect for me and I would choose it even if I could go to Oxford for the same cost. I just don't want to go to Oxbridge, or any other brick university for that matter. Obviously a lot of people would choose Oxford (well, assuming they can get in, haha) but I don't think everyone would.
Original post by HLS
Original post by HLS
Did you even read my post? For a student from a poor background tuition will cost the same at Oxford as it does at the OU.
But Oxford is more expensive, in the fact that you can't have a part time job while studying (well, you can't at Cambridge so I'm assuming) so are "losing" wages. Even if you can have a part time job, you're losing compared to the full time job you could have with the OU.
Original post by HLS
Did you even read my post? For a student from a poor background tuition will cost the same at Oxford as it does at the OU.
Given that I disagreed with it, you may assume I read it, yes.
I took your argument and extrapolated it across universities in general, then discounted students' financial backgrounds since there is a not a one-size-fits-all model.
Your post quoted above revolves around students from poor backgrounds, and your specific example of help relates to Oxford.
This is not representative of the general 18-year-old student demographic, which is neither necessarily poor, nor aspiring to attend Oxford.
Whichever way you look at it, study with the OU is, in general, going to be cheaper.
Original post by Juno
But Oxford is more expensive, in the fact that you can't have a part time job while studying (well, you can't at Cambridge so I'm assuming) so are "losing" wages. Even if you can have a part time job, you're losing compared to the full time job you could have with the OU.
But once you do graduate your earning potential with an Oxbridge (or Russell Group generally) degree is likely to be higher - often considerably so - than your earning potential as an OU graduate.
The cost at the moment is a huge attraction to the OU - it is cost efficient. If you're poor it's free, if you're a middle-earner it's subsidised and cheap and if you're well off you can easily pay as you learn.
Few of these things will remain true. A £5k tuition fee (as opposed to the £120 I paid this year to 'top up' the fee grant) would have seriously made me think twice.
Most Universities are offering large fee waivers. If you don't quality for a fee waver and you're in a fairly affluent financial position you're not likely to be debt-averse anyway and so the lower OU fee is unlikely to be an attraction.
I still maintain this fee rise is a very bad sign for the OU. They will have to change considerably in my opinion. I wouldn't pay £5k for what I get now - it's just not worth it.
I very much doubt that any young student with an offer from Oxford will decide to study with the OU.
The OU's market is more the people who have offers from mid/lower table universities and therefore do not think that the 9k a year fees (plus living costs) would be justified.
I always say that the vast majority of young students should go full time anyway. There are other advantages such as getting to know people from different backgrounds, building a network of friends.
As good as the OU is at teaching it does not give you the same kind of networks you get from a brick university. It is better for those that for whatever reason are settled at home.
The OU's market is more the people who have offers from mid/lower table universities and therefore do not think that the 9k a year fees (plus living costs) would be justified.
I always say that the vast majority of young students should go full time anyway. There are other advantages such as getting to know people from different backgrounds, building a network of friends.
As good as the OU is at teaching it does not give you the same kind of networks you get from a brick university. It is better for those that for whatever reason are settled at home.
Original post by HLS
I still maintain this fee rise is a very bad sign for the OU. They will have to change considerably in my opinion. I wouldn't pay £5k for what I get now - it's just not worth it.
I still maintain this fee rise is a very bad sign for the OU. They will have to change considerably in my opinion. I wouldn't pay £5k for what I get now - it's just not worth it.
But if you were earning less than 21k then it is still a good option. As either you never pay it off, or your career improves and you pay it off slowly.
For some people a loan for 15k, paid off over 30 years (and with no payments when unemployed or low wages) is much better than paying £6000 in cash along the way.
Original post by HLS
- On my course (history), I would say that the majority of the people studying have actually already retired. They are studying simply to further their personal interests or to achieve something they couldn't when younger.
- On my course (history), I would say that the majority of the people studying have actually already retired. They are studying simply to further their personal interests or to achieve something they couldn't when younger.
For me this is the interesting point. Some of us study with the OU for fun and aren't expecting a career changing qualification at the end of it. But under the new regs you have to do 60 points a year? and get things over with by 2017 to stay at the low rate. That gives no flexibility. And only celebs and the rich could afford to do a degree for fun at the new high rates. The nature of the OU seems to have changed fundamentally.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Five things to do if you have a change of heart about your university/degree.
- Just £1K in your Final Year?
- Career change mid 30’s
- Applying for student finance based on household income form
- Returning student finance advice please
- Council Tax discount when studying 120 OU credits?
- Home fee status but living in England
- Graduate Entry Medicine 2023
- International student fee status
- Student finance and loan
- Dentistry as a second degree funding
- Funding when you can’t work
- dropping out
- Help student finance?
- Fees without and with ILR
- Can a University change the price on tuition after an offer is accepted?
- Mature student (60). Not too late for career change…?
- Can I be charged for dropping out of next year’s housing contract?
- Student University Record Closed
- Changing fee status at Edinburgh, but offer might be withdrawn?!
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 week ago
I don’t know what to do about my law degree. I’m so worried.Trending
Last reply 1 week ago
I don’t know what to do about my law degree. I’m so worried.
