The Student Room Group

Tuition fees - why hasn't this argument been made before?

The current justification for £9k from the Government is that measures will be made to widen access initiatives and ensure some"quota" of lower income backgrounds - to put it another way, if your cohort meets say a certain threshold % of "poor" students then you can charge 9K. (Oversimplified, but conveys the general gist of the plan?)

Assuming I'm correct, why has no one considered that the family income distribution for say the bottom 50% of universities will be inherently skewed towards a poorer background. Thus it follows that "less selective" universities won't actually have to do very much - if anything at all - to justify charging £9k. I think it's a fair generalisation that family income/background is correlated with university "selectiveness" or prestige/standing. I'm just surprised this argument hasn't come through in any tuition fee debates I've seen, assuming what I said makes sense.
Original post by whiplash
The current justification for £9k from the Government is that measures will be made to widen access initiatives and ensure some"quota" of lower income backgrounds - to put it another way, if your cohort meets say a certain threshold % of "poor" students then you can charge 9K. (Oversimplified, but conveys the general gist of the plan?)

Assuming I'm correct, why has no one considered that the family income distribution for say the bottom 50% of universities will be inherently skewed towards a poorer background. Thus it follows that "less selective" universities won't actually have to do very much - if anything at all - to justify charging £9k. I think it's a fair generalisation that family income/background is correlated with university "selectiveness" or prestige/standing. I'm just surprised this argument hasn't come through in any tuition fee debates I've seen, assuming what I said makes sense.


The skewing already exists.

Some universities will need to do very little and, depending on demand, may be able to charge £9k very easily.

What we don't yet know is just how demanding the obligations will be on those universities with very low levels of access. Some may reconsider their £9000 decision. If you can't meet your targets, the fines mean it is better not to try.

Moreover, some institutions may decide to merge themselves out of the Access problem. Loughborough has a very diverse student body and a few very highly ranked departments. They might be quite a merger target for a university with access issues. So might Greenwich.
Original post by whiplash

Original post by whiplash
The current justification for £9k from the Government is that measures will be made to widen access initiatives and ensure some"quota" of lower income backgrounds - to put it another way, if your cohort meets say a certain threshold % of "poor" students then you can charge 9K. (Oversimplified, but conveys the general gist of the plan?)

Assuming I'm correct, why has no one considered that the family income distribution for say the bottom 50% of universities will be inherently skewed towards a poorer background. Thus it follows that "less selective" universities won't actually have to do very much - if anything at all - to justify charging £9k. I think it's a fair generalisation that family income/background is correlated with university "selectiveness" or prestige/standing. I'm just surprised this argument hasn't come through in any tuition fee debates I've seen, assuming what I said makes sense.


http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_releases_for_journalists/110315_1.html

So say if you're on an income less than £16,000, are you seriously suggesting poorer students will want to pay an extra £10,000 to study English or History or whatever at Leeds Met? (£8.5k).
Original post by im so academic
http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_releases_for_journalists/110315_1.html

So say if you're on an income less than £16,000, are you seriously suggesting poorer students will want to pay an extra £10,000 to study English or History or whatever at Leeds Met? (£8.5k).


Oxford is irrelevant to the discussion because Oxford is always fully subscribed.

A more meaningful question is whether a person should pay £9000 to study fashion (I am only using fashion as an example because the figures are available-not because of anything specific to a fashion course) at Coventry when Leeds Met's fashion course is only £8500. Is Coventry's course better because it is £500 dearer? Should someone pick their university based on £1500 less overall debt?
Original post by nulli tertius

Original post by nulli tertius
Oxford is irrelevant to the discussion because Oxford is always fully subscribed.

A more meaningful question is whether a person should pay £9000 to study fashion (I am only using fashion as an example because the figures are available-not because of anything specific to a fashion course) at Coventry when Leeds Met's fashion course is only £8500. Is Coventry's course better because it is £500 dearer? Should someone pick their university based on £1500 less overall debt?


It is relevant as there's a lot of bull**** going round how poorer students can't access top universities like Oxbridge due to the fees hike.

No, they shouldn't, and if they do, well I guess it's up to them.

Especially if they cannot be bothered to look up information such as bursaries available at Coventry.
Original post by im so academic
It is relevant as there's a lot of bull**** going round how poorer students can't access top universities like Oxbridge due to the fees hike.


In this great fees paperchase Oxford's 3000 students a year is a drop in the ocean.





All universities will have bursary/fee rebate packages. The US experience is that these significantly influence university destination. Whether they do here will depend on how distinct they are. If most of the packages at most of the universities are very similar (Oxbridge are always likely to be more generous for obvious reasons and more quirky because of the collegiate universities) and most of the fee levels are very similar they won't have much impact.
Reply 6
Original post by nulli tertius
Oxford is irrelevant to the discussion because Oxford is always fully subscribed.

A more meaningful question is whether a person should pay £9000 to study fashion (I am only using fashion as an example because the figures are available-not because of anything specific to a fashion course) at Coventry when Leeds Met's fashion course is only £8500. Is Coventry's course better because it is £500 dearer? Should someone pick their university based on £1500 less overall debt?


I think the question you should be asking is why should the government subsidise fashion degrees
Original post by speedbird
I think the question you should be asking is why should the government subsidise fashion degrees


Perhaps because the rag trade is our 15th biggest industry bringing in £37bn a year to the British economy.
Original post by speedbird
I think the question you should be asking is why should the government subsidise fashion degrees


Why should they subsidise economics? In fact, if you want to go down this route, why should they subsidise anything?!

Please, I await your answer as to why economics is worth more than fashion.
Reply 9
Original post by nulli tertius
Perhaps because the rag trade is our 15th biggest industry bringing in £37bn a year to the British economy.


Fair enough.
Original post by ilickbatteries
Why should they subsidise economics? In fact, if you want to go down this route, why should they subsidise anything?!

Please, I await your answer as to why economics is worth more than fashion.


Merit goods are subsidised as they would be undersupplied if left to market forces. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that the marginal social cost of a fashion degree is much higher than its marginal social benefit.
Original post by speedbird
Merit goods are subsidised as they would be undersupplied if left to market forces. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that the marginal social cost of a fashion degree is much higher than its marginal social benefit.


I know someone who studied fashion at an ex-poly and is now being made a partner in a bridalwear company, almost straight out of university.

She'll probably earn a fair bit, and as such will contribute more in taxes. That seems like quite the social benefit.

I see your point though. If a degree contributes nothing, why should it be subsidised? I think almost all degrees contribute more than their cost, though with the new tuition fees some degrees will inevitably die out.
I maintain that this wouldn't have happened had such ridiculous degree's not appeared over the past few years. I mean, a degree in Lady Gaga; really?!?

Still feel let down by the government, however, it's going to filter out those that are not so serious about going to uni.
Reply 13
Universities are cutting back on the amount of courses they do now and just keeping the popular ones I think.

I'm a fashion student at Coventry. The fees are as they are because they offer digital printing onto fabric. No other university does that in England, they all charge the students for it, whereas Coventry take it out of the tuition fees.

Is there really a degree in Lady Gaga?! .....

Oh and the fashion course has students doing all sorts. Fashion photography, journalism, print making, pattern cutting, illustrator and photoshop. So as long as you look in the right place and work hard you can walk into a job straight after uni. I think work experience is VERY important too. That applies to all courses though.

- Philippa

Quick Reply