TSR's 2012 Tuition Fees Tracker - how much are universities charging in 2012?

Reply 320

Howbeit

19

WOW

I'd like to see that one get through the government!

Reply 321

tigermoth99

13

For a university that is consistently ranked near the bottom of league tables, charging £9000 is a joke. If I was a prospective student, I'd seriously have second thoughts over studying there.

Reply 322

im so academic

15

Original post by tigermoth99

For a university that is consistently ranked near the bottom of league tables, charging £9000 is a joke. If I was a prospective student, I'd seriously have second thoughts over studying there.

Tbh, you should take it as good news. It means that it should hopefully close down some day.

Reply 323

Joinedup

20

Original post by RK

The University of East London is the latest to announce fees of £9000 a year.
Teesside University has also announced fees of £8500 for all undergraduate degrees.
Roehampton University have announced fees from £7500 to £8250.
St George's University of London have announced fees of £9000 for undergrad degrees.

What do you guys think of this?

What about the growing list of universities which are charging £9000? Are there any surprises amongst those which want to charge the full amount? Are there any surprises amongst those who aren't charging the full amount?

Mr Vincent Cable of London seems surprised - which I find surprising.

OP

Latest to be added to the map is Manchester Metropolitan University has announced fees of up to £9000. Around 75% of students will be charged £8000, around 20% £9000 and the rest £8500.

Reply 325

belle-a

kingston university is charging the maximum too. not sure if it has already been mentioned. :smile:

Reply 326

matt_rf

7

It may have already been mentioned but the reason all these low ranking Universities are going to charge the £9k is because they argue that their degrees are not worth less than the same degree offered by another institution.

If institution A prices its courses less than those of institution B, it maybe seen by future employers than having a degree from institution B is better than A. They may both be sh*t degrees, but that doesnt matter.

Reply 327

woods.vanessa

10

Original post by RK

Because that would mean the generation who got free university education by having their elders pay for it would not have changed the rules when they get in to power to remove the same burden from themselves so they neither have to pay for their own university education nor much towards a university education for any future generation either.

Does that seem fair?

I'm sorry for being slow but could you say that in a different way I don't get it!

OP

Original post by woods.vanessa

I'm sorry for being slow but could you say that in a different way I don't get it!

Basically I was saying that the current generation of politians got free university education and now they are at the stage of their lives where they traditionally would be paying taxes to support the next generation of university students, they decide to cut most of the state funding and force the future students to pay for it themselves.

Basically it means they didn't pay for their own university education and won't be paying for the next generations either (which up until now has always been how it worked).

I was criticising the Government for doing this as it means they get the best of everything and don't contribute fully to anyone's university education, not even their own...which is in stark contrast to the idea you put forward that people people who have benefited from free university education should contribute something - this used to be the case as they paid for it through income tax but is pretty much no longer the case when we get the 80% cuts in state teaching funding for universities.

Reply 329

woods.vanessa

10

Original post by RK

Basically I was saying that the current generation of politians got free university education and now they are at the stage of their lives where they traditionally would be paying taxes to support the next generation of university students, they decide to cut most of the state funding and force the future students to pay for it themselves.

Basically it means they didn't pay for their own university education and won't be paying for the next generations either (which up until now has always been how it worked).

I was criticising the Government for doing this as it means they get the best of everything and don't contribute fully to anyone's university education, not even their own...which is in stark contrast to the idea you put forward that people people who have benefited from free university education should contribute something - this used to be the case as they paid for it through income tax but is pretty much no longer the case when we get the 80% cuts in state teaching funding for universities.

I'm confused as to whether you agree with me or not. Anyway the new fees don't affect me which is a VERY selfish outloook on things but it puts me slightly at ease :colondollar:

.

Reply 330

LostInLaw

12

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-13098705

London Met to cut its courses from 557 to around 160.

Reply 331

River85

17

Northumbria just announced they're increasing fees to £8,500.

http://www.northumbria.ac.uk/browse/ne/uninews/1973785

Reply 332

Aeschylus

17

How sad that the two generations who benefitted from free and abundant healthcare, free tertiary education with grants to help, cheap property, energy, a well-funded welfare system etc etc etc are now undermining most/all of these for the forthcoming generation, who they simultaneously decry as workshy, feckless, sexually deviant and stupid. what qualifications we do earn are derided as pointless. This is going to really cause great anger. Pulling up the rung for those coming and saying 'I'm alright Jack' is a stupidly selfish act.

It does send out a great message that the government isn't interested in education and I don't really have much hope in any other party changing things. If I were in Year 12 now, I'd look at a course in Scandinavia, or Germany or the Netherlands, which are taught in English.

Reply 333

Tabris

16

Original post by Joinedup

Mr Vincent Cable of London seems surprised - which I find surprising.

You could probably throw a drinking bird in front of him and he'd probably be entertained for hours on end.

Reply 334

Organ

13

Original post by Aeschylus

How sad that the two generations who benefitted from free and abundant healthcare, free tertiary education with grants to help, cheap property, energy, a well-funded welfare system etc etc etc are now undermining most/all of these for the forthcoming generation, who they simultaneously decry as workshy, feckless, sexually deviant and stupid. what qualifications we do earn are derided as pointless. This is going to really cause great anger. Pulling up the rung for those coming and saying 'I'm alright Jack' is a stupidly selfish act.

It does send out a great message that the government isn't interested in education and I don't really have much hope in any other party changing things. If I were in Year 12 now, I'd look at a course in Scandinavia, or Germany or the Netherlands, which are taught in English.

very true

Reply 335

Joinedup

20

Sorry if it's been mentioned but here's Professor Teresa Rees pointing out the devolved buggers muddle fees have become.

Welsh students are better off leaving wales, Scottish students are better staying put, English students are shafted everwhere in the UK. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-13065039

BTW how hard would it be to fake a scottish identity? obv there's quite a bit of money at stake so it'd be a surprise if it wasn't starting to happen already.