Is this a victory for mainland Europe?

Don't you think that the rising fees has essentially exported some of our best students (who would have gone to the top UK unis) to the likes of Germany for less or no debt? Would some of them end up working there, meaning they contribute to another country's economy?

Would the mainland universities rise in academic performance due to rising numbers of top applicants from the UK and US which could increase competition, forcing native applicants to work harder to get into their own universities and work for the best grades and exam results, driving up academic performance? Or am I thinking too much in economic terms here?

And should TSR advertise applying to the top universities in the continent more?

Kind of irrelevant to the debate but I'm actually surprised. I don't think the fees are even that high... at all. I mean they shouldn't keep rising and they should probably not exist but I don't think they're high. If you want to see high fees, look at private schools in the UK or look at US colleges.

Don't you think that the rising fees has essentially exported some of our best students (who would have gone to the top UK unis) to the likes of Germany for less or no debt? Would some of them end up working there, meaning they contribute to another country's economy?

Would the mainland universities rise in academic performance due to rising numbers of top applicants from the UK and US which could increase competition, forcing native applicants to work harder to get into their own universities and work for the best grades and exam results, driving up academic performance? Or am I thinking too much in economic terms here?

Kind of irrelevant to the debate but I'm actually surprised. I don't think the fees are even that high... at all. I mean they shouldn't keep rising and they should probably not exist but I don't think they're high. If you want to see high fees, look at private schools in the UK or look at US colleges.

How on earth do you reach the conclusion that our fees aren't high? The average person going through HE now is going to have enough debt so that they are never going to be able to repay it in their working lives (75% will not be able to repay, that's the prediction). That's incredibly high, unless you happen to come from a wealthy family or you're going into banking or something.

I also don't really get the relevance of comparing us to the US. Just because some other country is making a bigger mess of fees doesn't mean the situation here is absolutely dandy. On top of that, US universities get a lot more funding so very few people pay the full cost in the US. Several people from my school are going to top US universities with barely any tuition fees to pay.




I find it really hard to believe that the outflow of students is ever going to be massive because of the inconvenience of going abroad and the fact that UK students don't really tend to have a very international attitude, but it definitely will result in more people leaving, particularly to the US I'd have thought.

It's more the perceived highness of fees by students rather than the actual highness that's at debate.

Because that's the top. That is like 4/5 US universities... that do that anyway (offer aid to the internationals). Well, you don't get the relevance then. I'm just saying I don't really feel that they are ridiculously high - most people don't pay the full whack anyway. Essentially everyone can go to university these days and money isn't really a big problem.

Everyone can go to university these days... and they're saddled with a lifetime of "graduate tax" payments on top of the already ridiculously high living expenses. I don't understand how you're not appalled by the unfairness of the situation. All of the people introducing these policies, none of them had to pay any tuition fees - yet they feel perfectly entitled to force young people these days to pay a sizeable chunk of their income for the rest of their lives. And it's all for nothing, the government isn't even making a financial gain from this.

Guess why? Because the government literally has no money. It's in debt up to its eyeballs and they have to get funds somehow. It's unfair - but I'd rather have the NHS and so on than complain about paying a little more for my tuition and having to pay back over my life. As I said before, it should probably be rectified and we should probably pay nothing but that's not the reality of our economic state - is it? No. I don't see how the fact those people had to pay nothing is relevant to us now, at all. At all.

Like I also said before, I probably don't see a problem because I've never been that interested as I will not be presented with a barrier when paying for university.

With all due respect, I don't really think you understand how government economics works. Government debt is not the same thing as the kind of debt you have in your bank account and I'm absolutely fed up of people misunderstanding this. National debt doesn't even physically exist - it's only a problem because of the vice banks have over governments. There isn't any kind of physical deficit in what people are capable of doing, people don't magically become less capable of doing work when a country slides into a recession! This has absolutely nothing to do with national debt and the government, as well as virtually all economists, are completely aware of this.

And even if you think I'm lying to you, could you please explain to me why Germany is still one of the world's most powerful economies, whilst having virtually free higher education, despite having a national debt only marginally lower than the UK? Belgium has a public debt 10% greater than the UK (as a proportion of their GDP) and yet also has virtually free higher education. These countries aren't somehow on the brink of collapse, yet all of them manage to properly subsidise higher education.

Maybe people just don't really care because sh*t happens and the government do things wrong all the time, whichever party is in power? I don't think you're lying to me - I just don't really care ! Also, I am not an economist so

Explain why we don't have free education? There must be SOME reason England doesn't want this? I mean, I remember Oxford, when the fees went to £9,000, commenting that it would become impossible to run on any less. Why would they say that if it was possible not to?

We don't have free education because the British public doesn't care enough. In countries like Germany, there have been campaigns for free education spanning decades. In the UK, we've had some reactionary protests to increases in tuition fee but nothing sustained. There isn't enough public pressure so the government naturally doesn't give in. As for why there isn't enough public pressure, I'd put it down to a view of higher education as a commodity or an investment, rather than something intrinsically valuable. Whereas people in countries like Germany see higher education as something for the benefit of society and as something necessary for social progression, in the UK, the attention is always on how much money you can make with it.

As for what Oxford says, they were commenting on the fees given the amount of funding they get. It costs a certain amount of money to teach an undergraduate and Oxford's argument is that the amount of money they get from tuition fees and from the government isn't enough to cover the full costs of undergraduate education. I do not think they meant it was impossible from the perspective of the government, they meant it was impossible from the perspective of the university given the lack of funding they're getting from the government.

Fair enough but with all due respect - I don't think many today do find their degree intrinsically valuable because half the time it doesn't help them get a job and many who do have a degree, find themselves without a job where their degree is relevant. For example, quite a few people in my family have gone to university and done a variety of things at undergraduate level and I think literally two of them use their degree or actually needed that degree to get their job. As for your final sentence in that first paragraph - yes because that's essentially the focus isn't it? There's no point in having a degree, in some respects, if it isn't going to get you somewhere after it.

And why is there a lack of funding if the government, as educated people, surely understand the meaning and value of education?

A number of points to be made here. First of all, a degree's value is not purely determined by how useful it is for finding a job. That might be the way our capitalist society determines value but I think it's a bit sad if that's the only way you define worth. Artistic creativity, for instance, is something that our economic system doesn't put a lot of value on but I'd argue that there is an awful lot of social value involved in such a degree.

Obviously, that's very idealistic and most people doing degrees in subjects like Philosophy or History of Art are going to get a job that isn't directly related to their subject but again, that's not an issue. The majority of graduate jobs don't require a specific degree anyway, what's important are the transferable skills you learn.

The government understands the financial value of education, but again we come back to the issue of value. People in government will argue that you get a degree to benefit yourself, that it's an investment in your future to help you to get a better job. Because it's a financial transaction, it's completely fair that people should pay a high price for that education, like you would do with anything else. I, and a lot of other people, would argue that the real value of higher education is its social benefit. I would argue that fully subsidising higher education is absolutely fair because it's an investment into the development of our society. Knowledge is power and the best way to improve the welfare of people in general is to expand their minds and educate them. As someone who strongly believes in the importance of social responsibility, investing strongly in free higher education is a natural step.

One does have to speak the language to go to a continantal university

I would argue it goes both ways. The government's views and your own are both correct to an extent.