Not really, it's more common than you think. Think about the sheer number of people who get rejected from graduate entry medicine who then have to fund themselves through five years of the undergraduate course. It'd be a blessing for them

Reply 4

Snufkin

Universities Forum Helper

Original post by Sceptical_John

The government is announcing a fee overhaul on Monday.

It looks like they considering cutting fees to 6k and to pay for this they are going to cut bursaries that widen uni participation.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/feb/16/theresa-may-details-tuition-fee-overhaul?CMP=share_btn_tw

This essentially hands a big wad of cash to the already wealthy. Can anyone make a defense of this? (Other than it might win them a few votes)

So much for radical - this won't convince any Corbyn voter to switch sides.

Reply 5

Clearing and Applications Advisor

They’re talking about any review taking a year or more.

It’s more fiddling while Rome burns from the tories.

Reply 6

Helloworld_95

To be fair they're not cutting bursaries, just removing the requirement for universities to give as many as they do. Given that a lot of universities go above and beyond in this regard already, it probably won't make a whole lot of difference. Additionally having seen a lot of people who are in the bracket where they're getting these kind of bursaries, and in fact being in a similar situation myself albeit with less maintenance money and no bursary, they didn't affect anyone's choice to go to university and are more seen as a bonus. The basic loan for people with parents in the required income bracket is more than enough to live on, let alone with bursaries on top, though I could perhaps see the benefits for sportspeople and those at unis with more expensive living costs e.g. the London unis, Durham, Brighton, etc. The biggest deterrent I've seen is the lack of understanding of how you pay back your loans rather than the amount of money itself.

Yes, it does benefit high earners more as they're now more likely to pay it off, but at the same time this applies to middle earners also.

Essentially there's no real way of winning. Cut fees and higher earners benefit at the cost of universities or students from poorer backgrounds, and some of that burden will also be pushed to internationals. Increase fees and you help the universities but put off people from poorer backgrounds, punish higher earners, probably punish international students as universities will want to maintain the premium cost. Eliminate fees and you either have to implement a graduate tax which comes with a bunch of problems or you put the burden on the taxpayer, and you likely end up reducing the amount of money going to universities at the same time.

Reply 7

Helloworld_95

GEM students are eligible for tuition fee loans, and they're eligible for a maintenance loan too, although it is reduced compared to a normal undergraduate loan.

The only people it really applies to are those who need to take out Islamic loans and those who are doing a second degree which isn't STEM. Both of which are quite small groups.

Reply 8

Clearing and Applications Advisor

They could implement a graduate tax on people who went through university before fees existed and when everything was funded through grants... :moon:

You might not be able to easily catch 100% of them but you could get enough from the big professions.

Reply 9

username1539513

Original post by Helloworld_95

I'm fully aware that GEM students are eligible for tuition fee loan, but considering there's on average 64 people competing for a place on GEM there's quite a lot who get accepted onto the standard 5 year course who then have to pay their own tuition fees.

Reply 10

Helloworld_95

I don't know if I would call it quite a lot, perhaps 200, 500 if we're giving a liberal estimate. And you're still talking about an investment of about £30k over 5 years, you're not going to see many people who are more able to afford that but aren't able to afford £45k over the same period.

Reply 11

zen.emily5

Original post by Sceptical_John

The government is announcing a fee overhaul on Monday.

It looks like they considering cutting fees to 6k and to pay for this they are going to cut bursaries that widen uni participation.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/feb/16/theresa-may-details-tuition-fee-overhaul?CMP=share_btn_tw

This essentially hands a big wad of cash to the already wealthy. Can anyone make a defense of this? (Other than it might win them a few votes)

A lot of the problem is university participation IS too wide. It should be HARDER to get into university. Take Finland for example, a test to get in to prove you can manage university. Higher education is a luxury, its important and shouldn't be taken as a willy nilly few years like high school.
A lot of students on my course are about as fit for a job in mcdonalds let alone this degree. They're on they're phones, talk over tutors, are late etc and drag the rest of the class down with them cause the tutors are too busy bothered about letting those people catch up whereas those university places should've gone to people who want to be there not people who take it for granted and take it for a laugh.
What gets me is that my course is 3 years, supposedly the first year doesn't count. So what's the logic there. Make it a 2 year course, more contact time, for less and get the educating happening. My course is so much of an unorganised dilly dally at the moment I can get a job again and do childcare for christ sake. (mature student.)
The government have a lot to answer for with education in general at the moment. They or someone, had to revamp and rename my current course cause it was so watered down the kiddies who were graduating years gone by couldn't physically function in the real world they were so unprepared and had zero knowledge. The whole system and idea of it is a joke.

Reply 12

Sceptical_John

Original post by Snufkin

So much for radical - this won't convince any Corbyn voter to switch sides.

Nope. Might make a few wealthy parents in their 30s switch though (tories desperately need to win over the 24-40 age group)

Original post by Helloworld_95

Essentially there's no real way of winning.

My view increasing the payback threshold is the optimal choice. It gives young people money when they need it most and it's progressive as it benefits people on a lower income. It would also help key workers like nurses and teachers.

Original post by purpsdonk

They're cutting costs for the majority, given that they are harming the minority. As a utilitarian, I see this to be ok.

Utilitarianism is more complex than that. You have to weigh how much harm is done to those that miss out.

Any data on this? Can't see it being more than 1% of the student population (not international).

Reply 13

Appleorpear

Great, widening participation schemes are extremely unsuccessful.

Reply 14

Sceptical_John

I've always felt it unfair that some (arts/humanities) subjects subsidize others (STEM) at University.

It looks like Hinds agrees:

fees should be determined by “a combination of three things: the cost [to the university] to put it on, the benefit to the student and the benefit to our country and our economy”.

http://www.halesowennews.co.uk/news/national/16030571.Tuition_fees_should_be_part_based_on_benefit_to_a_student___s_future_____Hinds/

I'm not sure I agree with point 2 that it should be based on your benefit. To me, that's a personal choice. If I knowingly pick a low paid sector as opposed to a high one then it should not be up to anyone subsidize that.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 15

cherryred90s

Original post by Sceptical_John

I've always felt it unfair that some (arts/humanities) subjects subsidize others (STEM) at University.

It looks like Hinds agrees:

fees should be determined by “a combination of three things: the cost [to the university] to put it on, the benefit to the student and the benefit to our country and our economy”.

I'm not sure I agree with point 2 that it should be based on your benefit. To me, that's a personal choice. If I knowingly pick a low paid sector as opposed to a high one then it should not be up to anyone subsidize that.

What’s a low paid sector?

Reply 16

Helloworld_95

If you're basing it upon benefit to economy that could end up with fees for less valuable degrees going up as they arguably have a lower benefit to the economy and so should receive less subsidy, with people taking money out of the system while not working and then going on to do a job which isn't or shouldn't be at graduate level.

I think cost for the university to put on is more something for private universities to consider, and a public institution should have the right to subsidise their loss making sectors however they see fit.

The current system is good as it is. The people who don't get much out of their degree won't be paying off much of their loans anyway, it doesn't punish people who go into in demand fields, it doesn't reward people who take the risk of degrees which lead into lower demand fields. If you rearrange the fees system then you either end up with the government having to pay more to subsidise science and engineering students, or you put off people from going into science and engineering due to higher fees (which the engineering sector would be particularly susceptible to due to plenty of apprenticeship options plus a large number of entrants being from poorer backgrounds).

Reply 17

Sceptical_John

Original post by Helloworld_95

The current system is good as it is. The people who don't get much out of their degree won't be paying off much of their loans anyway, it doesn't punish people who go into in demand fields, it doesn't reward people who take the risk of degrees which lead into lower demand fields. If you rearrange the fees system then you either end up with the government having to pay more to subsidise science and engineering students, or you put off people from going into science and engineering due to higher fees (which the engineering sector would be particularly susceptible to due to plenty of apprenticeship options plus a large number of entrants being from poorer backgrounds).

Still, there seems something fundamentally unfair where an Eng lit student is subsidizing a physics student. We don't know how much by but my guess is it's at least £2k a year.

Reply 18

Dalek1099

Original post by Sceptical_John

Still, there seems something fundamentally unfair where an Eng lit student is subsidizing a physics student. We don't know how much by but my guess is it's at least £2k a year.

fees should be determined by “a combination of three things: the cost [to the university] to put it on, the benefit to the student and the benefit to our country and our economy”.

Point 3 explains why this is the case because Physics is of much more benefit to the country and economy this balances with the actually costs of art degrees and so all degrees having roughly the same cost is fair.

To add to this, its worth remembering that you only actually start paying back what you've borrowed once you earn enough money and science students will earn more and thus pay back more than Arts students where as there is some concern with some Arts degrees that they are effectively just being paid for by the Government with little benefit to the country and the economy as students don't tend to earn well from those degrees and thus don't pay much back.

Reply 19

AstroNandos

Original post by Sceptical_John

Still, there seems something fundamentally unfair where an Eng lit student is subsidizing a physics student. We don't know how much by but my guess is it's at least £2k a year.

Tbh I'd argue that gap is even more. As en engineering student I have a fair amount of contact hours and have been able to use lavatories with some pretty complex and expensive machines. Comparing that to, say, an eng lit student who only has maybe 10 hours of contact all in a classroom, there's definitely a value for money thing there!

Whether or not students should pay more/less depending on their degree, idk