..

An interesting read, certainly, but not something I would agree with. Entry should be on merit, not just wealth - unlimited fees strikes out many very capable students, even if a large portion are already from wealthy backgrounds.

Odd that they chose a mad cow image (BSE) to top the article.

Also he's been saying that since 2009
http://live.cgcu.net/news/1971

Edit: hold on, that OP article *IS* from 2009 too.

Yeah, it's not something current (I think it would be on the news and be controversial everywhere if it was).

I feel like it gives an idea of the mindset of Imperial and how it feels about its brand and the UoL - having wanting to leave it and join forces with UCL, then wanting to form an Ivy League :/

They seem to really wanna comepete with everyone in the US at a higher extent than normal

Well he was only rector for a year. Although the current rector came over from being principal at a US university (and a senior role at MIT before that).

Yikes, clearly wasn't liked for his views haha.

This might pop up again in the near future; EU funding being lost and America getting stronger and stronger in postgraduate research is probably gonna cause some action.

Is it not egalitarian overall to charge more for unis that have the richest students applying and that end up with the highest salaries? Seems similar to the debate they're having about the "value" of courses.

Well the original idea of capped tuition fees was that only the "prestigious" universities would charge the top whack, and the lower universities would be commensurately cheaper, but yeah, that didn't happen, hence the review.

Postgrad is different and the "top" UK universities charge a market rate for their courses (i.e. they are expensive).

And no, it's not egalitarian if only the richest can apply for the "top" universities.

That's not necessarily true though - what if full scholarships became prominent from the high tuition fees? And aren't something like 80% of applicants to these unis in the top economic bracket anyway? In any instance, loans would still be available to push off paying up front for home students.

80%? no. I can't find exact data just now but POLAR3 Q5 (i.e. the most advantaged) are less than 50% of applicants and about 30% of acceptances.

No. An uncapped (i.e. privatised) fee can't be covered in full by a capped tuition fee loan. And the gov is unlikely to allow the cap to be removed, that would be literally writing a blank cheque to the university.

Well the original idea of capped tuition fees was that only the "prestigious" universities would charge the top whack, and the lower universities would be commensurately cheaper, but yeah, that didn't happen, hence the review.

Postgrad is different and the "top" UK universities charge a market rate for their courses (i.e. they are expensive).

And no, it's not egalitarian if only the richest can apply for the "top" universities.

Is POLAR solely based on income?

I live in Wales, not sure completely on how SFE works, but you can borrow up to £20,000 with nearly all of it being a grant, or nearly all of it being in loans if you're rich. £9250 of that is for tuition with the rest being maintenance. Add this on to the bursaries the top unis give and you can easily charge the high fees while making it accessible. Ie if they became £15,000 a year, it would be covetable by loans/grants, probably even £20,000. Again, some of the money can go to the poorer students.

Obviously depends on the quantity of the uncapped fee. Probably be collusion between them on the prices. I'd say after £20,000 it becomes realistically difficult to make it practical with all the other great £9250 unis, unless they became privatised too.

Edit: the 80% figure was a mixture of finance and status, I believe it includes the upper class down to the established middle class, excluding the lower middle class. Will try to find it

To be fair the system that was proposed didn't have any cap https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/422565/bis-10-1208-securing-sustainable-higher-education-browne-report.pdf (page 37)
"We do not in our proposals include a cap on what institutions can charge for the costs of learning. There is no robust way of identifying the right maximum level of investment that there should be in higher education. A cap also distorts charging by institutions. In the current system, all institutions charge the maximum amount for all courses – so the cap has become a standard price for higher education rather than a means of control to prevent unfair charges."

It's so nice to see MPs express surprise that what they were warned would happen has happened

Ha, seems there's many a slip between a report recommendation and the resulting actual policy...

I'm just re-reading and it's like deja vu.

Although I'd forgotten about the proposal to cap numbers based on tariff points (with a institutional allowance for non-tariff entrants)...that's the original idea that morphed from "this is the baseline for entry tied to affordability of student finance" into the AAB/ABB caps "unlimited growth in high grade students"

Ugh do British universities even have enough endowment to give free rides?

If they double their tuition fees they will have enough cash