New two-year degrees - will students actually save money?

The Government has set out plans for accelerated two-year degrees which it claims will save students at least £5,500 in tuition fees compared to a three-year course. But Martin Lewis has warned that while it means lower living costs at uni, many students won't pay any less for their studies.

The new accelerated courses would condense the same amount of teaching as a three-year degree into two years, by giving students longer hours and shorter holidays. The maximum annual fees would also be lifted by 20% to £11,000 per year – from the current maximum of £9,250 per year for three-year courses – but the Department for Education claims that students would save 20% overall by paying for only two years of tuition.

Under the current system, however, students only repay 9% of their earnings over £25,000 (£25,725 from April 2019) until the debt is wiped after 30 years. As most low and middle earners will never repay their student loans at this rate, only the highest earners would save any money by taking a 'cheaper' course.

Martin: 'The idea that you'll save money is false for lower and middle earners' MoneySavingExpert.com founder and chairman Martin Lewis said: "This isn't a problem with people doing two-year degrees rather than three-year degrees. It's with the classic oversimplification that you'll pay less for a lower-cost degree. "Under the current system, the cost of a degree isn't about what you borrow, it's about what you earn afterwards. "For many, you’ll still pay the same back for tuition, so the real saving is on living costs, as you'll only need cash to live on for two years rather than three.

The Government doesn’t give most under-25s the full loan, and to make up that gap it expects what is in practice a parental contribution. "While shortening degrees will lower the total amount parents need to give, some of that is countered because students will be studying for longer hours so will not be able to do as much paid work during their course."

What do you think?

I’ll also save money, as a two-year degree costs me £6,000 as opposed to £9,000.

This is really a bid to reverse the collapse in the number of "real" mature students. These are people used to working in a full-time job who want to be out of the labour market for as short a time as possible.

The problem is that £22K is still too expensive as in many cases these will be self-funded courses either because the student has previously had student finance or because the student is unwilling to become locked into the loan repayment system.

In reality, true mature students make little call on the shiny and expensive non-academic facilities and services provided by a university and universties could well offer "second class" membership at a reduced price without the use of leisure and social facilities geared towards teens and early 20s.

The Government has set out plans for accelerated two-year degrees which it claims will save students at least £5,500 in tuition fees compared to a three-year course. But Martin Lewis has warned that while it means lower living costs at uni, many students won't pay any less for their studies

What do you think?

Buckingham University already offer this ....

There's no guarantee that the 'pay back' terms won't change so I think minimising debt is sensible.

No, you save less in many respects, unless you are rich. SFE only pay 6,245 or whatever towards tuition fees, you have to find the rest, so in that respect it is far more expensive.

SFE pays the full amount if you apply for the full loan that's how it works.

Buckingham has essentially done this since it was founded. It was their USP. Buckingham however has been a failure. A university with enormously influential political support on the right up to 1990, it has spent the last 28 years going nowhere.

Sorry - it is very successful and continuing to expand. I have family who live there and the university are building more accommodation. They now offer a wider variety of degrees including medicine,

It has around 2,700 students. Buckinghamshire New has nearly 8000. Lincoln, for practical purposes a new foundation in 1995, has buit up 14,000. Suffolk was a clean start in 2007 and now has 5,000 students. The independents, BPP University has 16,000, Regents University has 3,500 both founded long after Buckingham. One can see it is going nowhere with its Chancellors. After Lord Hailsham and Margaret Thatcher, they have only been able to attract nonentities, Sir Martin Jacomb, Lord Tanlow and Lady Keswick.

There's no room for it to get much bigger - Buckingham is not a very large town, Who looks at the person who is the Chancellor? Not one student I know ...

The student population of Buckingham is less than a quarter of the total. The student population of Bangor is well over half. There are other universities with a much greater student population proportion than Buckingham.

What students look at is not the same as whether an institution is moving forward or stagnating. Buckingham has been unable to attract a significant figurehead and its vice-chancellor is an ex-headmaster, not an academic.

Buckingham spent the 1970s complaining of political persecution and garnered considerable support on the political right. In the 1980s it theroretically basked in the admiration of the government but was unable to cement a position in the UK educational landscape and when various new universities cut an entrepreneurial furrow from 1992, it no longer had any viable role.

I'm not just talking about population - Buckingham is small - it has 4 Primary schools and two Secondary schools which serve a large rural area. You clearly have never been there ....

The Government doesn’t give most under-25s the full loan, and to make up that gap it expects what is in practice a parental contribution. "While shortening degrees will lower the total amount parents need to give, some of that is countered because students will be studying for longer hours so will not be able to do as much paid work during their course."

I have been there. It is much bigger than Holbeach and Lampeter and Wheatley and most of the locations of UHI.