Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

'High quality' unis to increase tuition fees watch

Announcements
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    Welcome Squad
    what is this world coming to.

    Does the government even care about all people i.e. those who aren't rich? If they claim so, their definition of 'care' and social mobility is very diluted.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Snufkin)
    My tax money pays for childcare costs even though I don't have children, ballet dancers I won't ever see, museums I won't ever visit, infrastructure projects in places I've never heard of... etc etc. I don't see why higher education is any different.

    A hundred years ago people made this exact argument about school, that it wasn't necessary, you could get a job without it blah blah. It could be argued than a degree is (or soon will be) the new high school diploma - something everyone needs. That is progress. Get over it.
    This.

    You can make the argument that why should give any education past the age of 13 to a whole heap of people because, 'they wont use it anyway'.

    People fought for every child to have the right to education beyond that no matter their situation. For the same reasons I'm fine with people being educated for free up to A-level or equivalent I'm fine with an increase uptake in uni or equivalent. Just for the sake of it.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    I don't understand the fuss over tuition fees at all. It's all just debt on paper. It could cost a million pounds a year and it would make no difference, because most students don't pay it off. And if they do pay it off they're earning enough to no longer be called "poor".

    So I actually approve of this, because I don't see how University of Crap should be charging as much as a much better uni. It's a bit difficult as some courses are better at different unis, but that should just be decided as market value.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by serebro)
    The whole point of a degree is to develop your own independent knowledge and research skills. The same occurs in the workplace, the boss won't hire you and then do your work.
    There are not all that many jobs which require people to carry out a significant amount of research. Honestly, how many times do you know of anybody who has had to go to the library to find a book about something during the working day?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    Do you really consider those with CCC who go to Leeds Beckett in Media Studies 'highly educated'?
    oh I see. I understand what you mean now. But I will consider anyone with a useful degree (maths, science, engineering, IT, economics etc...) to be highly educated even if they are from a relatively bad uni like Westminster or leeds
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    This.

    You can make the argument that why should give any education past the age of 13 to a whole heap of people because, 'they wont use it anyway'.

    People fought for every child to have the right to education beyond that no matter their situation. For the same reasons I'm fine with people being educated for free up to A-level or equivalent I'm fine with an increase uptake in uni or equivalent. Just for the sake of it.
    Don't you think that those who go to Eton and then enrol in PPE/Law at Oxbridge could pay? With a free system, you - as a taxpayer - would be paying for them.

    Unis are free in France, and I'm pretty pissed to see posh kids studying Medicine and wearing for €5,000 of clothes paying nothing.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    You can have crazy expensive uni courses, or completely free uni courses. You're still probably going to be unemployed
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Arran90)
    There are not all that many jobs which require people to carry out a significant amount of research. Honestly, how many times do you know of anybody who has had to go to the library to find a book about something during the working day?
    It's the skills gained from researching that many people use in their everyday lives, e.g time management, being critical with sources of information, managing resources, concentrating, processing complicated information into smaller chunks, presenting aforementioned information and so on.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PQ)
    Ummm

    I hate to break it to you but. ... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-30293964
    Those are loans. Postgrad degrees are not being paid for. Go back and re-read the context of the quote you are replying to.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    Don't you think that those who go to Eton and then enrol in PPE/Law at Oxbridge could pay? With a free system, you - as a taxpayer - would be paying for them.

    Unis are free in France, and I'm pretty pissed to see posh kids studying Medicine and wearing for €5,000 of clothes paying nothing.
    No it doesn't bother me for the same reason I'm fine with rich people using the NHS, roads, public schools and so forth. After all, the wealthy pay more of the tax (in theory anyway, also I'd be happy with collected taxes in a goergist way so as to alleviate the tax burden on those who actually work.) These services, infrastructure and educational establishments are for everyone, rich or poor.

    If you have a tiered system those who can not afford anything get supplemented which creates resentment culture like we see with those on tax credits etc. Not only are the more well off supplementing the poor, they don't have access to what they pay for which is why in theory I support replacing a large amount of welfare with a basic income for everyone. Of course can adopt a Victorian esque society where those who can not pay go without, if you want to be evil.

    Also why is it the right wingers like yourself adopt communist style views like people shouldn't be spending $5000 on clothes? Whenever those views get expressed by lefties we are basically pol pot.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    No it doesn't bother me for the same reason I'm fine with rich people using the NHS, roads, public schools and so forth. After all, the wealthy pay more of the tax (in theory anyway, also I'd be happy with collected taxes in a goergist way so as to alleviate the tax burden on those who actually work.) These services, infrastructure and educational establishments are for everyone.

    If you have a tiered system those who can not afford anything get supplemented which creates resentment culture like we see with those on tax credits etc. Of course you can then adopt a Victorian esque society where those who can not pay go without, if you want to be evil.

    Also why is it the right wingers like yourself adopt communist style views like people shouldn't be spending $5000 on clothes? Whenever those views get expressed by lefties we are basically pol pot.
    I didn't say they shouldn't spend their money on clothes, I just think that they could pay fees if they were asked to. Universities could offer bursaries to low income or excellent students for example, something which they wouldn't be able to do if they didn't have some extra income.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Is anyone forced to go to university? If not, what is the problem?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    I pointed out earlier that in Switzerland only 20% of the youth go to uni. They don't look unhappy.
    Do you think that England has anything to learn from the Swiss system of education and training? Is higher education system dominated by university degrees (and a high proportion in arts, humanities, and sociology type subjects) a very British and American concept?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TabulaSmaragdina)
    That's the only case where "nobody needs to go to university" would be relevant. You can obtain as much information as you are likely to get at university at a cheaper cost by hiring a private tutor, or for free online.People are intentionally paying more to go to university, why? Convention perhaps.
    In some cases it is because career aspirations require it.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Arran90)
    There are not all that many jobs which require people to carry out a significant amount of research. Honestly, how many times do you know of anybody who has had to go to the library to find a book about something during the working day?
    I go to a library to carry out research most days for my work.
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by VV Cephei A)
    Those are loans. Postgrad degrees are not being paid for. Go back and re-read the context of the quote you are replying to.
    It's the same funding as for undergrad - except PG degrees are also subsidised by an additional £1k direct to universities from hefce.

    Do you know anything about university funding beyond student finance england? Because your statements so far in this thread have demonstrated no understanding of the funding methodology.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Juno)
    I don't understand the fuss over tuition fees at all. It's all just debt on paper. It could cost a million pounds a year and it would make no difference, because most students don't pay it off. And if they do pay it off they're earning enough to no longer be called "poor".

    So I actually approve of this, because I don't see how University of Crap should be charging as much as a much better uni. It's a bit difficult as some courses are better at different unis, but that should just be decided as market value.
    On your first point, I think you are right, but the Universities are pushing more for the higher tuition fees, as they do get the money on time; the debt then is just public debt, so it seems that they do not care that much!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Universities are basically in the money game and function as degree shops more than anything else. The days of universities in Britain being seats of teaching and learning have long gone. Oxford and Cambridge could probably charge tuition fees in excess of £30,000 a year and still fill all the places because there are more than enough people in the world who can afford to pay such money. They might offer scholarships to a small handful of prodigies from poorer families to show their committment to society that they select on merit rather than the depth of one's pocket.

    Roald Dahl wrote in Boy that "In those days it was not difficult to get into either of these great universities so long as you could pay". Does anybody know how much tuition fees were at Oxford and Cambridge in the 1930s?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Juno)
    but that should just be decided as market value.
    You can only leave universities to the market if it is clear that a market is operating properly.

    Ultimately the governments benefits cap, local reference rents and the so called bedroom tax all exist because there is market failure in private rented housing for the poor. The poor's housing decisions were uninfluenced by price.

    If university choices are influenced by (a) the shininess of the Student Union bar (b) the attractiveness of the university as a recruiting ground for a tiny number of investment bankers (c) the quality of its research mostly in the hard sciences and (d) membership of a self-electing oligarchy, the principal criteria for inclusion in which is a level of research income only available with possession of a medical school; then there is equal market failure in higher education. People are buying a product not based on its quality and price but on entirely extraneous factors.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Arran90)

    Roald Dahl wrote in Boy that "In those days it was not difficult to get into either of these great universities so long as you could pay". Does anybody know how much tuition fees were at Oxford and Cambridge in the 1930s?
    Too high. Until student grants came in after WWII (there were a few county scholarships before the war) the heads of most colleges worried most of the time about getting sufficient bums on seats. The cost of an Oxbridge education was considerably more than that of a boarding school education. Partly that was due to the source of most undergraduates. Over 10% of students were still sons of the clergy and by the interwar period the clergy generally had lifestyle aspirations ahead of their income. The (not so) USP of every college founded from about 1850 onwards is that it is offering a cheaper education than the older colleges.

    I will try and find you the figure for fees (which varied between colleges) but the key thing about Oxbridge education that made it so expensive were the extra costs.

    Leaving aside the idea of keeping up with the Sebastian Flyte's (but of course many 18 year olds wouldn't leave that aside so discretionary expenditure on tailors and wine merchants bills were very high), there were still a lot of add on costs. When you came up, if you didn't have the sort of house with the sort of attics that would furnish your rooms, you would have to buy your furniture. Obviously three years (or earlier if your moved into digs) later you would sell back your furniture to the same dealer but that was a considerable capital outlay. Although the scouts (but not the underscouts) are being paid by college, they are getting substantial "presents" from undergraduates. Although college tutors are providing more tuition than before WWI there is still a thriving industry of private coaches who have to be paid for.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources
Uni match

Applying to uni?

Our tool will help you find the perfect course

Articles:

Debate and current affairs guidelinesDebate and current affairs wiki

Quick link:

Educational debate unanswered threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.