STEM students should pay higher tuition fees

Announcements Posted on
How helpful is our apprenticeship zone? Have your say with our short survey 02-12-2016
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trapz99)
    No because it might discourage some students from choosing a STEM degree, which can damage the economy if our workforce isn't prepared for the industries of the future
    Not necessarily - they're already paying high fees atm. I'm suggesting the fees drop to about 9k.
    Students will be prepared to pay whatever if there's a high chance of them getting a nicely paid graduate job at the end of everything.
    It might even give a lot of them an ego boost if they're doing an expensive high-status course.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lh030396)
    Yeah, but the internationals get charged a huge amount whether they study STEM or not. I'm talking about British students.
    The rates vary depending on the course, and in many cases more closely match the true costs of providing that course. They also factor in supply and demand.

    Eg http://www.ucl.ac.uk/prospective-stu...-fees/overseas

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    ITT: Salty arts students who are upset about the money other people will be making
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Luke7456)
    Stem Degrees are more rigorous and demanding and more useful to the world at large. if we charge students more for this then less useful degrees we are actively discouraging people from studying rigorous degrees and encouraging them to study degrees that have little utility and are less valuable. My position isn't a moral one it is a simple practical economic one.
    This wouldn't lead to less people studying STEM degrees. Lets say it did though, suddenly there aren't say enough scientists, employers are going to be forced to increase their salary so that they get more scientists coming to work for them rather than company xyz.

    This would encourage more people to pursue a degree as say (in this example) a scientist. Additionally as long as you keep the same principal of you only pay back when you can afford to then why would people not chose the degree despite the higher cost? Student loans are not terrible loans to have. Sure the scientist in this example might have more than anyone else but they are also in a better to position to pay it off.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dannyboy2015)
    This wouldn't lead to less people studying STEM degrees. Lets say it did though, suddenly there aren't say enough scientists, employers are going to be forced to increase their salary so that they get more scientists coming to work for them rather than company xyz.

    This would encourage more people to pursue a degree as say (in this example) a scientist. Additionally as long as you keep the same principal of you only pay back when you can afford to then why would people not chose the degree despite the higher cost? Student loans are not terrible loans to have. Sure the scientist in this example might have more than anyone else but they are also in a better to position to pay it off.
    No because if Uk scientists cost more then from a business point of view it would make sense to run the business in other countries. or to employ from outside the UK.

    Further I am not sure if you genuinely understand how university funding or economics works.

    Are you aware that even with students paying the high tuition fees as it is the government still has to subsidize universities to a large degree and are still footing a substantial proportion of the bill.

    Now in all honesty I am not quite sure how the numbers break down but I am aware that the tax payer still has to subsidize universities. I disagree with Chaos on here who seems to think that we should abort student loans all together and hike the fees.

    However I think that would be a better option then lowering the fees for less useful degrees.

    I really do get fed up of this wishy washy mentality that education should be free. You realize that this doesn't mean the cost magically disappears ? It means the taxpayer foots the bill when we already have a very large deficit and a huge national debt. Now this is one thing if the student is going to work hard get a Quality degree pay back a substantial proportion of this and Pay a lot more in taxes over the years. that works for everyone.

    However it is a different story when they are going to do an easy degree spend most of their time partying drinking and sleeping around. add little value to their earning potential, the tax payer foots most of the bill, then they end up not earning enough to pay taxes or even better cannot get work so on the dull and consuming more taxes.

    I mean its bad enough when people say raise the taxes on those that earn more money, because they have more. When they work harder. The classic comment been Jeremy Corbyn who wanted to set a maximum wage.

    however it gets to a new point of ridiculousness when someone who wants to make poorer economic decisions realizes in advance that they are poor economic decisions so wants other people to compensate them/subsidize them for that.

    Why the hell should someone who spends sixty hours a week working their asses of doing a maths or law degree from Cambridge be in a similar economic position to someone that does a sub standard degree from some random polytechnic puts in less then 14 hours a week and spends the majority of their time drinking and partying.

    It is an absurd notion.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Surely the reverse of your suggestion is true. If, as you say, STEM students go on to well, highly-paid jobs then they're paying their tuition back over and over again in increased tax revenue. By your analysis, it should be the ARTS students who pay higher tuition fees to insure against the archetypal under/unemployed history graduate.

    Obviously, I don't agree with either STEM or arts students paying more. And you go to university for a lot more than just to get a job at the end of it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reality Check)
    Surely the reverse of your suggestion is true. If, as you say, STEM students go on to well, highly-paid jobs then they're paying their tuition back over and over again in increased tax revenue. By your analysis, it should be the ARTS students who pay higher tuition fees to insure against the archetypal under/unemployed history graduate.

    Obviously, I don't agree with either STEM or arts students paying more. And you go to university for a lot more than just to get a job at the end of it.
    thank you some sense.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    It should be based on supply and demand - the more demand for a degree course, the higher the fees. I also think that the current fees are far too low, though that's a different story.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by #ChaosKass)
    It should be based on supply and demand - the more demand for a degree course, the higher the fees. I also think that the current fees are far too low, though that's a different story.
    come on chaos their is a chance to be so much more invidious then that. You can do better.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by #ChaosKass)
    It should be based on supply and demand - the more demand for a degree course, the higher the fees. I also think that the current fees are far too low, though that's a different story.
    What would you increase the fees to? And would you abolish "Mickey Mouse" degrees?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lh030396)
    If a Maths grad is unemployed after finishing uni they have done something seriously wrong...
    Wow thanks that makes me feel so much better about my current situation
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lh030396)
    What would you increase the fees to? And would you abolish "Mickey Mouse" degrees?
    I would begin with a base of £20,000 a year, then universities would be able to adjust them based on supply and demand (this would require the higher education sector to be completely privatised, to allow universities to have complete control).

    I would not completely abolish them, but put severe restrictions on the quality and quantity of people who are accepted onto them, for example if you want to do psychology then you would need to have evidence of wanting a career in psychology, not just because you want "the university experience" and are picking the easy course.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lh030396)
    I believe that students studying STEM subjects at university should pay higher tuition fees than non-STEM students because, on average, STEM students go on to work in highly paid jobs so are more likely to pay back student loans. Students who want to study non-STEM subjects like Media Studies, Art, Music, History, etc. should still be allowed to study those subjects, because education is vital, and people are entitled to study whatever they want. But these subjects, on average, tend to lead to lower-paid employment and often even minimum-wage work. So students end up with ridiculous debt that they can't afford to pay back over their working lives.Tuition fees for STEM students should be £9,000 a year. For non-STEM students: about £3,000 a year. STEM students get better teaching facilities and debt that they can pay back in full when they start work. Non-STEM students are left with much less debt which they might also be able to pay back in full when they go into lower-paid work. Both sides win... 😃
    So education is vital and everyone should be allowed to study what they want which means for some reason STEM subjects should charge more? That's the complete opposite of allowing people to study what they want. You're actively discouraging people from studying STEM because it is more expensive.

    With the current system if you take any course (STEM or non-STEM) and don't earn enough to pay back your loan then you won't. What you're suggesting is that those people who take STEM should again be penalised and have to pay more just because they took a STEM subject.

    Charging people now based on their potential future job is stupid. Just because someone takes a STEM subject there's no guarantee they'll go into a high paying job. More debt they can pay back when they start work? Again penalising STEM students for taking STEM and assuming they'll be able to pay back at all.

    You mention STEM students getting better facilities, I disagree but it depends on the university. I've seen media studies students with professional equipment, studios, high end editing workstations and so on. If a high end workstation costs a similar amount to high end PC's for IT students but media students get cameras, microphones, lighting and so on then arguably the media students are getting more expensive gear than the STEM students. I've seen music students with expensive instruments (although a lot of them have their own in the first place) and again they could have access to recording gear. Art and graphics students can have high end workstations, printing facilities and so on.

    And you know the other big flaw? Shared resources. Things like libraries, public computers, help and support and so on. Say half the £9000 went on teaching and materials and the other half got invested into everything else the uni offers. Why should non-STEM students get all that extra help for free?

    This is a dumb idea and there's really no way to justify it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I'm doing a humanities degree and it's frustrating that we have to pay the same amount of money as stem students as they receive so much more contact time! Imo we should be paying for what we actually receive. For example If I'm only getting 8 hours of contact time I should be paying for that. Of course there's other factors that the loan covers like library usage for example but 9000 pounds a year is really ridiculous
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    There is actually some logic to this.

    STEM degrees cost a lot more to teach because it's not just sitting around discussing books.

    A graduate tax system would do this as people who earned more money would pay more back. The current system is like a pseudo-graduate tax - those who don't earn much will end up having their loans written off i.e. paid for by the government.

    But universities are welcome to charge different prices for courses at the moment. But they won't as it seems students are happy to pay the top rate for less useful degrees. Supply and demand...*

    *albeit with a cap.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tsrsarahhhh)
    but 9000 pounds a year is really ridiculous
    And yet you're paying it...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Acsel)
    So education is vital and everyone should be allowed to study what they want which means for some reason STEM subjects should charge more? That's the complete opposite of allowing people to study what they want. You're actively discouraging people from studying STEM because it is more expensive.

    With the current system if you take any course (STEM or non-STEM) and don't earn enough to pay back your loan then you won't. What you're suggesting is that those people who take STEM should again be penalised and have to pay more just because they took a STEM subject.

    Charging people now based on their potential future job is stupid. Just because someone takes a STEM subject there's no guarantee they'll go into a high paying job. More debt they can pay back when they start work? Again penalising STEM students for taking STEM and assuming they'll be able to pay back at all.

    You mention STEM students getting better facilities, I disagree but it depends on the university. I've seen media studies students with professional equipment, studios, high end editing workstations and so on. If a high end workstation costs a similar amount to high end PC's for IT students but media students get cameras, microphones, lighting and so on then arguably the media students are getting more expensive gear than the STEM students. I've seen music students with expensive instruments (although a lot of them have their own in the first place) and again they could have access to recording gear. Art and graphics students can have high end workstations, printing facilities and so on.

    And you know the other big flaw? Shared resources. Things like libraries, public computers, help and support and so on. Say half the £9000 went on teaching and materials and the other half got invested into everything else the uni offers. Why should non-STEM students get all that extra help for free?

    This is a dumb idea and there's really no way to justify it.
    Well, maybe fees should be dependant on university prestige and facilities. That way, all STEM students across all universities wouldn't have to pay the same.
    I still think STEM students should pay a bit more. They have longer hours of study, more in-depth teaching, etc. Not to mention added job satisfaction after their courses have finished. You should get what you pay for.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chazwomaq)
    STEM degrees cost a lot more to teach because it's not just sitting around discussing books.
    Or in a lecture/seminar discussing Maths. Maths is relatively cheap to teach.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lh030396)
    Well, maybe fees should be dependant on university prestige and facilities. That way, all STEM students across all universities wouldn't have to pay the same.
    I still think STEM students should pay a bit more. They have longer hours of study, more in-depth teaching, etc. Not to mention added job satisfaction after their courses have finished. You should get what you pay for.
    The issue here is you're then detering people from going to higher end universities because they won't be able to pay the more exorbitant fees. Why should a poorer student or a student with financial difficulty be excluded from top end universities compared to their more welathy peers?

    I'm a STEM student. I don't get any more teaching than any other students in other courses. I get 12 hours a week, 6 hours of lectures and 6 hours of practicals, just like every other student at my university. In terms of in depth of teaching you can't exactly compare me learning about programming and processor logic to someone learning the nuances of fine art. They're not comparable and the depth is completely different.

    Job satisfaction is really down to the individual. If I got a good job after uni I'd be just as satisfied as someone doing a media degree that went into a job they liked. Satisfaction is not solely linked to money.

    And as far as getting what you pay for, if I go into a higher earning IT job for example I'll be paying back a lot more in taxes, comapred to someone in a lower paid media job for example.

    But as far as getting what you paid for goes, you mentioned that STEM degrees are likely to lead to higher paid jobs which makes it easier to pay back loans, while something non-STEM like media or art probably won't. By this definition if there were an imbalance it's far more likely that I'd be paying back all my loan and sooner, plus all the extra taxes. A non-STEM student not earning 21K and thus not paying back their loan is, by your definition paying less than a STEM student. Contrary to what you may think we are already in a position where STEM students pay back more as a result of their higher earning jobs. So if you think we get more and aren't paying for it you are solely mistaken I'm afraid.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jneill)
    Or in a lecture/seminar discussing Maths. Maths is relatively cheap to teach.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    True.
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: October 31, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Today on TSR
Poll
Would you rather have...?
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

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