Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Which universities will charge above £6000? Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)


    All they have said is that the university would have to offer better access to poorer students in order to charge £9000. That sounds pretty easy to me (could be as easy as handing out a bursary) and so I don't see why people think most unis won't charge as much as they can.
    It may be easy or it may be hard. It all depends on what the Office for Fair Access (nicknamed Oftoff) requires from universities.

    At present these Access Agreements are all about process and not about outcome. Universities have to undertake particular initiatives. Whether they work is entirely irrelevant.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    Most of the posters are acting in the belief that universities have a free choice in whether to charge up to £9000. The explanations that are being given as to why most, if not all, universities will charge £9000 are logical if universities are freely able to charge £9000.

    It is not surprising that posters on TSR are making these comments because so are Vice Chancellors.

    However, Cable has said that the ability to charge more than £6000 is going to be "exceptional" and linked to widening access. If that is a sop and all universities satisfy those criteria, every university will be "exceptional" and all, or most, will charge £9000.

    At the moment it is no means certain that this is a sop. If Cable and Willetts mean what they say (and widening access is big in Tory as well as Liberal circles-Cameron knows that working class access to elite institutions has declined under Labour and since he was at university) a number of VCs are going to find that when they want to charge £9000, they can't. Alternatively, they will find that the cost of charging £9000 is too high and the university will be better off charging £6000 with fewer strings.

    There is a very strong belief in Tory circles that university administration is monumentally inefficient and the last thing the Conservatives want to do is to give them a secure income source to reinforce that inefficiency.
    You talk a lot of sense. But I don't understand the cost of bursaries. I'm assuming they don't have to be full bursaries. Couldn't (all) universities nominally meet access conditions by charging £9000 to all their white middle-class students and only £6000 to minorities and other students falling into the "access" group? That way, these students would get a nominal bursary of £3000 which however doesn't cost the university anything.

    And like you also said, they make the most profit the fewer "access" students they have. I doubt VC means to put a quota on access students for universities that want to charge maximum fees because such a quota would definitely exclude Oxbridge! Which I don't think is in the interest of the government.

    One thing I could imagine that the condition for being able to charger higher fees could be something like this:

    percentage of access students * bursary amount for access students > than a certain amount

    However, that way probably all universities would be able to charge maximum fees, because unis with a low percentage of access students could easily afford higher bursaries and unis with a large amount of access student could afford low (or nominal £3000) bursaries.

    I think that middle and upper class students will probably pay £9000 wherever they go.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llys)
    You talk a lot of sense. But I don't understand the cost of bursaries. I'm assuming they don't have to be full bursaries. Couldn't (all) universities nominally meet access conditions by charging £9000 to all their white middle-class students and only £6000 to minorities and other students falling into the "access" group? That way, these students would get a nominal bursary of £3000 which however doesn't cost the university anything.

    And like you also said, they make the most profit the fewer "access" students they have. I doubt VC means to put a quota on access students for universities that want to charge maximum fees because such a quota would definitely exclude Oxbridge! Which I don't think is in the interest of the government.

    One thing I could imagine that the condition for being able to charger higher fees could be something like this:

    percentage of access students * bursary amount for access students > than a certain amount

    However, that way probably all universities would be able to charge maximum fees, because unis with a low percentage of access students could easily afford higher bursaries and unis with a large amount of access student could afford low (or nominal £3000) bursaries.

    I think that middle and upper class students will probably pay £9000 wherever they go.
    You are right they don't have to be full bursaries. However, and this is the surprising thing, "access" policy is going to move away from bursaries. Apparently bursaries don't work very well.

    The draft "guidance" (in reality instructions) from Willetts to the Office for Fair Access states:-

    The subsidised loans that Government offers students represent a significant cost to the public purse. You will therefore want to ensure that institutions do not require students to take out higher loans, which the institution then recycles into poorly targeted bursary schemes which your own evidence has shown are not an effective mechanism for widening participation. This will not apply to well targeted bursaries and scholarships, such as those supported via endowments etc. and where there is evidence of the impact. Although you should scrutinise carefully any intention by universities to charge at higher levels across the bulk of their provision, requiring students to take out higher loans from government, while offering financial or discount packages that are not targeted on making progress towards their benchmarks. You may wish to discuss any concerns you have about the effective use of public funds with HEFCE, who will have responsibility for the use of public funds in relation to grant funding and a wider responsibility to promote institutional efficiency.
    In relation to quotas, I think there may well be quotas but those quotas won't be same for all institutions.

    It would be perfectly possible to say to Oxford, double the number of students from social classes C2DE in 5 years. That would be a challenging target but would still leave Oxford with fewer working class students than say Manchester Met.

    One important difference between Conservative and Labour thinking generally is that Labour tends to be prescriptive on process with little regard to outcomes (which is how a party committed to equality has ended up producing a less equal society) whilst Conservatives generally demand outcomes but don't direct process.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I'm very confused then as to how institutions will qualify on the "exceptional" widening access front. Perhaps a minimum fraction of funding spent on Access schemes? But I can't help but think that these schemes are a waste of money; Oxbridge reportedly spends a lot of money on such schemes already but with little impact to show for it. Surely there must be a more efficient way.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llys)
    I'm very confused then as to how institutions will qualify on the "exceptional" widening access front. Perhaps a minimum fraction of funding spent on Access schemes? But I can't help but think that these schemes are a waste of money; Oxbridge reportedly spends a lot of money on such schemes already but with little impact to show for it. Surely there must be a more efficient way.
    If one treats school leaving qualifications as being the primary means of entry to HE, then one has to fix the schools. Poor schools simply do not turn out enough students with the grades required by elite institutions.

    Alternatively one abandons school leaving qualifications and starts looking for intelligence or potential (but that means Oxbridge style interviewing on a far wider scale) but if one does that one has to have foundation years to get students who lack sufficient subject knowledge up to standard.

    Alternatively again, one cherry picks talent at 14-15 and directs that talent into better VIth forms
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Most i assume. Epscially ones like oxford and cambridge and the other popular unis.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Allie-23)
    Most American Unis are private though, and the ones which are public typically are not always the best. Some are. You also only get the reduced and incredibly cheap price if you live in that particular state, and since most states don't have great schools, you end up either applying private or to public schools in other states, and than you will get hit with the hefty prices. But you are right, in state at a sub par uni, is probably cheaper than 6,000 euros.
    You do realise that the UK works on Great British Pounds (GBP) and not Euros, don't you?
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Hopefully Manchester will. Means less people can afford to go and thus my degree will be more valuable to potential employers.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    If one treats school leaving qualifications as being the primary means of entry to HE, then one has to fix the schools. Poor schools simply do not turn out enough students with the grades required by elite institutions.
    That's true but somewhat beside the point. I was confused as to how universities are going to prove they are exceptional when it comes to widening access, when, probably for the reasons you mention here, they are not successful at widening access (at least with the current access schemes which some unis like Oxbridge already spend a lot of money on). I'm confused because it should be impossible to prove you are exceptional at something when you are not successful at it. Even if you are not successful at it for reasons that may be out of your control: if it is the outcome that counts than you cannot be exceptional unless you are successful.
    Surely universities will not be expected to become successful at widening access by improving state schools?

    Alternatively one abandons school leaving qualifications and starts looking for intelligence or potential (but that means Oxbridge style interviewing on a far wider scale) but if one does that one has to have foundation years to get students who lack sufficient subject knowledge up to standard.

    Alternatively again, one cherry picks talent at 14-15 and directs that talent into better VIth forms.
    That actually might work but seems fairly complicated and would mean a complete reversal of admissions policies / current university outreach schemes with no guarantee of success (in the second case)..
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Muffinz)
    You do realise that the UK works on Great British Pounds (GBP) and not Euros, don't you?
    I actualy do know that, but for some reason the fact just completley left my mind while writing that post. I kinda feel like a dumbass now =/ haha
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Only the top universities will be charging £9000 per year. All of the other ones will be charging around £6000.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Pretty much all of them. I saw in a BBC article one woman from the UCU said that they are going to have to charge £7000 just to break even.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Surely Russell group and 1994? :dontknow:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Allie-23)
    sheesh thats so low! Must be nice. The most expensive school in the US, roughly converted into Euro's, is 49,000. Average would be 26,500, and cheepest is about 10,000 Euros (not a good uni though). If I decide to stay in the US for Uni I will be facing 160,000 Euros of debt. Even with the international fees being incredibly inflated, they were below the average of those in the US, which is why I am looking into schools there. You are all very lucky for the system you have over there!!

    (Even despite these high prices the vast majority of people go to University, so I really don't think the rise in prices is going to turn many away from getting a University education)

    this is all per year, to the best of my knowledge the British system works that way also.
    You are aware Britain doesn't use Euros, right?

    Also, these are all (bar one, which isn't being discussed here) public universities, and I believe the extremely high prices you're discussing are private universities? How would $14,222 per year compare with your public universities, assuming you stayed in state (because in the UK, you can't do anything like the equivalent of going out of state)?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DaddyT)
    Hmm i'm not sure. Im not sold on the oligopoly style argument whereby all of them will charge that amount. I think the rise - and number of suppliers - is significant enough that certain institutions will simply be unable to convince enough students to attend at that price. The rise should allow a real market for education whereby we can really differentiate the better unis based on a price dictated by demand.

    ...the only worry i have is that the top ~40 or so will all pump up to the 9k simply because they are scared of the signal a reduced price will send.
    I don't actually think the difference between 7000 and 9000 courses, say, would put students off. When the total "cost" is 30-40k, with living costs, a total 6k makes little difference. So I would expect the oligopoly. If you can afford say 7000 a year, you can afford 9000.

    (de facto the lower bound will be 7000 to cover the savage education cuts which are what people should really be protesting against)
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    This is by no means clear.

    Oxford will go ballistic if it is not allowed to charge more than £6000, yet it has the most daunting issues to widen access. If Oxford is given "soft" access conditions to meet, other universities will be extremely annoyed and may litigate if they are given tougher access conditions than Oxford in order to charge more than £6000.

    The inner city former polys (or at least the ones without governance issues) which will easily meet all diversity targets such as Birmingham City and University of West of England will be able to charge more than £6000 but may not want to do so, particularly if charging more than £6000 puts a university under a duty to give much higher bursaries to very poor students. As these universities have many more poor students, the cost of exceeding £6000 may not be worth it.

    If the access conditions are tough, a lot of Russell Group VCs who were expecting to charge £9000 may find that they can''t. I think a lot of VCs are expecting easy access conditions but I am not sure that the government, conservative as well as liberal, will agree. I think a lot of government ministers think that universities have sat back, stopped interviewing and let the rising A level points schools do their selecting for them and that has narrowed the social intake to a few elite schools.
    You've been the first person to acknowledge that it's not just a case of deciding to charge £9000 - the baseline in £6000, then there are a lot of other conditions to fulfil in order to charge more.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    when i went to oxford brookes open day the dean said that they would charge in the region of 6500-7000 and they are ranked 50th in the tables so i'm guessing the top 50 will be charging above 7000.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yahyahyahs)
    Oxbridge + Russell Group + Durham - £9k
    #20-30 - £7/8k
    #31 + below - £6k

    That's my predictions, but no-one will know for sure until March when the 2012 Entry prospectuses are released.
    You really think unis think in terms of league table ranking? "Oh, we were 28 according to the Guardian last year, but 33 this year - looks like it's time to drop the price."
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheSownRose)
    You really think unis think in terms of league table ranking? "Oh, we were 28 according to the Guardian last year, but 33 this year - looks like it's time to drop the price."
    No, I think in terms of league table rankings. And I never said that's how they think.

    If you look at all the league tables, they are more or less identical, with the top 20 being near enough the same i.e. Russell Group + Durham, then come the newer ish unis, then the 1992s and ex-polys. It's silly to think universities won't charge according to competition and reputation, as well as course costs. Oxford and Cambridge, and to some extent the colleges of University of London, will certainly be able to justify charging £9k a year due to their excellence and reputations - people will still go for the best schools, regardless of price. Also, they will have no issue with the widening access thing - a few more scholarships and bursaries to the students in the lowest bracket, make sure they offer places to students from failing schools and then they can charge £9k to the majority of students. I think they'll see it as a small sacrifice because the monetary reward will be far greater (even though they get billions in endowment!).
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yahyahyahs)
    No, I think in terms of league table rankings. And I never said that's how they think.

    If you look at all the league tables, they are more or less identical, with the top 20 being near enough the same i.e. Russell Group + Durham, then come the newer ish unis, then the 1992s and ex-polys. It's silly to think universities won't charge according to competition and reputation, as well as course costs. Oxford and Cambridge, and to some extent the colleges of University of London, will certainly be able to justify charging £9k a year due to their excellence and reputations - people will still go for the best schools, regardless of price. Also, they will have no issue with the widening access thing - a few more scholarships and bursaries to the students in the lowest bracket, make sure they offer places to students from failing schools and then they can charge £9k to the majority of students. I think they'll see it as a small sacrifice because the monetary reward will be far greater (even though they get billions in endowment!).
    Of course they'll charge for reputation and according to competition, I just think that your idea of 'Oxbridge + Russell Group + Durham - £9k; #20-30 - £7/8k; #31 + below - £6k' is very rigid and arbitrary.

    For example, Robert Gordon is 27 according to Guardian and 51 according to Complete University Guide ... so what do they charge? And where does it leave unis like St Andrews and York - not Oxbridge, not Russell Group, not Durham ... but not twenty to thirty either?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.