STEM students should pay higher tuition fees

Announcements Posted on
    Offline

    2
    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... 😃

    I believe the opposite. STEM should be cheaper!! STEM education should be subsidise or even free!!!

    These subject/people contribute more to society than any other subjects. The fact that they earn more money is a reflection of short supply and greater demand. The more STEMs we have the better our society is going to be.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blimey1000)
    I believe the opposite. STEM should be cheaper!! STEM education should be subsidise or even free!!!

    These subject/people contribute more to society than any other subjects. The fact that they earn more money is a reflection of short supply and greater demand. The more STEMs we have the better our society is going to be.
    Excellent idea, They constantly talk about a shortage of maths skills in our country. I reckon as well as the degree been free our country should actually pay students to do a maths degree.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Luke7456)
    Excellent idea, They constantly talk about a shortage of maths skills in our country. I reckon as well as the degree been free our country should actually pay students to do a maths degree.
    Free STEM! Free STEM!! Free STEM!!!

    :danceboy::danceboy::danceboy:
    Offline

    2
    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... 😃
    On the other hand....
    Maybe STEM degrees should be discounted.
    The knowledge economy needs highly numerate people, our future top scientists and engineers; whether it needs another media studies or performing arts graduate is a moot point.
    Linked to this is the fact that not only are they more likely to pay back their student loan, as mentioned, but on average the total tax take from them is likely to be more than from non STEM students, to also charge them more would be double jeopardy.
    Like it or not, in our society we denote value in terms of money, and STEM is highly valued. Perhaps those courses seen as less useful should be made to subsidise them. Anybody could be "third spear carrier" on the Drama course, not everyone can do finite element analysis.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Wow, this has really ruffled the STEM students' feathers. Like it or not, if you're doing a degree that will lead to a highly prestigious career you have to be prepared to pay big money for it. And you pay high taxes back into the society that has helped to build you up, and has made you what you are. Money makes the world go round, and all that...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lh030396)
    Wow, this has really ruffled the STEM students' feathers. Like it or not, if you're doing a degree that will lead to a highly prestigious career you have to be prepared to pay big money for it. And you pay high taxes back into the society that has helped to build you up, and has made you what you are. Money makes the world go round, and all that...
    I don't think everyone that disagreed with you is a stem student I think people disagreed with you because your proposal is illogical.

    I'm not mad, I'm just disappointing.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    They would contribute via greater tax receipts, so I don't get your argument? It should be lower to encourage more STEM applicants, so the government gets more income in the long run. To me, this seems like a short-term solution to get a faster inflow of repayments rather than increased revenue in the future.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by glebp)
    They would contribute via greater tax receipts, so I don't get your argument? It should be lower to encourage more STEM applicants, so the government gets more income in the long run. To me, this seems like a short-term solution to get a faster inflow of repayments rather than increased revenue in the future.
    But if the government wants more income in the long run why does it keep increasing tuition fees???
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lh030396)
    But if the government wants more income in the long run why does it keep increasing tuition fees???
    Because the new increase is quite insignificant. The percentage change in people will be smaller, than the percentage change in price, since the increase is negligible. Thus, this creates a greater overall income.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by glebp)
    Because the new increase is quite insignificant. The percentage change in people will be smaller, than the percentage change in price, since the increase is negligible. Thus, this creates a greater overall income.
    But you said before that tuition fees should be lower to encourage more STEM students and generate more government income in the long term, so....
    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... 😃
    The Conservative's position on tuition fees is that it is the person who benefits the most from their education so they should pay the fees not society. The fact STEM courses still receive government subsidies (i.e. costs above £9000 per year); students pay the same tuition fees as others; and students go on to work in higher paying jobs is inconsistent with this position. The fact STEM graduates earn more means there should be no government subsidy and their tuition fees should be higher than students in other areas.

    The difficulty is finding the sweet spot between the cost of delivering the course and putting off applicants as the higher earnings are only ever prospective. This is what has happened with teaching qualifications. The government have significantly increased the amount of tax-free bursaries to attract graduates to teach in certain subjects where there are shortages. This is now a perennial issue where it is presumably cheaper to deal with chronic shortages by offering a small number of individual financial incentives rather than improving the overall wage and working conditions of the profession to make it more appealing. I am not convinced everyone who does not go into teaching because it is 'underpaid'.

    The icing on the cake is the fact that non-STEM students are routinely humiliated for their choice of subject when the reality is that they are the ones actually subsidizing STEM students to have better facilities, more contact time, and have better paying jobs when they graduate. You could not make it up.

    I do not see us moving back to a position where everyone studies for free. The fairest solution would be a significant reduction in the tuition fees for non-STEM students and STEM students paying higher fees. That would be consistent with Conservative policy.

    In reality, the real winners are STEM employers who contribute very little to the education and training of their employees yet reap all the benefits. Conservative cuts to corporation tax only make things worse.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ringstone)
    On the other hand....
    Maybe STEM degrees should be discounted.
    The knowledge economy needs highly numerate people, our future top scientists and engineers; whether it needs another media studies or performing arts graduate is a moot point.
    Linked to this is the fact that not only are they more likely to pay back their student loan, as mentioned, but on average the total tax take from them is likely to be more than from non STEM students, to also charge them more would be double jeopardy.
    Like it or not, in our society we denote value in terms of money, and STEM is highly valued. Perhaps those courses seen as less useful should be made to subsidise them. Anybody could be "third spear carrier" on the Drama course, not everyone can do finite element analysis.
    STEM degrees are already discounted. They receive direct government subsidies because they cost significantly more than £9000 per year to deliver. They receive indirect subsidies from non-STEM students who pay more than their course actually costs to deliver.

    Your point about the STEM student being more likely to pay back their tuition fees is a red herring. That is a HMRC issue not a university one. The government gives universities funding no matter what so your distinction between different types of student is irrelevant.

    Your point about engineers and scientists is contentious. We have arguably reached a saturation point where advances in technology are no longer being utilized because there is a lack of programmers and content producers to take advantage of them. The popularity of the Nintendo Wii and the iPhone should warn you against overstating the importance of STEM graduates (i.e. clearly inferior product doing well or better than its technologically superior competition).

    The engineer who builds a bridge is only useful because he facilities the media studies and performing arts graduate's travel. Your narrow emphasis on money means you have lost sight of that. A good example to counter your line of thought is medical students. From a financial utilitarian perspective, by helping to extend the lives of old people well past retirement age they are actually costing the taxpayer more. This cost is ultimately dubious because everyone dies so what is the point of wasting all this money? Because other things than money matter.

    Always important to remember that you are only able to pontificate on these issues because someone decided that, while it might not be in their financial best interests, it might be worthwhile sending children to school to learn rather than up a chimney or down a mine.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cryptokyo)
    richardhello What is your view on this?
    This is an absolute disgrace. Arts students are well aware that the job prospects are pretty poor- don't punish those who make wise decisions for the bad decisions of others.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lh030396)
    But you said before that tuition fees should be lower to encourage more STEM students and generate more government income in the long term, so....
    The fee applies to all degrees and most people do not choose STEM. The argument I presented was on the broader spectrum, rather than STEM.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I think its a stupid idea.

    a) it might make STEM degrees less desirable

    and b) anyway if people are worried about the debt they're gonna have to pay back as they think their degree won't get them a good enough job... Don't get the degree? Everyone doesn't have to go to university, I don't know why we as a society seem to think they do.

    I could go and pay some money to get some random qualification right now if I wanted. But if it wasn't going to help my employment prospects and effectively be worthless to me, I clearly wouldn't spend that money.


    And where do you draw the line? Should people who studied STEM degrees have to pay more at Tesco as they can afford it?
    Should people who studied art or dance be given free train passes because they didn't get a STEM degree and so have a worse paying job?

    Come on. We shouldn't be encouraging people to do these "bad" degrees by offering discounts, we should be offering discounts to the "good" degrees if anything.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lh030396)
    Yes, I do think that the more prestigious the university the higher the fees. Clearly Oxbridge should be charging more than Anglia Ruskin...
    And I'm sorry but I have to disagree with the notion that 'a degree is a degree.' That's just not the case these days. I wish that it was, but in this day and age of economic hardship more importance is placed on the practical scientific and mathematical subjects than the philosophy-type degrees...
    Shouldn't it be the other way round?

    A *****y uni should have a high price in order to deter people from going. Because if many go, many end up not gaining a graduate job, in low paid jobs, and you will have eventually wasted a lot of time, money, and resources.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Shouldn't it be the other way round?

    A *****y uni should have a high price in order to deter people from going. Because if many go, many end up not gaining a graduate job, in low paid jobs, and you will have eventually wasted a lot of time, money, and resources.
    No, a ****y uni should not charge higher prices, you should get what you pay for. And a tuition fee increase at a less successful uni wouldn't necessarily deter students from attending said uni. What if it's the only place that does the course they want to study? What if it's the only uni they get offered a place?

    Higher Education should be encouraged because it helps to broaden and develop the mind wherever you attend and whatever you study. It's not necessarily a waste of time, money and resources. You should make what you want out of life. It's not always about getting a high-flying, all-singing, all-dancing cushy grad job.

    Some students do not want and do not seek the graduate job lifestyle. They love to learn, but they don't necessarily have the personalities, desire and confidence to succeed and (more importantly) enjoy working in a corporate graduate job. Which is absolutely fine...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by stirkee)
    I think its a stupid idea.

    a) it might make STEM degrees less desirable

    and b) anyway if people are worried about the debt they're gonna have to pay back as they think their degree won't get them a good enough job... Don't get the degree? Everyone doesn't have to go to university, I don't know why we as a society seem to think they do.

    I could go and pay some money to get some random qualification right now if I wanted. But if it wasn't going to help my employment prospects and effectively be worthless to me, I clearly wouldn't spend that money.


    And where do you draw the line? Should people who studied STEM degrees have to pay more at Tesco as they can afford it?
    Should people who studied art or dance be given free train passes because they didn't get a STEM degree and so have a worse paying job?

    Come on. We shouldn't be encouraging people to do these "bad" degrees by offering discounts, we should be offering discounts to the "good" degrees if anything.
    Yes, well that's you isn't it? Others are going to think differently. Not everybody is doing a degree to vastly improve their employment prospects. Some people want to invest time and money into something they are passionate about.

    Yes, it's true that STEM degrees, on average, lead to better job prospects... that's why STEM students should pay higher fees. Supply and demand. I don't know why you think young people would be dissuaded from doing STEM if fees were higher than non-STEM subjects. Most people on here are obsessed with making a lot of money and most people see STEM as a way of getting a job that pays a lot of money. Therefore, most people would continue to apply for STEM degrees even if they were more expensive than non-STEM.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Yes I definitely want to pay more for my degree than someone else because they CHOSE a degree knowing that employment rates are lower whilst taking on debt.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lh030396)
    No, a ****y uni should not charge higher prices, you should get what you pay for. And a tuition fee increase at a less successful uni wouldn't necessarily deter students from attending said uni. What if it's the only place that does the course they want to study? What if it's the only uni they get offered a place?

    Higher Education should be encouraged because it helps to broaden and develop the mind wherever you attend and whatever you study. It's not necessarily a waste of time, money and resources. You should make what you want out of life. It's not always about getting a high-flying, all-singing, all-dancing cushy grad job.

    Some students do not want and do not seek the graduate job lifestyle. They love to learn, but they don't necessarily have the personalities, desire and confidence to succeed and (more importantly) enjoy working in a corporate graduate job. Which is absolutely fine...
    I highly doubt that is the case for everyone.

    And then you must consider that what happens when 50% of every cohort attend university - does every 2nd job in the economy require a graduate? Would time, money, and resources not be better spent elsewhere?

    I for one am of the opinion that higher education should be free. But limited.
 
 
 
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
How are you feeling about doing A-levels?
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.