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
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robynwithawhyy)
    That's absolutely ridiculous. No. No-one is forcing you to go to university, but am I gonna be a ******** and not get a degree, so i can't get into my dream career, so I can't earn the kind of money that I want?!
    Do you agree with the cost of university these days? If you don't but you still pay it you will forgive me the ******** is you and the government has successfully tamed another sheep.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    ah yes, cant wait to pay back all this money back : )
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 4:20)
    Can I ask why the Scandanavians, Germany, France, Switzerland, Benelux......(e.g. every other Western European - Eire) model didn't deserve a mention? Why can't we go their path- politicians like to tell us how they're all smarter than us.
    Universities are indeed free in France, but I would still prefer to have £40K of debt and study in the UK (even more for Oxbridge). You don't realise how good British unis (at least the Russell group) are compared to European ones.

    I think it's perfectly normal to pay a lot to study at such excellent universities. You also have to pay much less tax than in Europe (in France, 70% of the salary cost is taxed). The problem I see with the British system is when students with CCC can still go to crappy unis and study 'media studies'. What's the point of that?

    I would also like to say that Switzerland has world-class and free universities because they only give the matura (equivalent of the A-levels) to 20% of an age group (the brightest ones), so students cost far less to the Government than in Britain, where 60% go to uni. The other 80% benefit from an excellent network of professional schools that give them technical skills, therefore making them immediately employable.

    The UK used to have a comparable system with the polytechnics, but John Major "transformed" them into universities, a move that I haver never understood.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Guys I think you're kinda missing the point here, it says increase with inflation, not increase to whatever the hell you want to -.- That means that even if the inflation rate increases to the highest level in the last 24/25 years, you would still only be paying like 9,765ish per year..it's really not that big a deal especially since currently we are at 0.1%...and that increase can easily be covered by the student loan that you still don't have to pay off until you earn above £21k...
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by VV Cephei A)
    Doctors, scientists and engineers can pay for their own degrees when they earn the money to do so. They also represent only a minority of university students; do we also have to pay for every useless liberal arts degree at a **** tier university as well?

    Of course, your alternative, which would require a significant rise in tax, does not actually leave anyone financially better off, so the whole "bb...b...b...b.ut student debt!" argument doesn't fly. It just leaves the taxpayer forking out endless billions for students to spend 3 years destroying their livers while scraping 40% in a pointless subject, whilst further devaluing university education to a greater extent than it already is.

    GTFO with your socialist bull****.
    "socialist bull****"

    :laugh:

    Funnily enough the NHS and free primary and secondary schooling were founded upon similar "bull****" socialist values.

    Sometimes I really do wonder how people can have such a myopic view of the world.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by looseseal)
    "socialist bull****":laugh:Funnily enough the NHS and free primary and secondary schooling were founded upon similar "bull****" socialist values.Sometimes I really do wonder how people can have such a myopic view of the world.
    And we all know how good the quality of state funded schooling is.

    If people want a degree, they can pay for it. This is a simple concept, that even you can understand.

    Notice how you also didn't actually address any of the numerous flaws in your idea.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by VV Cephei A)
    And we all know how good the quality of state funded schooling is.

    If people want a degree, they can pay for it. This is a simple concept, that even you can understand.

    Notice how you also didn't actually address any of the numerous flaws in your idea.
    "If people want a school education, they can pay for it"

    "If people want medical support services, they can pay for it"

    Obviously there are different levels of need but in a country where holding a degree is becoming a necessity for most decent jobs it doesn't make sense to class going to university as a luxury.

    This view might've been taken in previous generations where the number of people going to university was relatively small and as one poster mentioned, the availability of polytechnics allowed a much greater range of career paths. But in today's economy, where a large proportion of jobs ask to see some kind of degree classification, it makes little sense to drown young people in debt just to get a foot on the ladder.

    Another point - when do we say that university fees are too high to be considered fair?
    15k a year?
    30k or maybe 50k?

    Possibly you'd like us to move to a US type system where students are starting to realise that they may very well spend their entire lives paying off a huge mountain of student debt? (nb. I'd suggest doing a bit of research on the US student debt crisis)

    To be perfectly honest, I'm not really sure you've given proper logical thought to your standpoint and very much seem to be operating on the "politics of envy" as some people like to put it.

    An educated populace provides benefit to the entirety of society. And although you may not give much credence to liberal arts degrees they do also provide a certain level of cultural enrichment.

    Continually increasing the cost of higher education is not the action of a progressive country.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Maybe it will finally mark the death knell for many of the universities which would be a great pleasure. For years, they have indebted millions of students and delivered them degrees not worth their salt. Sanity needs to be restored. Boy I wish I was the education minister, I would have kicked these charlatans in the crotch years ago and crippled them beyond belief to put them in line. They're nothing more than institutes of parasites who never succeeded at life and are now leeching off of the young through the student loans system.
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    Boy I wish I was the education minister, I would have kicked these charlatans in the crotch years ago and crippled them beyond belief to put them in line
    Universities aren't overseen by the dept of education/education minister. This green paper and all university decisions come from BIS
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Should be free... not some kind of product.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by looseseal)
    "If people want a school education, they can pay for it""If people want medical support services, they can pay for it"Obviously there's different levels of need but in a country where holding a degree is becoming a necessity for most decent jobs it doesn't make sense to class going to university as a luxury.This view might've been taken in previous generations where the number of people going to university was relatively small and as one poster mentioned, the availability of polytechnics allowed a much greater range of career paths. But in today's economy, where a large proportion of jobs ask to see some kind of degree classification, it makes little sense to drown young people in debt just to get a foot on the ladder.Another point - when do we say that university fees are too high to be considered fair?15k a year?30k or maybe 50k?Possibly you'd like us to move to a US type system where students are starting to realise that they may very well spend their entire lives paying off a huge mountain of student debt? (nb. I'd suggest doing a bit of research on the US student debt crisis)To be perfectly honest, I'm not really sure you've given proper logical thought to your standpoint and very much seem to be operating on the "politics of envy" as some people like to put it.An educated populace provides benefit to the entirety of society. And although you may not give much credence to liberal arts degrees they do also provide a certain level of cultural enrichment.Continually increasing the cost of higher education is not the action of a progressive country.
    Academic inflation, which is what you seem to be concerned with, is not solved by further diluting and diminishing the value of education. That makes the situation continuously worse. We already have an issue with degrees being worthless, and your solution is to push even more people into worthless degrees, at the huge expense of the taxpayer?

    What next? The taxpayer has to fund postgraduate degrees, because a Bachelors is no longer sufficient for entry level jobs? "Free" Masters/PhD's for all? What after that?

    The population is more than educated enough at the end of 15 years of schooling to be fully proficient in the majority of jobs. Save for certain vocational or science fields which need a specific knowledge base, university does not teach any necessary skills for entering the workforce.

    The solution is to make University education significantly less common, not more common. The majority of young adults should not be setting foot anywhere near a university; that should be reserved for a relatively small number of academically successful students studying a specialised subject which is a prerequisite for a specific career. A huge number of university courses need to be outright done away with.

    We will then give students who are not naturally academic, the ability to find themselves good jobs without having to waste 3 years studying an unrelated and unnecessary subject, save the taxpayer a considerable amount of money, and give higher education some of its worth back. A win on all fronts.

    Bernie Sanders forum >>>>>
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Daftpunker)
    You guys hold the power. No one is putting a gun to your head making you go to uni. If you want to see a stop to a rise in fees unite and make a stand and refuse to pay it.
    I agree with you 100%. The tragic flaw of this world is that the majority of the people don't want to stand and unite against injustice.They'd rather just endure it and stay quiet about it whilst suffering in silence.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanieleZ)
    As a European student, I think I have to add my two cents and defend our system.

    I'd like to point out that university rankings are usually biased in favor of American and British universities. True. They're taken as the baseline against which other universities are measured, which is why European universities end up lower when ranked on such lists. These comparisons aren't useful since American/British and European universities are such different institutions. The rankings indicate research quality, student satisfaction, employability etc. While not entirely representative, I assume that what people are looking for when considering university.

    It's true that many Europeans attend the university nearest to them and often live at home; this shouldn't be seen as a weakness, but as a strength. The US' and UK's systems have certain universities (i.e. the Ivy League and Oxbridge/Russel Group) that are seen as much more desirable in terms of learning, student experience, employability, etc. Isn't that what going to university is about (learning?) But because society perceives such large differences between universities, students attending lower-ranked universities find themselves at a comparatively large disadvantage after graduation. But they have the choice to study where they want to study, they are responsible for this choice. Indeed, lower-ranked universities help give the less academic the opportunity to receive HE suited to their level. In many European countries, universities are seen as an equalizer, and the competition between different institutions is much smaller, since they're all financed by the government. But doesn't the lack of competition demotivate universities from trying to excel? Likewise, it's unfair on the most able and less able students if they go to a university not suited towards their ability/subject. This makes the university experience much less stressful for students. People are able to pursue what truly interests them. Wouldn't going to a local university limit what you can study though? This doesn't mean that everyone pursues 'useless' degrees (which in itself is a problematic term); plenty of people study sciences despite the low cost.

    This European view of the university as a common good - not a competition - and its low cost mean that the playing field is much more even for European students entering university and graduates entering the workforce. Universities aren't seen as some kind of magical place of learning, but as an institution like any other. Students often live alone, working on the side, paying their bills, and learning to get to grips with the real world, I'm pretty sure most UK/US students actually do this (especially after Year 1) as opposed to some coddling, hermetically-sealed university campuses in the Anglo-Saxon sphere. That's questionable and down to the individual... Indeed, living at a local university probably makes you more dependent on family/home than living far from home (The fact that European universities often lack campuses in the classical sense and don't offer accomodation lowers their costs as well, of course.)

    And the fact that all workers are beneficial to society only strengthens the case for university tuitions to be subsidized. Who's to say that someone of lesser means should be discouraged from studying a humanities subject because of the cost it would entail? (This is not what I said, all subjects should be charged as they all equal) If they want to become productive in a certain field, they should be able to do so, regardless of their later income. Precisely, the loan system accepts that. Poorer students shouldn't be told to study something 'useful' (as in something that will help the pay back loans faster). The idea that everyone should pay their way through society is simply unfair, as it will always be biased against those of lesser means. Hence the UK has Student Finance/LoansCommon goods, be they roads, medical care, parks, or university access, are essential elements of a fair society. But university isn't a road nor a hospital, it's unlikely that everyone will use it.
    Thanks for your comments, I've added my thoughts in bold. The underlined part seems contradictory however.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by VV Cephei A)
    Academic inflation, which is what you seem to be concerned with, is not solved by further diluting and diminishing the value of education. That makes the situation continuously worse. We already have an issue with degrees being worthless, and your solution is to push even more people into worthless degrees, at the huge expense of the taxpayer?

    What next? The taxpayer has to fund postgraduate degrees, because a Bachelors is no longer sufficient for entry level jobs? "Free" Masters/PhD's for all? What after that?

    The population is more than educated enough at the end of 15 years of schooling to be fully proficient in the majority of jobs. Save for certain vocational or science fields which need a specific knowledge base, university does not teach any necessary skills for entering the workforce.

    The solution is to make University education significantly less common, not more common. The majority of young adults should not be setting foot anywhere near a university; that should be reserved for a relatively small number of academically successful students studying a specialised subject which is a prerequisite for a specific career. A huge number of university courses need to be outright done away with.

    We will then give students who are not naturally academic, the ability to find themselves good jobs without having to waste 3 years studying an unrelated and unnecessary subject, save the taxpayer a considerable amount of money, and give higher education some of its worth back. A win on all fronts.
    I agree that the worth of a degree has been somewhat diminished by the ubiquitousness of universities in the present age. However, you also have to remember that we're generally moving towards a more high tech economy as the more menial jobs become exported to less wealthy countries. As such, the increase in the number of people going to university was inevitable as our country developed.

    Also, once again, I'm not sure you've fully appreciated the connection or lack of connection between what you're advocating and what your ultimate aims are for the education system. You say you want to decrease the number of students going to university but then suggest that an increase in fees is the proper way to achieve that outcome. In fact, since the increase in tuition fees, more students have gone to university than ever before so it's quite clear that such a system of continuous increases isn't effective.

    Additionally, it's funny that you cite the cost to the taxpayer as a reason for reducing the number of students entering into worthless degrees (liberal arts ones as you put it earlier). these degrees usually cost less to provide than the actual cost of the students tuition. In reality, STEM subjects are the greatest cost to the tax payer and actually cost a lot more to teach than what the students pay for in fees. The students studying "worthless" degrees are in actual fact subsidising them. Just something I thought you'd like to consider.

    In terms of your desire to bring more value back to doing a degree - I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment but I think there are much better ways of achieving such a goal. Bringing back polytechnics and actually funding further education (something that the current government have continually cut since getting into power) would be the first step on providing another route to a career aside from university education. Making apprenticeships and vocational courses more available and more valued (like they are in countries such as Germany) would need to be top on the priority list - way before increasing tuition fees to high levels. Combine this with restricting the number of places universities are able to offer on "non-essential" courses and we may start getting somewhere.

    Reducing the solution to "let's increase tuition fees to prevent those scrounging students from going to university" is a ridiculously limited way of looking at such a complex problem.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by infairverona)

    We need to get rid of this 'red brick', 'old so therefore better', 'long standing reputation so must be good' view of universities. If a university is stronger on the teaching side it should be known to be better and students should pay for what they are getting. I believe there are many RG unis not up to scratch anymore and limping along on their reputations and I'm sure there are newer unis that are very good at the teaching side but still don't attract the best candidates because of the league tables when the main thing is are you being TAUGHT well
    Not trying to detract from the OP's point, but which Universities do you think these are?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by looseseal)
    Bringing back polytechnics
    Whilst I agree with much of what you say, I always pick up on comments such as this.

    What do you think Polytechnics did?

    The following Polys were clearing for philosophy in 1988 Hatfield, North London,Thames, Manchester, Middlesex (the largest philosophy faculty in the country), North Staffs, Portsmouth, Sunderland.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    Whilst I agree with much of what you say, I always pick up on comments such as this.

    What do you think Polytechnics did?

    The following Polys were clearing for philosophy in 1988 Hatfield, North London,Thames, Manchester, Middlesex (the largest philosophy faculty in the country), North Staffs, Portsmouth, Sunderland.
    Yes, polytechnics had humanities subjects but they also offered a lot more vocational-skills focused courses compared to the universities at the time. They also maintained much stronger links with industry and therefore taught more "in-demand" skills to their students.

    To be honest, I should have been more specific when I made references to polytechnics. I was considering the format they took before they started offering more "fashionable" subjects and began their gradual progression towards university status.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Daftpunker)
    There are many examples through history where the masses through organisation and will power have rebelled against state enforced charges for all sorts of reasons. Most famously US boycott and more recently the "Twenties plenty" campaign for away football ticket prices.
    How do you suggest to get that sort of mass of people to co-operate on something like this when it directly affects their future? How would you convince people to postpone their plans for education, to take year(s) our of their life before going to university, especially since a lot of them would have pressure from their families to go to uni in the next year? We are not able to "refuse to pay it"- I for one am applying for a healthcare position (dentistry), and there is no way around university to get into my chosen career like doing an apprenticeship, and this is the case for a lot of careers. I'm not against the idea of boycotting in principle, but in this instance I think yours is an extremely unrealistic suggestion, and one that implies that the fees are our own fault.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    I don't have any "debt" to speak of as I chose to pay my fees, and I would've been happy to pay more considering how good the uni (LSE) is.

    Personally I don't see anything wrong with these new measures because it makes sense for the best things in life to cost more.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by looseseal)
    Yes, polytechnics had humanities subjects but they also offered a lot more vocational-skills focused courses compared to the universities at the time. They also maintained much stronger links with industry and therefore taught more "in-demand" skills to their students.

    To be honest, I should have been more specific when I made references to polytechnics. I was considering the format they took before they started offering more "fashionable" subjects and began their gradual progression towards university status.
    I appreciate they did offer more vocational subjects but the polys were born offering arts and social science subjects.
 
 
 
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.