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

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Yeah but check out post graduate fees. **** Oxbridge.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think higher tuition fees is a good idea. Because all uni's cost the same, naturally all the best students congregate at the top and its disepates downwards. Thus, Oxford and LSE students are often better qualified than Manchester and Liverpool students and end up with better grad prospects. If LSE and Oxford were insanely expensive, then top quality applicants would go to places like Manchester which would be cheaper and uni's would have a more varied quality if student and employability and uni targeting would be less rigid. It is like this in America where people oftne go to uni's in state even though they are smart enough to go to harvard (but employers know this is often the case). In the UK, if you dont go to Oxford most assume it is because you could not, not because you did not want to.

    If this happens, then financial packages could help the poorer students. LSE has insanely expensive postgrad fees, but offers millions in scholarships for those who they really want but could not afford to go. This is the same in the US and increased tuition fees could be put into this fund.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pete's Dragon)
    I think higher tuition fees is a good idea. Because all uni's cost the same, naturally all the best students congregate at the top and its disepates downwards. Thus, Oxford and LSE students are often better qualified than Manchester and Liverpool students and end up with better grad prospects. If LSE and Oxford were insanely expensive, then top quality applicants would go to places like Manchester which would be cheaper and uni's would have a more varied quality if student and employability and uni targeting would be less rigid. It is like this in America where people oftne go to uni's in state even though they are smart enough to go to harvard (but employers know this is often the case). In the UK, if you dont go to Oxford most assume it is because you could not, not because you did not want to.

    If this happens, then financial packages could help the poorer students. LSE has insanely expensive postgrad fees, but offers millions in scholarships for those who they really want but could not afford to go. This is the same in the US and increased tuition fees could be put into this fund.
    Not all universities cost the same, if they did oxford and cambridge certainly wouldn't retain their position at the top year on year. The fact is that the top 20 universities (technically) or the russell group. Take up 77.4% of all HE funding. Therefore there is a huge inequality between universities.

    I realise you may have meant tuition fee wise, but the argument really isnt about this. Its more to do with why should tuition fees be the same if universities graduates are infact treated and considered differently on the employment market.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    There is one theory that the amount one pays for a degree is based on how much they earn afterwards - so the tuition is decided on the future earnings of the graduate. I think this is kind of a good idea. Although it is slightly like what happens now.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chap54)
    Graduates in humanities pay the same fees as students of the sciences. Yet by enlarge science graduates out earn humanities graduates. Despite science courses and departments being more expensive to run.
    ALL courses cost more than 3,000 pounds to run. By paying 3,000 pounds, a humanities student isn't 'subsidising' the science student. They are simply making a small contribution to the cost of their own course.

    You're still ignoring the crux of the matter. Your fees aren't a trade-in for a future salary. They are to pay for the cost of the course. There's nothing more to it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pink Bullets)
    ALL courses cost more than 3,000 pounds to run. By paying 3,000 pounds, a humanities student isn't 'subsidising' the science student. They are simply making a small contribution to the cost of their own course.

    You're still ignoring the crux of the matter. Your fees aren't a trade-in for a future salary. They are to pay for the cost of the course. There's nothing more to it.
    I do not think that all courses in real terms cost over 3k a piece, I think by enlarge inappropriate costing methods are used internally and this skewe's the results suggesting that courses average out when infact the average is very dispersed.

    Of course they should reflect future earnings, as much as its fun to study and maybe it improves you as a person too. However in reality, the costs should reflect the potential benefit to ensure equity. After all, by having tuition fees in the first place you're creating a consumer producer market situation.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chap54)
    I do not think that all courses in real terms cost over 3k a piece, I think by enlarge inappropriate costing methods are used internally and this skewe's the results suggesting that courses average out when infact the average is very dispersed.

    Of course they should reflect future earnings, as much as its fun to study and maybe it improves you as a person too. However in reality, the costs should reflect the potential benefit to ensure equity. After all, by having tuition fees in the first place you're creating a consumer producer market situation.
    Why should they reflect future earnings?

    The university (and by extension, the taxpayer) is not responsible for what you earn in the future. The university makes no pretence of offering you a certain level of income in the future. They do not promise you anything other than an education. All the university says is 'give us 3000 pounds and we'll educate you for three years, and if you're good enough you'll get a degree at the end of it.' What you do with that degree is up to you. If you don't earn your desired level of earnings, it's completely and utterly your own fault. Why should the university (and by extension, the taxpayer) pay for your failures?

    And for ****'s sake, stop writing things like 'by enlarge' and 'skewe's'. You mean by and large and skews.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pink Bullets)
    Why should they reflect future earnings?

    The university (and by extension, the taxpayer) is not responsible for what you earn in the future. The university makes no pretence of offering you a certain level of income in the future. They do not promise you anything other than an education. All the university says is 'give us 3000 pounds and we'll educate you for three years, and if you're good enough you'll get a degree at the end of it.' What you do with that degree is up to you. If you don't earn your desired level of earnings, it's completely and utterly your own fault. Why should the university (and by extension, the taxpayer) pay for your failures?

    And for ****'s sake, stop writing things like 'by enlarge' and 'skewe's'. You mean by and large and skews.
    Spelling errors aside. I'm not the one being irrational :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chap54)
    Spelling errors aside. I'm not the one being irrational :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
    Then how about you provide a rational response to my posts?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pink Bullets)
    Why should they reflect future earnings?

    The university (and by extension, the taxpayer) is not responsible for what you earn in the future. The university makes no pretence of offering you a certain level of income in the future. They do not promise you anything other than an education. All the university says is 'give us 3000 pounds and we'll educate you for three years, and if you're good enough you'll get a degree at the end of it.' What you do with that degree is up to you. If you don't earn your desired level of earnings, it's completely and utterly your own fault. Why should the university (and by extension, the taxpayer) pay for your failures?

    And for ****'s sake, stop writing things like 'by enlarge' and 'skewe's'. You mean by and large and skews.
    I acknowledge your argument that universities do not guarantee a job for one in the future. However, the point I'm trying to raise is that isit fair that two people will pay the same tuition fees for two unis at different ends of the spectrum when their employability rates/ potential earnings are staggeringly different.

    Using my example from the OP, an ecomonics grad from Cambridge will be looked upon more favourably than an econ grad from a 'lesserl' uni.

    Should fees be linked to probable employability rates or is the system how it is fair? Shall the onus by on us, as students, to work hard to attain places at the unis where employability rates are high?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Futurdoc)
    I acknowledge your argument that universities do not guarantee a job for one in the future. However, the point I'm trying to raise is that isit fair that two people will pay the same tuition fees for two unis at different ends of the spectrum when their employability rates/ potential earnings are staggeringly different.

    Using my example from the OP, an ecomonics grad from Cambridge will be looked upon more favourably than an econ grad from a 'lesserl' uni.

    Should fees be linked to probable employability rates or is the system how it is fair? Shall the onus by on us, as students, to work hard to attain places at the unis where employability rates are high?
    I get what you're saying, and my posts have addressed that.

    If there is an actual difference in the cost of running the economics course at Cambridge and the economics course at Thames Valley, then a case could be made for making students pay different fees. But it should only be linked to the actual cost of the course - not on factors that the university does not control, like future earnings.

    Yes, the onus should be on the student. If a student is concerned with future earnings, they can look the average earnings of graduates from each university. If they choose one with low earnings, then they have no one to blame but themselves for any consequences of that choice.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pink Bullets)
    If there is an actual difference in the cost of running the economics course at Cambridge and the economics course at Thames Valley, then a case could be made for making students pay different fees. But it should only be linked to the actual cost of the course - not on factors that the university does not control, like future earnings.
    That's a very logical argument. However, doesn't the university unconciously control future earnings ? Doesn't the name 'Oxford' attract more employers than the name 'Greenwich' ? Should students be charged for the extra 'glamour' associated with en elite university's name ?

    Or does this solely again come down to the fact that students shall work hard to deserve the attain a uni with this extra glamour?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Futurdoc)
    That's a very logical argument. However, doesn't the university unconciously control future earnings ? Doesn't the name 'Oxford' attract more employers than the name 'Greenwich' ? Should students be charged for the extra 'glamour' associated with en elite university's name ?

    Or does this solely again come down to the fact that students shall work hard to deserve the attain a uni with this extra glamour?
    Well no, unless the 'glamour' of their name is costing the university extra money to run the course, somehow...

    It would be simply unfair to make students pay extra for intangible assets like prestige. That would just widen the gap between the rich and poor even more.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Futurdoc)
    That's a very logical argument. However, doesn't the university unconciously control future earnings ? Doesn't the name 'Oxford' attract more employers than the name 'Greenwich' ? Should students be charged for the extra 'glamour' associated with en elite university's name ?

    Or does this solely again come down to the fact that students shall work hard to deserve the attain a uni with this extra glamour?
    I'm suprised this hasn't been pointed out already.

    Unis don't have to charge full fees or any fees at all. They do it because if they don't charge full fees then they are admitting they aren't as good as unis that do. Consequently only a couple of unis don't charge full fees.

    Is there any evidence that the name of the uni improves employment chances? Wouldn't the people who go to the 'better named' unis do quite well compared to others if there was a single uni with a single course of 'education'?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    how about this.
    i worked hard my entire bloody life, and got a bloody offer at oxford university. i dont care if i earn 100000 more than another person from a 'lesser' uni might ; i worked hard, and i in my right deserve to go to a uni. if i were to pay extra money, its kinda a slap in the face. postively-negative discrimination - if you like..

    what would really slap me in the face is if say, one of my friends, a laze, with an offer from greenwich has to pay 500 pounds a year for his course, whilst an oxford offer-holder like me pay 5000 pounds, when we are on the same household income.

    but i worked hard.
    i dont care about the philosophical ideas of prestige or reputation ; its the best uni, i worked hard, i got in, as a student, at face value, uni fees should be the same, especially as unis are national 'things' not private. if it wasnt, why should i pay more, to go to a place i worked hard for?

    im talking about me.
    why should i have to pay 100000000000 pounds to go there?

    this might not be the most pertinent of points, but i care about it lol
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Futurdoc)
    Should fees be linked to probable employability rates or is the system how it is fair?

    Shall the onus by on us, as students, to work hard to attain places at the unis where employability rates are high?
    No otherwise you'd steadily reduce funding for those courses reducing employability futher without enhancing employability at the top.

    Yes, its a market. People are willing to pay 3k at MMU so why shouldn't they be allowed to? Why should they pay less for three years of education just because they got C's rather than A*s? Or rather, why should the Oxbridge student be penalised for doing well?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chap54)
    I do not think that all courses in real terms cost over 3k a piece, I think by enlarge inappropriate costing methods are used internally and this skewe's the results suggesting that courses average out when infact the average is very dispersed.
    Which courses do you think are less?

    Unis don't average, they have clear costs per subject. Otherwise why would physcial science cost twice the amount of business for an international student?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Why does Eton cost more than a small private school down the road - because it offers a better education (according to OFSTED) and chances in the future (Getting into Oxbridge). Thus people are willing to pay for that.

    Comparing Oxford and Oxford Brookes is exactly the same. It is absurd to me that you would pay the same for both these universities.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by deathtoalevel)
    how about this.
    i worked hard my entire bloody life, and got a bloody offer at oxford university. i dont care if i earn 100000 more than another person from a 'lesser' uni might ; i worked hard, and i in my right deserve to go to a uni. if i were to pay extra money, its kinda a slap in the face. postively-negative discrimination - if you like..

    what would really slap me in the face is if say, one of my friends, a laze, with an offer from greenwich has to pay 500 pounds a year for his course, whilst an oxford offer-holder like me pay 5000 pounds, when we are on the same household income.

    but i worked hard.
    i dont care about the philosophical ideas of prestige or reputation ; its the best uni, i worked hard, i got in, as a student, at face value, uni fees should be the same, especially as unis are national 'things' not private. if it wasnt, why should i pay more, to go to a place i worked hard for?

    im talking about me.
    why should i have to pay 100000000000 pounds to go there?


    this might not be the most pertinent of points, but i care about it lol

    You don't. You have to pay £3,000 pounds a year because, if you didn't, someone else would. And you're the one getting the education, so it makes sense that you pay rather than someone else.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chap54)
    Not all universities cost the same, if they did oxford and cambridge certainly wouldn't retain their position at the top year on year.

    The fact is that the top 20 universities (technically) or the russell group. Take up 77.4% of all HE funding. Therefore there is a huge inequality between universities.
    Position at the top? According to who? A newspaper league table?

    Source? Research funding does occationally get spend on research too.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
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.