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

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barden)
    this is the same for all courses IMO


    how the **** does it cost the uni 3K per year plus what the government makes up for to put a bloke at the front of a lecture theatre for a few hours per day?........and when you consider most of my lectures have about 300+ people in them its daylight robbery
    Start at the begining of your uni experience, the open day and work our all the contacts you've had since then, every letter, every preparation/process they have done and it very quickly adds up.

    Processing the 3k fee probably costs 15-25 quid on its own, as long as it goes smoothly of course.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chap54)
    It is pretty appauling that even 3k a year is allowed to be charged, given that most of the tuition fees go towards funding postgraduate research / bulky admin / inefficient departments in universities. I don't even think im getting 3k in value when you consider you only really get lectures / seminars and the odd few books taken out of the library.
    You don't get in value in anything you buy if you decouple what you recieve to whats needed to produce it.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pink Bullets)
    Yes. Your fees pay for your education, not your future earnings. It doesn't cost any less to educate a person who won't necessarily earn a lot in the future.
    But do you not think that the education at, for example, Warwick will be different from the education at London Met?
    I mean, even if the course content is similar, the lecturers and quality of lecturing, one assumes, will be better in Warwick because of the potential for further research and academia. I suppose it's similar to teachers at some nice public school versus some inner-city hole; the best are going to be drawn to the best. Which will reflect on your education.

    I totally agree that you are paying for your education, not future earnings, and I'm not sure I like the idea of a tier system of payment for university, but it's still worth considering the actual educational benefit of spending almost £10000 on a degree from London Met versus Durham or Warwick (I'm just using those as examples)
    Offline

    19
    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.
    And humanities depts bring in £10m research income as well right?

    How do you know its not the science depts subsiding the humanities depts?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Doodahdoo)
    But do you not think that the education at, for example, Warwick will be different from the education at London Met?
    I mean, even if the course content is similar, the lecturers and quality of lecturing, one assumes, will be better in Warwick because of the potential for further research and academia. I suppose it's similar to teachers at some nice public school versus some inner-city hole; the best are going to be drawn to the best. Which will reflect on your education.

    I totally agree that you are paying for your education, not future earnings, and I'm not sure I like the idea of a tier system of payment for university, but it's still worth considering the actual educational benefit of spending almost £10000 on a degree from London Met versus Durham or Warwick (I'm just using those as examples)
    London Met doesn't have the research income of Warwick, why should a course cost less at London Met?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    London Met doesn't have the research income of Warwick, why should a course cost less at London Met?
    ... I'm not saying it should do, but I'm saying that the teaching dept. may not be as strong as it is at other universities, so if you're using the argument that 'you're paying for education, not future earning potential', it might be worth taking into account the education that you're actually receiving versus other universities.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Futurdoc)
    Thus, my question is, is it fair that two people will pay the same university fees, when arguably their future careers prospects will bear them signficantly different fianical rewards.
    Yes.

    Universities aren't here to price competetively and commerically compete. They're here to educate all students. I think it would be unfair to charge someone more for going to a 'prestigious' unversity. What about people who were bright enough to go to a supposedly 'elite' university, but couldn't afford it. The only way to improve the system now is to abolish tuition fees IMO, (but I know LOADS of people will disagree with me on that), so for the purposes of this thread, I will say yeah, it's fair at the moment for everyone to pay the same price for tuition no matter what university they attend.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Doodahdoo)
    ... I'm not saying it should do, but I'm saying that the teaching dept. may not be as strong as it is at other universities, so if you're using the argument that 'you're paying for education, not future earning potential', it might be worth taking into account the education that you're actually receiving versus other universities.
    Yup.

    But nobody is forcing London Met from charging £3k. If they didn't have any demand at that level they could cut their fee.

    Clearly they do have enough demand though.

    So whats the problem? Student applying to London Met are willing to pay. They do have a choice.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Yup.

    But nobody is forcing London Met from charging £3k. If they didn't have any demand at that level they could cut their fee.

    Clearly they do have enough demand though.

    So whats the problem? Student applying to London Met are willing to pay. They do have a choice.
    Ohmygod. I really don't understand what you're arguing against now.

    I'm speaking purely hypothetically, from the standpoint of "you're paying for your education" - my point is that [again, speaking hypothetically] if you are paying for your education, surely the quality of education should come into it?
    That was all.
    I don't understand how the rest of what you've written is relevant to the above point.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Doodahdoo)
    Ohmygod. I really don't understand what you're arguing against now.

    I'm speaking purely hypothetically, from the standpoint of "you're paying for your education" - my point is that [again, speaking hypothetically] if you are paying for your education, surely the quality of education should come into it?
    That was all.
    I don't understand how the rest of what you've written is relevant to the above point.
    It is relavent.

    In short:

    No, as we live in a market based economy. London Met do not need to lower fees to attract students so they shouldn't.

    If you extended what you're saying then Tesco own brand chocolate should only cost a few fractions less than Cadbury.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I'm in favour of completely the opposite. Charge more for the useless courses at the useless universities so there are less useless degrees in the market.

    At the end of the day, why should an intelligent young person be refused an education at a top university just because its too expensive? Under this proposal, the only people able to go to the top uni's are the rich. It detracts from the real point of university, and takes the focus away from the student and onto his/her parents earnings.

    Also, how can one say that just because i'm going to X uni to do a Y degree, that I will earn Z amount. I could get a History degree from Oxford and decide to become a teacher, why should I pay more than somebody who got a History degree from Thames Valley, started his own business and made millions?

    The idea is absurd.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    At the end of the day, why should an intelligent young person be refused an education at a top university just because its too expensive? Under this proposal, the only people able to go to the top uni's are the rich. It detracts from the real point of university, and takes the focus away from the student and onto his/her parents earnings.
    Your parents' earnings have no impact on your ability to pay tuition fees under the current system.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Start at the begining of your uni experience, the open day and work our all the contacts you've had since then, every letter, every preparation/process they have done and it very quickly adds up.

    Processing the 3k fee probably costs 15-25 quid on its own, as long as it goes smoothly of course.

    Lets look at my uni (Bangor):

    Number of undergraduates at my uni - 8460

    Number of postgraduates at my uni - 2055

    Number of teaching staff - 600

    Number of administrative staff - cannot find a figure, so lets say 100 per department (probably averages out about right)

    Number of non academic departments - 31

    Fees payed by each undegraduate - £3225 p.a.

    Goverment says actually fees are usually 4 times the 'top-up fee' - £9625 p.a. from government.

    Fees payed by each postgraduate - £2765.29 (average) p.a.

    Undergraduate fees collected annually = 8460 x £12850 = £108711000

    Postgraduate fees collected annually = 2055 x £2765.29 = £5682683.89

    Total fees collected annually = £108711000 + £5682683.89 = £114393683.90

    Academic staff wages = £50000 p.a. (being generous) x 600 = £30000000

    Support staff: 31 x 100 = 3100

    Lets again be generous with their wages - £8 per hour = £23296 p.a.

    Support staff wages = 3100 x 23296 = £72217600

    Total estimated wages to be payed = £75217600

    Profit to uni before taxes, rent etc = total fees - total wages = £114393683.90 - £75217600 = £39176083.90

    Does Bangor university pay £39 million + in maintenance and tax? I don't think so somehow.

    (and bear in mind figures i used for wages were, in my opinion at least, quite generous)



    Of course I may have made some fundamental error somewhere, but I think I made a pretty good go of auditing my uni
    :p:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Charging more for certain courses would not be an action any sensible government would take, especially if they charged more for law, medicine etc, because they would be accused of making the professions that stem from these degrees 'elitist'. The only fair system is to subsidise every student so that each student pays the same amount.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barden)
    Of course I may have made some fundamental error somewhere, but I think I made a pretty good go of auditing my uni[/I] :p:
    The error is you've only done staff costs. I don't think you were that generous, you probably didn't factor National Insurance or Pension contributions which eats up the generosity you made with the salary. Although I think its a pretty good guesstimate at the wage bill.

    You've missed out bursaries which will be significant.

    I'm guessing the library has PCs that need a three year refresh which need microsoft liciences paying for and electricity and a broadband connection, likewise for the staff.

    The buildings need heating/lighting and watering. There will be rent for them and as you mentioned, council tax. Insurance is notoriously expensive too.

    There will (or at least should) be a surplus to pay for capital investment.

    Sadly I couldnt find a set of accounts for them. I realise I'm missing off huge amounts of income too but I've tried to keep it teaching related.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by doivid)
    Charging more for certain courses would not be an action any sensible government would take, especially if they charged more for law, medicine etc, because they would be accused of making the professions that stem from these degrees 'elitist'. The only fair system is to subsidise every student so that each student pays the same amount.
    Do you think law or medicine could become more elitist? I think in reality, charging higher fees would just take advantage of an already elitist situation. Of course if fee's were raised for the more costly degrees, a suitable loan package would need to be setup as well.

    One point im considering is why the government doesn't increase the standard terms at universities. I mean surely if we had less time off each year and did the degree in 2 or 2 1/2 years this would save them a lot in tuition fee loans. Plus it would mean more part time jobs for the unemployed (students suffer? no i mean in my experience you spend a lot of what you earn anyway during breaks). This might also stop a lot of department closures and unemployed lecturers. Also less debt for students, and lecturers wouldn't mind so much as they are paid pro-rata anyway (ie more money for them).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chap54)
    Do you think law or medicine could become more elitist? I think in reality, charging higher fees would just take advantage of an already elitist situation. Of course if fee's were raised for the more costly degrees, a suitable loan package would need to be setup as well.

    One point im considering is why the government doesn't increase the standard terms at universities. I mean surely if we had less time off each year and did the degree in 2 or 2 1/2 years this would save them a lot in tuition fee loans. Plus it would mean more part time jobs for the unemployed (students suffer? no i mean in my experience you spend a lot of what you earn anyway during breaks). This might also stop a lot of department closures and unemployed lecturers.
    I think that medicine and law are at the moment fairly elitist, but it would still be politically unsound for any government to raise the tuition fees of these degrees.

    If the government increases the standard term at universities, you would still be spending the same amount of time studying, so the universities would ask for the same total fees. However, I do see the benefits of such a system, as you have outlined.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by doivid)
    I think that medicine and law are at the moment fairly elitist, but it would still be politically unsound for any government to raise the tuition fees of these degrees.

    If the government increases the standard term at universities, you would still be spending the same amount of time studying, so the universities would ask for the same total fees. However, I do see the benefits of such a system, as you have outlined.
    I realise that, but there would be cost savings for the university if students enter and leave more rapidly. I'm not suggesting this as a permanent measure, but we are in desperate times at present. Also, consider more workers able to be employed more quickly. Therefore higher tax revenues for the government and hopefully less budget deficit.
 
 
 
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.